Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

I am being nice Tom. I haven't smeared anyone or questioned their motives for posting or accused anyone of being jealous or been generally rude or insulting. I have confined myself at all times to addressing the contents of the posts and directly meeting the points under discussion. If only everyone else would do the same, what a wonderful world it would be.

Oh stop pretending you care, David. The self-righteous act has grown stale. Like suddenly it's me and a bunch of Catholic Bishops. I hardly think so.

Dane, you're good peeps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish,

I went and checked out Ed's new threads. Not his clothes, mind you, but his FB threads about Millous/Millows/Mallows. Pretty fair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I went and checked out Ed's new threads. Not his clothes, mind you, but his FB threads about Millous/Millows/Mallows. Pretty fair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As laconisms go, yes. The same goes for your statement that Edward is a "good" researcher.
The truth of the matter is that the FB threads are absolutely spot on, and not just "pretty fair", and that Edward is a brilliant researcher, not just a good one.

Otherwise, he would not be my master, remember?

But I would not want our exchange to topple over into pub talk (since it allows you to excel in a discipline that has no bearing on the overall matters discussed out here), so I´ll settle for just asking you this one question:

Do you accept that the material Edward presents urges us to accept that Margaret Millows was admitted to the London Hospital on September 1:st?

A simple yes will do. A simple no will take a lengthy explanation, and it has to be way better than "the archivist said so".

Maybe your stating that the FB material was pretty fair was a roundabout way of saying yes, what do I know?

[jerryd]

Tom is a brilliant as far as ripperology goes; are you really gonna keep this crap up? Comon!

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom is a brilliant as far as ripperology goes; are you really gonna keep this crap up? Comon!

Jerry D, thank you for that. You're a rockstar. I don't know that either Ed nor myself are 'brilliant'. But I do know that we both love the subject and simply disagree on some things but otherwise get along fine. For instance, I don't think Charles Cross was the Thames Torso killer. He does. Allegedly, his evidence for this is stronger than my evidence for...well....anything! My section on Nichols does no favors to the 'Lechmere' theory. That wasn't my intention at all, it's just how some of the research turned out. So, he and Fisherman have every right to be up in arms. Had they not been, I think I would have been offended. I can't say the same of some others whose motives aren't as clear. But as long as people find my book and the threads about it entertaining, I'm cool. As Miley Cyrus sings:

Remember only God can judge ya
Forget the haters
Cuz somebody loves ya

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

But I would not want our exchange to topple over into pub talk (since it allows you to excel in a discipline that has no bearing on the overall matters discussed out here)

You've thusly proved yourself the wisest of the bunch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

You've thusly proved yourself the wisest of the bunch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I´m even wiser, Tom - I realize that you will not answer the question I asked.

The downside of this business is that I expected more from you. A lot more, to be frank.

The upside is that you will have precious little to live up to in the future, and so life should be easier for you in days to come.

Being unversed in modern day entertainers like Miley Cyrus, I can offer a man from the olden days, the dane Robert Storm Pedersen, who said "It´s but a short warmth to wet your pants". If you apply that to the pertinent issue of choices - such as that of reliability and/or booksales - you may be wise enough yourself to understand my take on things.

[Phil Carter]

David,

Something concerns me.

Repeatedly on this thread, the "challenge" has been thrown down for anyone, in some posts, you, to provide a more likely "candidate" as to the possibility of the same killer of Polly having "attacked" another woman other than this Mallows/Millows/Mellows woman.

Erm..isnt that being just a little presumptuous anyway?
There is reasonable doubt as to whether the wounds to the forearm where defensive wounds because of an attack or a suicide attempt.
There is a reasonable doubt, stronger than the first such, above, that the actual date of the injured woman's arrival at the London Hospital is matching the date needed to enhance the proposition made by the author.
Thirdly, there is the disturbing fact that not one newspaper reported this incident, in the wake of a murder 200 yards or so away..which by following all the newspapers throughout the period of murders one sees a proliferation of reports linked to the Whitechapel murderer/Leather Apron.
Lastly, there is no known police report of any such "attack" which further relegates the "possibility" of a "same person attacker" having done such a thing at this time.

Therefore...why would you, I or anyone else find the need to "find a better candidate" for something that cannot be established even occurred?

To do so is to believe that it happened. The evidence clearly shows that it was, at this particular time and date, highly unlikely as both the newspapers would have pounced upon the tiniest hint of such a thing, and there would have been mention of it in police papers.

IF Mallows/Millows/Mellows WAS attacked....and the attacker failed in killing her, it would have been registered by both of the above as was done on other occasions during this 4 month or so period of killings.

Exactly why DO we have to "find a better candidate"? To do so only enhances the proposition the suthor wants us to believe.


Phil

[MysterySinger]

With regard to Margaret Millous, I believe this to be Margaret Mallows - in the records variously as Mallows, Mellows and Millows and forename sometimes Mary or Margaret.

She was a charlady and was married to husband John who was a bricklayer. They had children Maria, John and Esther. I also understand that Esther was interviewed by the BBC in the 1950s/60s re being approached aged 8 by Jack the Ripper (I think more likely aged 4 at the time). Esther was married to Abraham (Arthur) Samuels. I wonder whether a JTR suspect carried out an assault whilst Margaret was actually with her children?

With husband John, they lived in 1881 at 17 Goulstone Court and in 1891 at 5 Harriot Place (close to Fashion Street). John died in the second quarter of 1893 and in September Margaret Mallows was residing at 18 Thrawl Street.

If I have the right lady, Margaret was previously Margaret O'Leary.

This was my original post re Margaret Mallows. As I sometimes do, I thought I would attempt to flesh out the character known as Millous in the book upon reading it for the first time. So many characters seem to exist as a name only in Ripperlore and I find it fascinating to use Ancestry to find out some more background where I can. It didn't take long to come across a likely candidate in Margaret Mallows. The Ripper tale regarding Esther came via the usual Ancestry links. In most cases I don't bother sharing my findings, of which there are many, but this seemed too compelling not to, even before the info re Esther came to light. I was trying to assist others - more dedicated Ripperologists than I - with some basic info as, for example, a newspaper search might just throw up something using the alternative names.

At this stage I have no info on her hospital admission date other than the book and this forum though September 1st is the most obvious choice as far as I can tell from this forum. I've not yet seen any posts from anywhere else than on here but I'll probably get around to it at some point.

I'm near the end of Tom's book which I have greatly enjoyed reading and I've got the Bank Holiday Murders book waiting for me next. Yay.

[Phil Carter]

All,

Just a side note.

I am distantly related to the Maillou family of (mostly) Shoreditch and Hoxton. Their surname has been misspelt or mis-registered in official and unofficial documents as..
Maillon, Mallou, Mallous, Maillow, Maillous amongst others.

When reading the problems associated with the name concerned in this thread, it (mis-naming) is something to be kept in mind I feel. Checking records for named persons is always arduous from this period of time..and other periods I might add. I am sure others can confirm this.


Phil

Just a side note, as said.

[GUT]

Yeah I've got some pretty straightforward names that are mis spelt, recorded St times.

[harry]

I doubt Tom mislead anyone.An attack may have happened as he said.
The person may have been admitted on the 1st,but attacked the day before.
I doubt the London Hospital procedures 1888 were much different from the Shire hospitals of the 1930's,where both attendance and admittance ledgers were kept.
One attended at the Casualty Department,details were recorded,treatment was administered,and the following ensued.The patient was told they needed no further treatment and discharged,were told to come again for further treatment at a given time,advised to return if they felt the need,or admitted.
So Tom's victim attended on the 31st,was discharged at that time,returned on the !st and was admitted? What's wrong with that? Oh!,Tom got a little confused with the detail.Big deal.

[Robert]

So who are these people you're related to, Phil?

http://www.manilowuk.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malibu_(rum)

[Dane_F]

A very interesting take on it Harry. Yes that is also a possibility. People like to speak in definitives to pretend their opinion is fact, but in regards to Millous and the hospital there is really only three facts we know.

1) The date she was recorded as being admitted to the hospital was Sept 1st. 2) This was recorded at a later time after she received treatment. 3) What her injury was.

Because of (2) we cannot definitively say that she wasn't in the hospital on the 31st. It leads one to believe that Sept 1st is the most likely time of her arrival, but it does not eliminate the possibility of an earlier one.

[Phil Carter]

So who are these people you're related to, Phil?

http://www.manilowuk.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malibu_(rum)

Hello Robert

Thankfully. ..no..lol


Phil