Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

How do you respond to someone who points out that you are factually incorrect?

Be careful how you answer, because I may have to contradict you with evidence to the contrary.

Gary

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

[David Orsam]

That doesn't however mean that I do not appreciate all the points raised about the evidence. And if anybody is willing to change his mind when good reason is presented it's...

I'll take you at your word then, Tom.

So perhaps we can put an end to this part of the discussion if you would answer some questions, politely asked. One of them I have already asked you and you have answered, but I would like to know if your answer remains the same. Those that I can think of are these:

1. On what date was Margaret Millows admitted to the London Hospital?

2. Did Gary Barnett misread the hospital records when he concluded that they show that Margaret Millows was admitted to the London Hospital on 1 September?

3. When you read the document in question from the London Hospital in preparation for your book, did you see and appreciate that the entry for Margaret Millows appeared under the heading of "Sep 1?".

4. If you did see and appreciate that the entry for Margaret Millows appeared under the heading of "Sep 1" (a) what did you think it meant? and (b) why did you not mention this fact in your book?

5. If Margaret Millows was admitted to the London Hospital on 1 September, what effect, if any, would you say this has on your theory, as presented in your book, that she was attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August?

6. Do you still maintain, as you say in your book, that Margaret Millows must have been not very far from the London Hospital when she sustained her injury (because otherwise else she would have bled to death)?

7. Is it correct to say, as you say in your book, that the hospital registries are filled with failed suicide attempts?

8. Do you believe that you have made any mistakes in the chapter of your book entitled 'The One That Got Away', and if so, what are they (or what is it, if singular)?

9. What is the evidence on which you base your statement that Mary Ann Nichols did not have blood on her hands when she was killed?

10. What is the evidence that Mary Ann Nichols was murdered at the place her body was found?

To keep things interesting I've added some fresh questions towards the end which I haven't asked you in this thread (although I did ask you no.10 some years ago).

I have referred to Margaret's surname as Millows throughout, even though I appreciate you refer to her as Millous in your book.

If you are going to answer these questions - and I like to think, given the passage I have quoted above from your post, that you will - it will be most helpful if you could number your answers as per the questions, answering each one individually.

Many thanks Tom. I look forward to your answers which I hope will be very full and frank. And I want to stress that I ask these questions not to go "na na na na na" or for any childish or improper reason but in order to allow you, and hopefully everyone else, to put an end to this debate, to allow it be resolved properly, so that we can all move on to discuss something else. 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.

[MrBarnett]

'Oh, ****, guys, I completely screwed up on MM's dates. It's unlikely she was the Brady Street victim. I honestly didn't leave out pertinent details to mislead you.

And while I'm in a confessional mood , I also made a whole string of errors in my Berner Street walk-through.'

But you still love me, right?'

[MrBarnett]

Tom,

How do you respond to someone who points out that you are factually incorrect?

Be careful how you answer, because I may have to contradict you with evidence to the contrary.

Gary

[Tom_Wescott]

I haven't read your books Tom. I've only read Ripper Confidential.

I have no idea if you are in it for the money and I've never given your motives and objectives any thought but you were banging on earlier in this thread about how many books you've sold, which struck me as a purely commercial boast, irrespective of quality, and is the only reason I mentioned the money.

Fair enough.

All I will say is if you are writing and publishing for genuine reasons, to advance the world's knowledge of Jack the Ripper, and to get to the truth, I would have expected a very different response to someone raising valid questions about the interpretation of a historical document.

I can see that. I really can. But as I said to another fellow on another page, it's how someone chooses to come at me that determines how I'll choose to react. I pick my own spots, if you know what I mean. That doesn't however mean that I do not appreciate all the points raised about the evidence. And if anybody is willing to change his mind when good reason is presented it's...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Yes, but why are my motives and objectives so important to you? Why do you spend so much time wondering about me and trying to get information out of me? Don't get me wrong, I love the attention! But...why?

And let me ask you this, because you seem pretty insightful. When you read my books and you see the research I've done and for how long, do you get left with the impression that I did any of it for money? You and I have enjoyed numerous personal exchanges. You have provided me with your own stellar research. At any point in that process did you say to yourself 'This guy is in it for the money.'?

I haven't read your books Tom. I've only read Ripper Confidential.

I have no idea if you are in it for the money and I've never given your motives and objectives any thought but you were banging on earlier in this thread about how many books you've sold, which struck me as a purely commercial boast, irrespective of quality, and is the only reason I mentioned the money.

All I will say is if you are writing and publishing for genuine reasons, to advance the world's knowledge of Jack the Ripper, and to get to the truth, I would have expected a very different response to someone raising valid questions about the interpretation of a historical document.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, Tom, since you ask, it makes me wonder why you posted that MrBarnett had misread the document and why you called him "petty and jealous" for questioning you about it.

It also makes me wonder about your ability to read and interpret documents properly and about your candour when you realize you have made a mistake and your ability to admit to having done so when challenged.

I suppose it also makes me think that Margaret "Millows" is very unlikely to have been attacked in Brady Street on the night of 31 August.

There is, however, always the possibility of a second edition to offer up a new theory, if making money is your objective.

Yes, but why are my motives and objectives so important to you? Why do you spend so much time wondering about me and trying to get information out of me? Don't get me wrong, I love the attention! But...why?

And let me ask you this, because you seem pretty insightful. When you read my books and you see the research I've done and for how long, do you get left with the impression that I did any of it for money? You and I have enjoyed numerous personal exchanges. You have provided me with your own stellar research. At any point in that process did you say to yourself 'This guy is in it for the money.'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

How does that make you feel, David?

Well, Tom, since you ask, it makes me wonder why you posted that MrBarnett had misread the document and why you called him "petty and jealous" for questioning you about it.

It also makes me wonder about your ability to read and interpret documents properly and about your candour when you realize you have made a mistake and your ability to admit to having done so when challenged.

I suppose it also makes me think that Margaret "Millows" is very unlikely to have been attacked in Brady Street on the night of 31 August.

There is, however, always the possibility of a second edition to offer up a new theory, if making money is your objective.

[Tom_Wescott]

How does that make you feel, David?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

You mean Ed Stow, right? Because if what you say is true, Ed will get all the credit.

No, actually, I mean we elicited from you that your understanding that MM was admitted on 31 August came from no more than that you asked the London Hospital for a list of individuals admitted between 10pm on 30 Aug and 3.30am on 31 August and you thought that this is what you had been given.

Or at least that is what you claimed.

You've also made some other relevant admissions:

"I've never said 'the entry was 31 August'."

"her entry in the register is dated Sept. 1st"

"the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1"

Bit by bit, therefore, it has been possible to establish that the date of MM's admission to the hospital was 1 September.

[David Orsam]

No, he just made sure the comment that you're petty and jealous was repeated 30 times! LOL.

I suppose if this was a forum for children that might be a good point.

[Tom_Wescott]

Seriously, you are proud of your failure to answer questions?

I'm not a prideful person.

But I won't say that there have been no results. We have somehow, in a long and painful process, managed to establish that you did, in fact, misread the document in question and that MrBarnett read it correctly.

You mean Ed Stow, right? Because if what you say is true, Ed will get all the credit.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

It was your diatribe, on JTRF.

Honestly, there's no need for anyone to defend my hono(u)r.

David never claimed to be.

Gary

No, he just made sure the comment that you're petty and jealous was repeated 30 times! LOL. It was like he put it on a loop or something. But whatevs. And hey, what's the the spelling of 'honor'? I thought you said you're not an Englishman? I'm glad to see you're in a better mood today. And yes, I recognize my own diatribes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

So you've been expending great effort and yielding no results. Wait...I think I'm starting to get an idea what this 'failure' word means.

Seriously, you are proud of your failure to answer questions?

But I won't say that there have been no results. We have somehow, in a long and painful process, managed to establish that you did, in fact, misread the document in question and that MrBarnett read it correctly.

[MrBarnett]

Tom,

It was your diatribe, on JTRF.

Honestly, there's no need for anyone to defend my hono(u)r.

David never claimed to be.

Gary