Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

When I referred to your constant failure to answer questions I meant that I have been asking you questions which you have not answered.

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

This should be clear already, because we do not know how much time elapsed.

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?

[Tom_Wescott]

Gary,

What's the post number for that diatribe you posted....or are we now posting stuff here from outside sources? You think that's a good thing to start? And here I was just defending your honor to David.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Again with this 'F' word. Why is it that the three of you hold it so close to your tongues and finger tips? What does it mean? It's driving me crazy trying to figure it out.

When I referred to your constant failure to answer questions I meant that I have been asking you questions which you have not answered.

[MrBarnett]

When Tom is questioned on his 'groundbreaking' discoveries, he has three stock responses:

Non-response.

Airy denial.

Personal insult.

The last time I made a statement like this (some years ago) I received a reprimand from Casebook admin.

Here's one of his latest efforts to stifle my criticism of his latest book:



Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
Gary,

You're really trying to milk this 'personal insult' thing for all it's worth. Let's all try to 'man up', shall we? Besides, I have not leveled an insult at you. I simply made a personal observation that you chose to be offended by. Or feign offense over. Prior to that you'd suggested I was lazy, incompetent, and deceptive. You said the same about the other researchers involved in that essay, even after I made the friendly suggestion to you that you should not. I followed this up by making the quite logical observation that you're too old to be so petty and jealous. And you are. That's not an insult. Here's another observation - a grown man doesn't run around whining that he's been insulted. Do you see me doing that? You can note it, return the insult even, but constantly whine about it after the fact? Not very manly.

We talked on Facebook some time back about how you didn't get into Ripperology to make friends. That is also quite obvious to all and sundry. And that's your prerogative! But if your stance is one of alienation then it's poor form to complain when the karma you put out comes back to you.

You may also be genuinely unaware of this, but I have been EXTREMELY generous to you over the last few years. By that I mean I've shown a remarkable restraint where you're concerned given your treatment of me following Bank Holiday Murders and now Ripper Confidential. So, perhaps it's a bit my fault that you were so shocked when I finally did say something. I'm just too damned nice. Being the nicest guy in Ripperology is just my burden to bear though. Or is it 'bare'? I always forget.

Anyway, carry on with your campaign of alienation if you'd like. Scrolling through the last couple of pages I can see you're doing a fine job. Do you know how you know you're on the outs of this field? It's when you find yourself being embraced by a very small and very specific group of individuals. I won't name names, but you can ask around if you'd like. As for me, I'll carry on being Mr. Nice Guy. Or I won't. And since my words have such power over you, I'll be more careful what I say. Or I won't. After all, I'm not psychic. Am I?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Did I say I said this? No. I said they expressed their opinions on this thread. Their objective and rational opinions. Now you want to try to draw them out to give their opinions on Barnett? That's kind of cold considering you claim to be defending him against some perceived insult. Pretty cold.

Here are your exact words Tom:

"Many of the older posters from a decade or more ago no doubt find it amusing that in a thread this long the 'meanest' thing I've said is calling someone 'petty and jealous'. Which, incidentally, I don't think anyone disagrees with."

You were claiming there, in effect, that EVERYONE agrees with you about your outrageous "petty and jealous" comment. In response, I said you can't speak for other people. In response, you listed four posters. I now have no idea why you did this.

As for me defending MrBarnett, he doesn't need me to defend him. It's actually more that I'm criticising you - because I think it was unfair of you to call him "petty and jealous" simply for challenging your interpretation of a document (which it transpires that you HAD misunderstood and misread) and I haven't seen anyone else in two forums say that it was fair comment.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

"The one that got away" indicates an "unsuccessful" attempt by JtR on this woman. Ipso facto the "better candidate" spoken of would be one who escaped the clutches of the killer "JtR".
However.. there is more than reasonable doubt that this Millows woman was infact attacked by "JtR". Therefore, to presume she was is misleading. So looking for a better candidate is also misleading..it is a presumption that there WAS a previously unreferred to attack.
There is precious little evidence to assume anything of the sort based on what has been presented by this author.

You are not going to like this post Phil.

But, hey, you did ask me for my view.

I've just been refreshing my memory of the Brady Street Bloodstains thread from December 2014 (remember that?) and found to my surprise that you intervened in that thread to say the following to me on 6 December 2014 (#55):

"...things pop up during a thread that CAN sometimes actually be of a greater help for the whole scenario to be understood more "clearly". Tom has focused on something with a potential importance...the possible source of any eventual attack registered on the same night as the Bucks Row murder...The records at the London Hospital- which- as far as I know- have not been searched relating to this "other" event.

Therefore in order to possibly answer any question re the Brady St "happening" or nay- or any other attack in Bucks Row- searching these records may be a Godsend- in many ways!"

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3413&page=6

Does this help you resolve your concerns?

[Tom_Wescott]

Well Tom that's not a little ironic considering that one of my main complaints is that I have had to repeat questions addressed to you because of your repeated failure to answer them!

Again with this 'F' word. Why is it that the three of you hold it so close to your tongues and finger tips? What does it mean? It's driving me crazy trying to figure it out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you saying that these four posters condone your calling MrBarnett "petty and jealous" because he asked questions about the hospital record and think you were justified in doing so?

If so, in which posts have they expressed this opinion?

Did I say I said this? No. I said they expressed their opinions on this thread. Their objective and rational opinions. Now you want to try to draw them out to give their opinions on Barnett? That's kind of cold considering you claim to be defending him against some perceived insult. Pretty cold.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

You mean like Patrick, Dane, Steadmund, Gut

Are you saying that these four posters condone your calling MrBarnett "petty and jealous" because he asked questions about the hospital record and think you were justified in doing so?

If so, in which posts have they expressed this opinion?

[Fisherman]

Goodnight, Tom.

[David Orsam]

Oh no, I do not think you're creepy at all. Repetitive, perhaps, but you can't deny that.

Well Tom that's not a little ironic considering that one of my main complaints is that I have had to repeat questions addressed to you because of your repeated failure to answer them!

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman aka Christer Holmgren, star of The Missing Evidence documentary on what he thinks of the membership of Casebook.org:

I am also as certain about how many of the 25 000 you speak of are having a laugh, saying "That Wescott fellow is really toying with them" as I am that the ones saying that do not have a clue. It´s the way things go, and once we all know it, I´m fine with that.

Goodnight, Fish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If you must breath down my neck, here's a mint

I am very sure about jesting not being my department, yes. And I am equally sure that you have not admitted misrepresenting Margaret Millows´ admission date to the London Hospital.

Simple man that I am, I dislike such things.

Man, that cuts to the core, Fish. I should have known better than to lock horns with a man who plays a Ripperologist on TV. Tell me something. Did I intentionally misrepresent Margaret Millows's admission to the LH? If so, please say as much and very succinctly so that there's no ambiguity. And the same goes to anyone else who thinks so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

COMEDY RELIEF brought to you by Swedish Fish.

We can pretty much shut the thread down now because there will NOT be another post that tops this one.

If you actually believe that jesting is not your department, then you are selling yourself short, my friend. I am in awe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am very sure about jesting not being my department, yes. And I am equally sure that you have not admitted misrepresenting Margaret Millows´ admission date to the London Hospital.

Simple man that I am, I dislike such things.

I am also as certain about how many of the 25 000 you speak of are having a laugh, saying "That Wescott fellow is really toying with them" as I am that the ones saying that do not have a clue. It´s the way things go, and once we all know it, I´m fine with that.

It won´t help you one single bit, I´m afraid. You´ve sold out - and I don´t mean your books.

Now I really cannot be arsed to spend any more time on what is a basically very trivial errand. Goodnight, Tom.