Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MM lived in the Old Nichol. Tom maintains that if she had sustained her injury on her home turf, she would probably have bled out before she reached the LH. The implication being that her injury must have been received somewhere very close to the Whitechapel Road - somewhere like Brady Street.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      MM lived in the Old Nichol. Tom maintains that if she had sustained her injury on her home turf, she would probably have bled out before she reached the LH. The implication being that her injury must have been received somewhere very close to the Whitechapel Road - somewhere like Brady Street.
      Hi
      what was her injury and how severe was it?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Hi
        what was her injury and how severe was it?
        Cut to one of the arteries in the vien, but no idea from what I can see how serve it was.

        If Tom is correct about how serve it was then she must have been seen very soon after the cut took place. However and it is a very big however, if the cut was not as bad and the bleeding was staunched for a time this may and only may have allowed her to go to the hospital later if it once again began bleeding.

        17 days confinement suggests serious blood loss, unfortunately both scernerios could account for that.

        I feel we are waiting on Tom to explain his reasoning.


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Cut to one of the arteries in the vien, but no idea from what I can see how serve it was.

          If Tom is correct about how serve it was then she must have been seen very soon after the cut took place. However and it is a very big however, if the cut was not as bad and the bleeding was staunched for a time this may and only may have allowed her to go to the hospital later if it once again began bleeding.

          17 days confinement suggests serious blood loss, unfortunately both scernerios could account for that.

          I feel we are waiting on Tom to explain his reasoning.


          Steve
          If the injury was not attended to immediately, infection may have set in. That's another possible reason for the length of her stay.

          Comment


          • Incidentally, Ed Stow is paying a visit to the LH archives tomorrow, so perhaps we may have some further clarification of the procedures.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              Cut to one of the arteries in the vien, but no idea from what I can see how serve it was.

              If Tom is correct about how serve it was then she must have been seen very soon after the cut took place. However and it is a very big however, if the cut was not as bad and the bleeding was staunched for a time this may and only may have allowed her to go to the hospital later if it once again began bleeding.

              17 days confinement suggests serious blood loss, unfortunately both scernerios could account for that.

              I feel we are waiting on Tom to explain his reasoning.


              Steve
              hi El
              did you mean to say one of the arteries in her neck?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                Cut to one of the arteries in the vien, but no idea from what I can see how serve it was.

                If Tom is correct about how serve it was then she must have been seen very soon after the cut took place. However and it is a very big however, if the cut was not as bad and the bleeding was staunched for a time this may and only may have allowed her to go to the hospital later if it once again began bleeding.

                17 days confinement suggests serious blood loss, unfortunately both scernerios could account for that.

                I feel we are waiting on Tom to explain his reasoning.


                Steve
                Hi Steve,

                Clearly not all arterial cuts result in catastrophic injuries:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/...ics.davidkelly

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  Over on JTRForums Tom stated that I misread the record.
                  Yes, exactly, so he's not saying that the record is wrong or that MM was attacked on 31 August but admitted to hospital the following day. He is saying that the record shows that she was admitted on 31 August.

                  Strangely, however, when I asked him if Debra has also misread the record he refused to say that she has, which is odd considering that, like you, she is also saying that the admission date in the record is 1 September.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                    Are you trying to get me killed? I know better than to say Debs misinterpreted a record!
                    I'm afraid I really don't understand that, Tom. If she has misinterpreted a record it surely needs to be stated, and, if I understand you correctly, it must be your view that she has.

                    It's a very stark difference of opinion. She says the date of admission was 1 September, you say it was 31 August. You can't both be right so one of you must have got it wrong. If it's Debra who is wrong what is the possible harm in saying so?

                    For myself, from the cropped extract I have seen, I can understand why both Debra and Gary are saying that the correct date of admission, as stated on the hospital record, was 1 September, what with Margaret's name falling under the heading of "Sep 1". I don't, however, understand why you believe that the record shows it was 31 August and from your post, sadly, it seems you are not going to tell us.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      hi El
                      did you mean to say one of the arteries in her neck?
                      Abby,

                      no a bad day on phone and making too many typos, should be in arm.


                      steve

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        Abby,

                        no a bad day on phone and making too many typos, should be in arm.


                        steve
                        ok thanks.

                        Comment


                        • Tom has not 'misread a document, nor does Tom generally heed a command to 'explain himself', but I will make a rare exception in this case.

                          1) Tom doesn't have any psychic insight into Millous's wound. That much is obvious from the book. I know that her radial artery in her arm was injured, which is very severe, and she spent a long time in hospital. But clearly her injury wasn't so severe that she bled out dead on the street. Blood loss, however, must have been unavoidable (as that's what an arterial wound means.)

                          2) The archivist who provides these records had these as people being admitted on August 31st. I suspect, as the entry has Millous's injury noted, that at the time the entry was made she'd already received care from a doctor who had afterwards provided the necessary information to the registrar who created the document in question. Alternatively, Millous was quite well-informed and stood bleeding at the front desk, providing her name, address, particulars, and her diagnoses of radial arterial damage.

                          Beyond the above, I have no further information. She may have been admitted on Sept. 1st, or Oct. 1st, but I trusted the archivist to whom I paid my monies.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          Comment


                          • .

                            In the U.S., if you go into the emergency room, you go through triage and testing, and if you are in bad enough shape, then you are "admitted". So you could quite possibly come into the hospital on one date and be admitted the next. I have no idea how UK hospitals operate (no pun intended there), but I guess the question would be are you considered "admitted" as soon as you walk in the door or when you are actually placed in a bed and room?

                            Comment


                            • I hope everyone can see the point I'm making about the order of the patient categories. Take 1/9 as an example:

                              Patients 1029 -1031 are 'without tickets'

                              Patients 1032 - 1034 are 'accidents'

                              Patients 1035 (and 1036 not shown) are 'with tickets'


                              Within each group the numbers are consecutive and this pattern is repeated on other days I have looked at. It follows that the book must have been written up the following day and that the entries are not in chronological order.

                              It's not rocket science. I know Tom is geographically challenged, but I'm surprised he can't see (or refuses to see) the point I am making here.

                              Comment


                              • Leaving aside the unresolved, and almost certainly unresolvable (that's my point), question of when MM entered the LH, I'd like to know what evidence Tom has to support this claim in his book:

                                The hospital registries are tragically filled with failed suicide attempts, either obvious or self-confessed, and they're duly marked as 'suicide' but Millous's was not.

                                I've been unable to find any attempted suicides noted in the LH admission records in September, 1888. There is a single patient who was apparently admitted because she was suicidal, but her injuries do not suggest she had attempted suicide.
                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-08-2017, 06:41 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X