Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Steadmund Brand]

Thank you!!! I am fine with you ripping me apart...as long as it's me...I am my own man hahahahha...

And as I said...never said I was right....just how I read it when I first did..along with everything else....that is not what I want him to say....because it goes against what I personally believe (and have argued with Mike about)....just telling everyone what my Yankee brain thought and tell everyone to make up their own mind....because I don't know for sure (I know I would have asked him to clarify, and had follow up questions for sure...but if that happened it wasn't noted)...it's almost a throw away part in his testimony...like nobody at the time cared (maybe for good reason). Here is what I DO know....Norris was a dirt bag, even if he was trusted by the New Orleans police...and he tries to make himself look good...Tumblety was an F'd up person....doesn't make him the Ripper, and the New Orleans police didn't put much effort if any into proving he was "Jack"

Steadmund

[Steadmund Brand]

I was hoping Norris would have said things like he introduced me to Henry Irving and Bram Stoker.....or... He talked about his old buddy John Wilkes Booth.....but alas, he didn't

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

Dam Morphodites!

[Robert]

Tumblety's bathroom had two towels, marked "His" and "Herm."

[Sam Flynn]

Tumblety's bathroom had two towels, marked "His" and "Herm."

Splendid!

[GUT]

Unfortunately, eithe Steadmund or Ally could be right in their interpretation, or wrong. Neither are interpretations I'd rule out without more information.

It's a problem with transcripts even today.

I haven't been able to listen yet due to some computer issues, is there a judgement, that will often assist in deciphering the transcript because the Judge will be aware of the tone of voice, inflections etc.

[Ally]

Everyone is absolutely free to believe what they wish, but the word "interpretation" is wrong.

One way is what he actually SAID.

The other is an interpretation, because they don't like what he actually said, so they want to interpret it to mean something else.

There is a difference.

He said English words that have a specific English meaning.

That's not as sexy when you're trying to sell a suspect book.

So they have a different interpretation.

There are not two interpretations. One is what he said, the other is an interpretation.

[jmenges]

Everyone is absolutely free to believe what they wish, but the word "interpretation" is wrong.

One way is what he actually SAID.

I still believe there is a very real possibility that the stenographer made a mistake that Mike Hawley (correctly) corrected. I am of the opinion that the opening section is describing at least two, if not three different incidents that all took place around 1880-1881, very early in their association. It would be exceedingly odd for Norris to have thrown in the "disemboweling" comment into this portion of his testimony if it took place circa 1889, at a point in time they were not on such friendly terms. For the period 1888-89 is when Tumblety attempted to pay him to be his traveling companion.

"He wrote out a check for Seven Hundred Dollars in 1888 or 1889 – the Legislature was in session at the time and I had to go to Baton Rouge. He wrote the check out, payable to bearer, and guaranteed me that I could cash it in any bank where we would go if I would go there with him. He was very anxious to et me to go with him, and I refused to go with him."

Later in the deposition they return to the time Tumblety gave him $20 which related to the section under discussion in which he says: "and he never attempted to do anything wrong with me until one night he took me to his room, and he locked the door on me. I don’t know whether he was humbugging or not, but he did make a bluff at me with one of those big knives. "

Q: Did I understand you to say that twenty years ago you examined his person sufficiently to see that he was neither man nor woman, but was what was commonly called a morphadite or a hermaphrodite?
A: He was, no doubt about that.
Q: And at the time he wanted you to have sexual relation with him; did he say so?
A: Yes, sir. I could tell you more than that. He threw me on the bed and we had quite a tussle. He threw me on top of him, but I was a pretty handy youngster myself then, was a wild fellow and took all sorts of chances, I was on the money side, saw he was stuck on me and I said, “I have got to [bribe] if you want me to do anything like that.” I went over and told my friend Doyle about it, and he said, “Why don’t you take a trick at him to see how it goes.”
Q: He let you go that night without having anything to do with him?
A: Yes, sir, after a hard time.
Q: And he gave you how much?
A: He gave me twenty dollars to take a cab. I told him I live up in Carrolitan.
Q: You accepted the twenty dollars?
A: I did.
Q: You never returned it to him? A: No.
Q: And you left him that night on the promise to return at ten o’clock the next morning?
A: I did.
Q: And you did return on the following morning at ten o’clock?
A: I did.
Q: And on that occasion he bought you a suit of clothes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Which you accepted?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you continued to associate with him from that time until in the 90’s; until sometime in the latter 90’s?
A: Yes, sir.

When you take into consideration all of the deposition, there is a chronology to it tells me that the most likely explanation is the disemboweling comment Tumblety made was prior to the murders, and Norris jumps ahead in time when he says he discussed him with Hennessey "he told me that reminds him of the big tall man that he read of in the Chicago Herald, and Pittsburg Dispatch, as being Jack the Ripper, and I said, he answers the description" and so the next time Norris sees Tumblety after this discussion "When I spoke to him about the numerous women that had been killed around White Chapel, he said, “Yes, I was there when it all happened”. Well, after he told me that, I tried to shun him".

This is how I choose to read it at this point in time, whether Ally likes it or not.

JM

[Ally]

As I said, you can read it however you want. However, the addition of the completely imaginary Not turns the sentence from grammatically correct to grammatical gibberish.

The sentence as it stands is grammatically correct. The three sentences together form a coherent narrative of an event that all happened at the same time.

Anyone is free to twist it out of all shape but that doesn't change the fact the three sentences together are grammatically correct and form a cohesive narrative, and the additions of "not" and time jumps do so at the expense of having to twist the sentences all out of logical and grammatical shape to make them fit what you THINK they say, rather than what they actually and grammatically say.

And it should be pointed out that Norris TWICE says he attempts to shun Tumblety at two different points in the timeline and then contradicts himself and says Tumblety shunned him.

So while his sentences are always correct and clear, his narrative and timeline isn't. Which leads more towards him being alright with grammar and not so great on keeping his timeline straight. Because first he tried to shun him after the disemboweling comment which would have happened early 90s then he says he tried to shun him a few years ago when he got "strange".

He apparently managed to keep up quite the relationship for a guy he kept trying to shake loose. And then of course he admits Tumblety was the one who shunned him after his marriage.

So again: everything he actually says points to him not having his timeline in order. And he actually says a couple of times in the deposition he can't remember exactly what year certain things happen.

As I said, you can read it however you want, as long as you accept that your way makes zero grammatical sense. Because it doesn't. Your way requires excusing five mistakes Norris makes in one sentence and one transcription error. That's a lot of "interpretation" .

[Steadmund Brand]

First- I have to say...to my defense.. I am NOT trying to sell a suspect book....Mike is, true.. but not I for if I did it would be my preferred suspect... which I will reveal here for the first time ever... **clears throat**

You see, Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll and Joseph Merrick were all drinking buddies and members of the same secret society (Loyal Oder of Water Buffaloes) and they were having a go at the pub one night and thought, ya know what would be wild.... if we just started killing prostitutes for giggles because in the future NOBODY will believe it's us....well what started out as light hearted banter got serious after a few more drinks....well skip to them being caught (but covered up as the police were ALL Water Buffaloes as well) and they were broken out of prison by a 14 year old Harry Houdini and 13 year old Aleister Crowley...there is more but saving that for my book "Case Closed, Slam Dunk, Home Run, Fat Lady Sings" (wait till you read the chapter on Bigfoot and Cthulhu)

Steadmund Brand

(that is how I feel about suspect books now at least ones that claim to have "SOLVED" it)

[jmenges]

When the deposition includes statements like this:

"Afte that he was arresyed, supposed to be a bad character."

It must be admitted that there were errors, possibly including ones that might read grammatically.

JM

[Ally]

By the way, I am not disputing that the discovery of Tumblety's condition took place in 81. That is most likely when the actual events and ACTION took place.

What I am disputing is that the conversation and STRICTLY the conversation regarding disemboweling took place in 81. That happened later, as an entire piece, where he heard the statement and knowing about the Murders, hied himself off to the police. AS he says occurred.

[Steadmund Brand]

As I said, you can read it however you want. However, the addition of the completely imaginary Not turns the sentence from grammatically correct to grammatical gibberish.

The sentence as it stands is grammatically correct. The three sentences together form a coherent narrative of an event that all happened at the same time.

Anyone is free to twist it out of all shape but that doesn't change the fact the three sentences together are grammatically correct and form a cohesive narrative, and the additions of "not" and time jumps do so at the expense of having to twist the sentences all out of logical and grammatical shape to make them fit what you THINK they say, rather than what they actually and grammatically say.

And it should be pointed out that Norris TWICE says he attempts to shun Tumblety at two different points in the timeline and then contradicts himself and says Tumblety shunned him.

So while his sentences are always correct and clear, his narrative and timeline isn't. Which leads more towards him being alright with grammar and not so great on keeping his timeline straight. Because first he tried to shun him after the disemboweling comment which would have happened early 90s then he says he tried to shun him a few years ago when he got "strange".

He apparently managed to keep up quite the relationship for a guy he kept trying to shake loose. And then of course he admits Tumblety was the one who shunned him after his marriage.

So again: everything he actually says points to him not having his timeline in order. And he actually says a couple of times in the deposition he can't remember exactly what year certain things happen.

As I said, you can read it however you want, as long as you accept that your way makes zero grammatical sense. Because it doesn't. Your way requires excusing five mistakes Norris makes in one sentence and one transcription error. That's a lot of "interpretation" .

not mine .. remember I also do not think the "not" should be there....I admit to mine making grammatical errors (grossly so.. and I admit that..that is part of my point, I believe it WAS GRAMMATICALY TERRIBLE, as was much of what he said in other parts) but not transcription errors. I think that is (probably correct) you see Ally, if not for how bad I think Norris spoke (when he would get nervous) I would agree with you, it DOES read how you see it....but.. because of everything else..I can see the mistakes in grammar being on him..Norris...

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

When the deposition includes statements like this:

"Afte that he was arresyed, supposed to be a bad character."

It must be admitted that there were errors, possibly including ones that might read grammatically.

JM

Well there's typos, but also we don't have the deposition. We have Mike's transcription of the deposition so how do we know what mistakes are the depositions and which are Mikes?

But again, typos are not the same thing as completely leaving out words that change a sentence from a positive to a negative and change a grammatically correct sentence to a senseless one. Not doesn't make sense in that interpretation.

And again, you are reading it as you would WRITE something, not as people would speak. "After that, he was arrested... supposed to be a bad character..." with facial expressions and knowing looks actually makes perfect sense...as someone would SPEAK it.

[Steadmund Brand]

No no, remember I saw the actual ones.. NOT Mike's transcriptions....sorry that may have been another point of confusion... I was not going off Mike's version.. but the original.

I should have made that clear... sorry

Steadmund