Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm about 3/4 through the book myself and thought the Milhous section was the weakest part anyway. Even if the hospital records had said 31st instead of 1st, he's still hanging his hat on speculation from newspaper stories of suspicious credibility. Plus the description of what happened to the alleged woman in the newspaper does not fit with the "fake mugging" model of the Ripper that Wescott puts forth later so it's not even consistent with his own views.

Overall the Nichols stuff is great. The further you get in the book, the less it becomes about the Ripper and the more it becomes about other stuff happening in Whitechapel at the time, which I know some people here like very much but I find less interesting. The Nichols stuff itself was worth the $6 I paid for the eBook on Amazon.

Hi Damaso, thanks for that. I'm curious what you thought of the Fanny Mortimer and Israel Schwartz essays. To me those are among the most 'hardcore Ripperology' parts of the book, along with the Nichols stuff and the Goulston Street essay in section 3. My guess is the part where I lost you was in 'Murder in the Neighborhood'. The Stride stuff in that was good but the topography stuff, which works great in a magazine, rather slowed down the pace I had established earlier on. Such is the pitfall of an essay-oriented book. Plus I'm now told it was all wrong, so...

Yours truly ,

Tom Wescott

[Damaso Marte]

I'm about 3/4 through the book myself and thought the Milhous section was the weakest part anyway. Even if the hospital records had said 31st instead of 1st, he's still hanging his hat on speculation from newspaper stories of suspicious credibility. Plus the description of what happened to the alleged woman in the newspaper does not fit with the "fake mugging" model of the Ripper that Wescott puts forth later so it's not even consistent with his own views.

Overall the Nichols stuff is great. The further you get in the book, the less it becomes about the Ripper and the more it becomes about other stuff happening in Whitechapel at the time, which I know some people here like very much but I find less interesting. The Nichols stuff itself was worth the $6 I paid for the eBook on Amazon.

[harry]

Now I have not,in all the years posting here,talked to or personally met and conversed with any other poster.So do not include me as being for or against anyone on a personel level.
The hospital records certainly have the 1st as the date of admission,but was that the date on which the injury occurred?That is what I believe Tom was trying to determine.He seemingly believes the injury could have occurred on the day previous to admission.That is what should have been argued.
Could it? I believe it possible.I could be wrong,but insisting his mistake over the 1st,on it's own,disproves his belief,doesn't prove he's wrong.

[Abby Normal]

The hat-band gag was original, honest. It occurred to me today as I was on the train to sunny Dorset.

That was pretty sweet. Lol

[Abby Normal]

Of all the weird subcultures I belong to, Ripperologists are the ones who are nastiest to each other online.

Lol! I guess you've never been on a MMA web site.


I also belong to a particular web site forum that's based on the works of one of my favorite authors. It's in the realm of fantasy so many of the members are double nerds and very literate.
The moderators don't tolerate any overt nastiness so these members can delicately and subtly rip you a new one. It truly is an art form.


Sorry off topic. Back to the nastiness! LOL!

[Dane_F]

What does that mean? Between what two events?

To be clear: Between what two events are you saying that we do not know how much time elapsed?

Clearly when I say we do not know how much time has elapsed I am speaking about when Millous went into the hospital and when the record was made. We know the record was made at a later time but how much later, we cannot say.

[MrBarnett]

The hat-band gag was original, honest. It occurred to me today as I was on the train to sunny Dorset.

[Tom_Wescott]

As for your insistence that you know more about the geography of the Victorian East End than Her Majesty's Ordnance Survey... sorry, just spilt some of my 9th glass of wine after dinner.

I know fek all about geography. I get lost on my own street.

Don't respond, Tom, you still have a tiny bit of credibility in your enormous circle (your hat band).

Gary.

Okay, props for the hat-band burn. That was pretty sweet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Again with the Whoa. Wow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

I think most people looking at this debate have some idea of what I'm talking about, but 'Whoa. Wow?' What is that?

Sadly, I think we've gone beyond the stage where you might have 'manned-up' to your massive MM mistake and explained to us how it came about that the limited facts you provided in your book supported your theory.

As for your insistence that you know more about the geography of the Victorian East End than Her Majesty's Ordnance Survey... sorry, just spilt some of my 9th glass of wine after dinner.

Don't respond, Tom, you still have a tiny bit of credibility in your enormous circle (your hat band).

Gary.

[Damaso Marte]

Of all the weird subcultures I belong to, Ripperologists are the ones who are nastiest to each other online.

[Tom_Wescott]

At the end of the day, Tom, your name is on the front of RC (and on every other page). Please stop blaming others for your mistakes, and threatening those who mention them with ostracism from your circle.

Again with the Whoa. Wow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

Please stop dragging other people into the debate. I have the utmost respect for all the people you mention. A couple of posts later and you'll be claiming I don't.

Do you really have so little respect for them that you are prepared to use them as human shields against - what? - my suggestion that your books are rather lightweight?

Gary

Human shields? WTF are you on about, dawg? You want to know how I accept correction so I've referred you to a who's who list of people you have access to who have corrected my numerous errors over the years. I thought that would be worth more to you than anything I could say for myself. If you genuinely want to know how I take correction, you now have an objective and unbiased means of getting your answer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

At the end of the day, Tom, your name is on the front of RC (and on every other page). Please stop blaming others for your mistakes, and threatening those who mention them with ostracism from your circle.

[MrBarnett]

Why ask me? Why not ask Ed Stow? Or Rob Clack? Or Debs Arif? Or Neil Bell? Or Gavin Bromley? Or Paul Begg? I'm proud to say I've been factually corrected by some of the best in the business. I still owe Ed a pint for catching a guffaw in one of my earlier essays. But I haven't made it to merry ole London town yet to make good on it. I might have to buy him two now!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Please stop dragging other people into the debate. I have the utmost respect for all the people you mention. A couple of posts later and you'll be claiming I don't.

Do you really have so little respect for them that you are prepared to use them as human shields against - what? - my suggestion that your books are rather lightweight?

Gary

[Tom_Wescott]

Please do not feel afraid of admitting to any error or correcting anything you have written because no-one is trying to humiliate you or get one over on you or anything else of that nature that you might think.

David,

Based on what you've learned about me throughout our exchange on this thread, and what you've read from the exchanges in which you did not participate, how do you think I processed the paragraph above?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott