Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Jon Guy]

For those unfamiliar with the British domestic scene, Diane Abbott is a respected mathematician with modest political ambitions.

I thought it was Sid`s wife in Bless This House ?

[Robert]

I suppose a transcription of an original or a transcription of a transcription etc might explain the spelling issue.

[Debra A]

I vaguely remember, many years ago, perhaps before the big Casebook crash, someone started cataloguing the admission records for autumn of 1888 here in his posts.

I don't remember anyone doing it for the London Hospital records but Chris Scott did transcribe the Whitechapel Infirmary admission and discharge records for 88 and 89 and post them.

[Debra A]

The Porters did indeed sort the women from the men in their records.

"“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. To the right and left are two rooms, one for the reception of women, and the other for the reception of men."

Whether the Porter records are one and the same as the ones you are seeing, I have no idea.

I'd guess, if they only cover patients admitted to wards, they would not be Porter records, if they cover general admissions, they probably would be Porter records.

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.

[drstrange169]

I vaguely remember, many years ago, perhaps before the big Casebook crash, someone started cataloguing the admission records for autumn of 1888 here in his posts.

[drstrange169]

The Porters did indeed sort the women from the men in their records.

"“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. To the right and left are two rooms, one for the reception of women, and the other for the reception of men."

Whether the Porter records are one and the same as the ones you are seeing, I have no idea.

I'd guess, if they only cover patients admitted to wards, they would not be Porter records, if they cover general admissions, they probably would be Porter records.

[Debra A]

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.

Hi DS,

Thanks.

One thing to make clear here; no one is 'currently 'accessing' these records as far as I'm aware, otherwise we would know for sure what the records were and be able to give source numbers.

Tom requested copies of female admissions from the dates he stated in the book from the archives and then shared those images with both Gary and myself. The pages are not professionally photographed and some pages are quite faded and headings and pages cropped accidentally. The copies I received did not come with ref. numbers but It is my understanding that the pages come from female patient records for two sets of admission records, one of surgeon's admissions and one physician's.

I may be wrong here, but If these were the porter's books I'd expect there to be male and female patients listed together as they entered, not separated in to different books. These registers seem to have been compiled afterwards.
Regarding the date; Margaret Millous was admitted with an accident number ( I mistakenly said 'no ticket' yesterday) and the date in the margin that heads the list of admissions Margaret appears with is Sept 1. Margaret is recorded as being discharged on 18th Sept after a 17 day stay.

[drstrange169]

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.

[Dane_F]

I look forward to the episode of Rippercast. I am intrigued by this date issue as even from an impartial observers standpoint it does lead one to wonder what exactly was the scenario of Mrs Millous admittance to the hospital.

There is a stark difference between medical records showing someone having a hand/arm injury being admitted the day of the Polly murder and the day after. Unless it is shown that the hospital sometimes recorded the admittance dates later.

I hope this matter gets cleared up. Millous could be one of the most intriguing characters to be added to the JTR story EVER if Tom is right.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you for giving a clear and direct answer to my question Tom.

But you will have to forgive me for I am puzzled. I've not seen any of the records in question other than the small extract posted on JTR forums by Gary Barnett three days ago which appears to show that Margaret's entry to hospital was on 1 September 1888, it falling under the heading "Sep 1". Can you explain that?

Further, earlier in this thread (#213), Debra Arif stated:

"Regarding the admission of this woman to the hospital. The admission record for her clearly states she was admitted on Sept 1st without a ticket."

Are you saying that Debra has mis-interpreted the admission record?

Are you trying to get me killed? I know better than to say Debs misinterpreted a record! I just now recorded a new episode of Rippercast (their most downloaded episode in history) that should be up in a couple of days. I talk about all this stuff on there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Aug. 31st

Thank you for giving a clear and direct answer to my question Tom.

But you will have to forgive me for I am puzzled. I've not seen any of the records in question other than the small extract posted on JTR forums by Gary Barnett three days ago which appears to show that Margaret's entry to hospital was on 1 September 1888, it falling under the heading "Sep 1". Can you explain that?

Further, earlier in this thread (#213), Debra Arif stated:

"Regarding the admission of this woman to the hospital. The admission record for her clearly states she was admitted on Sept 1st without a ticket."

Are you saying that Debra has mis-interpreted the admission record?

[Tom_Wescott]

A question with two possible answers certainly can be a direct question but all you are doing is ducking and diving and evading it because the answer "yes" to a question with two possible answers is certainly not a direct answer.

Focus on #231 if you prefer. I think the question in that one was very clear:

what date was MM admitted to hospital?

Aug. 31st

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I answered it. Yes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. A question containing two possible answers is not a 'direct' question.

A question with two possible answers certainly can be a direct question but all you are doing is ducking and diving and evading it because the answer "yes" to a question with two possible answers is certainly not a direct answer.

Focus on #231 if you prefer. I think the question in that one was very clear:

what date was MM admitted to hospital?

[David Orsam]

You're doing what Gary does. Isolating one item and obsessing on it. What I do instead is take in a lot of disparate pieces of information to form a larger picture. In the case of Gary, when I make a comment like that, I'm not referencing a single comment. So, in short, you're taking me out of context.

I'm not sure how asking you a question is a sign of me 'obsessing' about something. Would you mind answering the question?

[Tom_Wescott]

I already asked you a direct question in #225, Tom, but it wasn't answered.

I will repeat it though:

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?

I answered it. Yes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. A question containing two possible answers is not a 'direct' question.