Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[David Orsam]

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.

[John G]

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

[Abby Normal]

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?

[MrBarnett]

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

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Abby Normal]

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?

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Elamarna]

Good point Steve. And before Tom twists my point out of all recognition, let me make it once more:

I am objecting to his categorical statement that MM sustained her injuries on the morning of 30/31. I'm also questioning why he provides us with a full transcription of Susan Ward's record (with just one small mistake) but speaks only in the vaguest terms about MM's (with a much more significant mistake).

To be fair I am more concerned on the date of admission.
Depending on the extent of the injury it is possible that she may not have attended immediately especially if the blood loss had been staunched, however given the length of stay that seems unlikely but not impossible.
Tom has made it very clear that he believes the admission date to be 31st, and as I said previously the date of the 1st need not be conclusive I would however like to know what makes him so certain?

Steve

[MrBarnett]

Certainly the entry does appear to cast the suggestion in a different light. It seems a shame to me that Tom does not at present wish to give a definitive reason for his beleif, hopefully we will get one.

However you seem to accept that the records were filled in retrospectively, and having done that myself I am well aware that dates entered are NOT always correct.

With that in mind it is possible that the date of the first could be wrong, however in the absence of a counter argument we must I feel at present accept the 1st as the date of admission.

It would be good of we could reach a conclusion soon rather than later.


Steve

Good point Steve. And before Tom twists my point out of all recognition, let me make it once more:

I am objecting to his categorical statement that MM sustained her injuries on the morning of 30/31. I'm also questioning why he provides us with a full transcription of Susan Ward's record (with just one small mistake) but speaks only in the vaguest terms about MM's (with a much more significant mistake).

[Elamarna]

Certainly the entry does appear to cast the suggestion in a different light. It seems a shame to me that Tom does not at present wish to give a definitive reason for his beleif, hopefully we will get one.

However you seem to accept that the records were filled in retrospectively, and having done that myself I am well aware that dates entered are NOT always correct.

With that in mind it is possible that the date of the first could be wrong, however in the absence of a counter argument we must I feel at present accept the 1st as the date of admission.

It would be good of we could reach a conclusion soon rather than later.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Hello Debra,

>>I haven't looked in to the protocol of admissions to the London Hospital. Was admission recorded immediately on entering the hospital for treatment? What I mean is- was there an outpatients department where casualties without a ticket could walk in and be treated and then admitted later to a ward if the case was serious enough?<<

Patients were admitted by the porters who had a large glass office in the middle of the entrance, I have a picture of it somewhere.

"“In the receiving-room a porter is stationed night and day, and when patients are brought in by the police or others, he promptly admits them, and hands them over to the nurses."

Montague Williams, writing about the London hospital in 1894

Presumably, it is these Porter admissions records, everyone is currently accessing.

Thanks, DrStrange.

So patients were 'admitted' by porters as they entered the hospital.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks. I can see that says the men and women were physically separated after admission but is that the same as the porter keeping separate male and female admission books?
The records Tom obtained are split further into female surgeon's admissions and female physician's admissions. The information may have been taken from the porter's book but I don't think these are the porter's books themselves but registers compiled at a later date.

Hi Debs,

Yes, the fact that the surgeons/physicians patients are segregated and that within each category (accident/without/ticket) patients are listed consecutively suggests very strongly that the records were compiled retrospectively.


Gary

[MrBarnett]

I don't think that's a fair or appropriate comment, Tom. MrBarnett has made a very pertinent observation which demands a response. Do you accept that the woman in question was admitted to hospital on a different day to the attack on Nichols or are you saying that MrBarnett has read the London Hospital records wrong?

David,

Over on JTRForums Tom stated that I misread the record. Perhaps he can explain how.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

It's clear from a careful study of the admissions records that they must have been compiled retrospectively.

Tom, why don't you stop the ****-stirring and personal insults and just explain why you are absolutely convinced that MM was admitted on the 31/8 when the record says 1/9.

My point is that in skimming over the record in your book and categorically stating that MM was admitted on 31/8 you are deliberately misleading your readers. The only record I have seen gives the date as 1/9.