Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[David Orsam]

End result? A woman with a cut arm whose family has a Jack the Ripper legend about. Not bad for a day's work.

Erm, do you think you might not be jumping the gun here Tom? Has it actually been established that the woman whose name you transcribed in your book as Margaret Millhous (and who you speculate in a footnote in your book might be Margaret Millhouse) is, in fact, Margaret Mallows?

Because the way I see it is that someone has seen the name Millhous, thought it might be Millows, which looks and sounds like Mallows, and was aware of a story relating to a Margaret Mallows whose daughter supposedly aged 8 was approached by Jack the Ripper in circa 1891 (if her age is correctly recorded in the 1891 census).

The problem is that I find it hard to connect the legend story about a young child being "approached" by JTR with a woman being brutally attacked in the small hours of the morning some distance from her home (with her young daughter accompanying her?).

But stranger coincidences have happened I suppose.

[David Orsam]

Does that make it a certainty in my mind that Millous was the victim? No. Or that anything even happened on Brady Street? No. And I say that in my book.

Great Tom, but the point I have been banging away at is that it would have been very helpful to your reader (i.e. me) if you had included in your book the pertinent information that Millous was shown in the record as having been admitted to hospital on 1 September - then you could have debated whether she was a Ripper victim to your heart's content and I wouldn't have said a single word about your theory. After all these posts, I'm actually none the wiser as to why you didn't mention it, but can only assume you didn't spot it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Erm, do you think you might not be jumping the gun here Tom? Has it actually been established that the woman whose name you transcribed in your book as Margaret Millhous (and who you speculate in a footnote in your book might be Margaret Millhouse) is, in fact, Margaret Mallows?

Hmmm....do you actually own my book?

Because the way I see it is that someone has seen the name Millhous, thought it might be Millows, which looks and sounds like Mallows, and was aware of a story relating to a Margaret Mallows whose daughter supposedly aged 8 was approached by Jack the Ripper in circa 1891 (if her age is correctly recorded in the 1891 census).

Actually, the register reads 'Millows'.

The problem is that I find it hard to connect the legend story about a young child being "approached" by JTR with a woman being brutally attacked in the small hours of the morning some distance from her home (with her young daughter accompanying her?).

But stranger coincidences have happened I suppose.

I'd find it difficult to make the connection as well if that woman hadn't had her arm cut when the Ripper was on the prowl. But, this is Ripperology, so when in doubt, write it off as coincidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Great Tom, but the point I have been banging away at is that it would have been very helpful to your reader (i.e. me) if you had included in your book the pertinent information that Millous was shown in the record as having been admitted to hospital on 1 September - then you could have debated whether she was a Ripper victim to your heart's content and I wouldn't have said a single word about your theory. After all these posts, I'm actually none the wiser as to why you didn't mention it, but can only assume you didn't spot it.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt you're extending me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Those who read Facebook will have noticed that Edward Stow has made a check on Margaret Millows together with a significant number of other patients at the LH in 1888. It seems the patients were always listed as having been admitted on the dates they arrived at the LH.
Unless any evidence of an exception in Millowsī case can be presented, I therefore think that Millows can safely be ruled out as having arrived at the LH on any other day than September 1.

[Tom_Wescott]

Those who read Facebook will have noticed that Edward Stow has made a check on Margaret Millows together with a significant number of other patients at the LH in 1888. It seems the patients were always listed as having been admitted on the dates they arrived at the LH.
Unless any evidence of an exception in Millowsī case can be presented, I therefore think that Millows can safely be ruled out as having arrived at the LH on any other day than September 1.

When you say "significant number" do you mean the three that Rob Clack posted about at jtrforums? Emma Smith and some others. Or do you mean the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

When you say "significant number" do you mean the three that Rob Clack posted about at jtrforums? Emma Smith and some others. Or do you mean the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I of course refer to the names mentioned by Edward on Facebook - I thought I made it clear that this was the material I was working from.

It involves Emma Smith, who we know went to the LH on the 3rd of April, and who is recorded as being admitted on that day. It involves Malvina Hayes, who was attacked late at night on the 2nd of April - and who is listed as being admitted on that day, in spite of how she would have arrived at the hospital very close to the end of the day. It involves Georgina Green, recorded as being attacked on the 5th of May - and admitted to the hospital the very same day. And it involves Mary Ann Austin, attcked on the 25th of May 1901, and listed as being admitted on the exact same day.

It does not involve the patients listed with Millows - nor does it involve any explanation at all as to why these women would have differed in any respect from the obvious norm: the admission day is the day you arrive at the hospital.

The only remaining possibility for Millows to have been attacked before Nichols is if she delayed going to the hospital for a full day or more. As far as Iīm concerned, that ends the business, unless you have evidence that Millows was an exception to the overall rule. Have you?

[MrBarnett]

When you say "significant number" do you mean the three that Rob Clack posted about at jtrforums? Emma Smith and some others. Or do you mean the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Surely you know the answer to that, you've commented on his Facebook page where he lists them.

Ed looked through 1888 generally and checked 4 patients specifically:

Emma Smith
Malvina Haynes
Georgina Green
Mary Ann Austin

[Debra A]

Because the way I see it is that someone has seen the name Millhous, thought it might be Millows, which looks and sounds like Mallows, and was aware of a story relating to a Margaret Mallows whose daughter supposedly aged 8 was approached by Jack the Ripper in circa 1891 (if her age is correctly recorded in the 1891 census).

Just to clarify the way the name thing happened. Tom sent me the register page, asking me to look at 'Margaret Millows', I did and wrote back that I thought it could be 'Millous'. The name 'Millows' is very rare in historical records, Millow is slighlty more common but still quite rare. A lot of transcriptions of the name turn out to be other names when looking at the original record image; the name Milton for example. After searching the name Millous on Ancestry and FMP I discovered it was sometimes used interchangeably with the name Millhous(e) and I mentioned this also. At no point did I suggest any candidate for 'Margaret Millous', as I couldn't find one.


The suggestion of the name 'Mallows' and the woman identified with that name was done by Ed Stow and the poster named 'Mystery singer.'

[Abby Normal]

Even if the woman was admitted on the first, I still think it's an interesting find is it not? And that she could have been a victim of the ripper, no?

Even if she was attacked after Nichols, because if his true intention at that point was to remove internal organs, having failed with Nichols because he was possibly interrupted, I could see him very soon after looking for another victim. Find this woman, attacks her, she fends him off, receiving a nasty defensive wound on her arm in the process.

Is this not possible?

[Fisherman]

Even if the woman was admitted on the first, I still think it's an interesting find is it not? And that she could have been a victim of the ripper, no?

Even if she was attacked after Nichols, because if his true intention at that point was to remove internal organs, having failed with Nichols because he was possibly interrupted, I could see him very soon after looking for another victim. Find this woman, attacks her, she fends him off, receiving a nasty defensive wound on her arm in the process.

Is this not possible?

Of course it is, Abby - but it becomes a case like any other case of violence nevertheless. And the gist of the matter is that Millows has seemingly been presented the wrong way, by the looks of things.

Just like she may have been attacked by the Ripper, so may any other woman who was faced with street violence by an unidentified man. She can certainly not be traded off as "the one that got away", therefore.

[Abby Normal]

Of course it is, Abby - but it becomes a case like any other case of violence nevertheless. And the gist of the matter is that Millows has seemingly been presented the wrong way, by the looks of things.

Just like she may have been attacked by the Ripper, so may any other woman who was faced with street violence by an unidentified man. She can certainly not be traded off as "the one that got away", therefore.

Thanks fish
I'm wondering has there been any exhaustive research of women attacked by knife by an unknown assailant around the time of the ripper murders?

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish
I'm wondering has there been any exhaustive research of women attacked by knife by an unknown assailant around the time of the ripper murders?

It is a frequently reoccurring topic on the threads, yes. Thatīs how Ada Wilson and Annie Millwood were discovered, for example.

[Debra A]

Even if the woman was admitted on the first, I still think it's an interesting find is it not? And that she could have been a victim of the ripper, no?

Even if she was attacked after Nichols, because if his true intention at that point was to remove internal organs, having failed with Nichols because he was possibly interrupted, I could see him very soon after looking for another victim. Find this woman, attacks her, she fends him off, receiving a nasty defensive wound on her arm in the process.

Is this not possible?

That's more or less what I've been asking on JTR forums, Abby. I listed three other women in the Whitechapel Infirmary with arm wounds too that were admitted late Aug, early Sept. Forgetting the Brady Street attack for a moment; If Tom was correct about the Daily Telegraph article of Oct 4th being possibly wrong on the date when describing an attack on a woman between 8th and 24th Sept., by a man with a knife. The victim was said to have used her arm to defend herself against an attempt at cutting her throat and received a severe arm wound that required treatment at the London Hospital. Maybe Millows was that woman?

[Fisherman]

That's more or less what I've been asking on JTR forums, Abby. I listed three other women in the Whitechapel Infirmary with arm wounds too that were admitted late Aug, early Sept. Forgetting the Brady Street attack for a moment; If Tom was correct about the Daily Telegraph article of Oct 4th being possibly wrong on the date when describing an attack on a woman between 8th and 24th Sept., by a man with a knife. The victim was said to have used her arm to defend herself against an attempt at cutting her throat and received a severe arm wound that required treatment at the London Hospital. Maybe Millows was that woman?

Maybe so - but the admission records still have her as arriving at the hospital on September 1:st, and so it seems she was not a prequel to the Nichols murder. Otherwise, it appears to add up nicely if the Daily Telegraph got it wrong. There could reasonably not have been all that many women who fended off neck-cutting offenders with their forearms, could there...?