Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[GUT]

Yeah I've got some pretty straightforward names that are mis spelt, recorded St times.

[Phil Carter]

All,

Just a side note.

I am distantly related to the Maillou family of (mostly) Shoreditch and Hoxton. Their surname has been misspelt or mis-registered in official and unofficial documents as..
Maillon, Mallou, Mallous, Maillow, Maillous amongst others.

When reading the problems associated with the name concerned in this thread, it (mis-naming) is something to be kept in mind I feel. Checking records for named persons is always arduous from this period of time..and other periods I might add. I am sure others can confirm this.


Phil

Just a side note, as said.

[MysterySinger]

With regard to Margaret Millous, I believe this to be Margaret Mallows - in the records variously as Mallows, Mellows and Millows and forename sometimes Mary or Margaret.

She was a charlady and was married to husband John who was a bricklayer. They had children Maria, John and Esther. I also understand that Esther was interviewed by the BBC in the 1950s/60s re being approached aged 8 by Jack the Ripper (I think more likely aged 4 at the time). Esther was married to Abraham (Arthur) Samuels. I wonder whether a JTR suspect carried out an assault whilst Margaret was actually with her children?

With husband John, they lived in 1881 at 17 Goulstone Court and in 1891 at 5 Harriot Place (close to Fashion Street). John died in the second quarter of 1893 and in September Margaret Mallows was residing at 18 Thrawl Street.

If I have the right lady, Margaret was previously Margaret O'Leary.

This was my original post re Margaret Mallows. As I sometimes do, I thought I would attempt to flesh out the character known as Millous in the book upon reading it for the first time. So many characters seem to exist as a name only in Ripperlore and I find it fascinating to use Ancestry to find out some more background where I can. It didn't take long to come across a likely candidate in Margaret Mallows. The Ripper tale regarding Esther came via the usual Ancestry links. In most cases I don't bother sharing my findings, of which there are many, but this seemed too compelling not to, even before the info re Esther came to light. I was trying to assist others - more dedicated Ripperologists than I - with some basic info as, for example, a newspaper search might just throw up something using the alternative names.

At this stage I have no info on her hospital admission date other than the book and this forum though September 1st is the most obvious choice as far as I can tell from this forum. I've not yet seen any posts from anywhere else than on here but I'll probably get around to it at some point.

I'm near the end of Tom's book which I have greatly enjoyed reading and I've got the Bank Holiday Murders book waiting for me next. Yay.

[Phil Carter]

David,

Something concerns me.

Repeatedly on this thread, the "challenge" has been thrown down for anyone, in some posts, you, to provide a more likely "candidate" as to the possibility of the same killer of Polly having "attacked" another woman other than this Mallows/Millows/Mellows woman.

Erm..isnt that being just a little presumptuous anyway?
There is reasonable doubt as to whether the wounds to the forearm where defensive wounds because of an attack or a suicide attempt.
There is a reasonable doubt, stronger than the first such, above, that the actual date of the injured woman's arrival at the London Hospital is matching the date needed to enhance the proposition made by the author.
Thirdly, there is the disturbing fact that not one newspaper reported this incident, in the wake of a murder 200 yards or so away..which by following all the newspapers throughout the period of murders one sees a proliferation of reports linked to the Whitechapel murderer/Leather Apron.
Lastly, there is no known police report of any such "attack" which further relegates the "possibility" of a "same person attacker" having done such a thing at this time.

Therefore...why would you, I or anyone else find the need to "find a better candidate" for something that cannot be established even occurred?

To do so is to believe that it happened. The evidence clearly shows that it was, at this particular time and date, highly unlikely as both the newspapers would have pounced upon the tiniest hint of such a thing, and there would have been mention of it in police papers.

IF Mallows/Millows/Mellows WAS attacked....and the attacker failed in killing her, it would have been registered by both of the above as was done on other occasions during this 4 month or so period of killings.

Exactly why DO we have to "find a better candidate"? To do so only enhances the proposition the suthor wants us to believe.


Phil

[Fisherman]

You've thusly proved yourself the wisest of the bunch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I´m even wiser, Tom - I realize that you will not answer the question I asked.

The downside of this business is that I expected more from you. A lot more, to be frank.

The upside is that you will have precious little to live up to in the future, and so life should be easier for you in days to come.

Being unversed in modern day entertainers like Miley Cyrus, I can offer a man from the olden days, the dane Robert Storm Pedersen, who said "It´s but a short warmth to wet your pants". If you apply that to the pertinent issue of choices - such as that of reliability and/or booksales - you may be wise enough yourself to understand my take on things.

[Tom_Wescott]

But I would not want our exchange to topple over into pub talk (since it allows you to excel in a discipline that has no bearing on the overall matters discussed out here)

You've thusly proved yourself the wisest of the bunch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom is a brilliant as far as ripperology goes; are you really gonna keep this crap up? Comon!

Jerry D, thank you for that. You're a rockstar. I don't know that either Ed nor myself are 'brilliant'. But I do know that we both love the subject and simply disagree on some things but otherwise get along fine. For instance, I don't think Charles Cross was the Thames Torso killer. He does. Allegedly, his evidence for this is stronger than my evidence for...well....anything! My section on Nichols does no favors to the 'Lechmere' theory. That wasn't my intention at all, it's just how some of the research turned out. So, he and Fisherman have every right to be up in arms. Had they not been, I think I would have been offended. I can't say the same of some others whose motives aren't as clear. But as long as people find my book and the threads about it entertaining, I'm cool. As Miley Cyrus sings:

Remember only God can judge ya
Forget the haters
Cuz somebody loves ya

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[jerryd]

Tom is a brilliant as far as ripperology goes; are you really gonna keep this crap up? Comon!

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I went and checked out Ed's new threads. Not his clothes, mind you, but his FB threads about Millous/Millows/Mallows. Pretty fair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As laconisms go, yes. The same goes for your statement that Edward is a "good" researcher.
The truth of the matter is that the FB threads are absolutely spot on, and not just "pretty fair", and that Edward is a brilliant researcher, not just a good one.

Otherwise, he would not be my master, remember?

But I would not want our exchange to topple over into pub talk (since it allows you to excel in a discipline that has no bearing on the overall matters discussed out here), so I´ll settle for just asking you this one question:

Do you accept that the material Edward presents urges us to accept that Margaret Millows was admitted to the London Hospital on September 1:st?

A simple yes will do. A simple no will take a lengthy explanation, and it has to be way better than "the archivist said so".

Maybe your stating that the FB material was pretty fair was a roundabout way of saying yes, what do I know?

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish,

I went and checked out Ed's new threads. Not his clothes, mind you, but his FB threads about Millous/Millows/Mallows. Pretty fair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I am being nice Tom. I haven't smeared anyone or questioned their motives for posting or accused anyone of being jealous or been generally rude or insulting. I have confined myself at all times to addressing the contents of the posts and directly meeting the points under discussion. If only everyone else would do the same, what a wonderful world it would be.

Oh stop pretending you care, David. The self-righteous act has grown stale. Like suddenly it's me and a bunch of Catholic Bishops. I hardly think so.

Dane, you're good peeps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dane_F]

No, Dane, you can't have been following properly for there is no leeway whatsoever for "the suggestion of the possibility that she actually came in on the 31st".

In your opinion.

[David Orsam]

Commissioner Orsam! Please, be nice.

I am being nice Tom. I haven't smeared anyone or questioned their motives for posting or accused anyone of being jealous or been generally rude or insulting. I have confined myself at all times to addressing the contents of the posts and directly meeting the points under discussion. If only everyone else would do the same, what a wonderful world it would be.

[Tom_Wescott]

Commissioner Orsam! Please, be nice.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Let's also not forget that while people have been arguing over Margret Millous and the date she came into the hospital no one seems to have argued the rest of Tom's points about that evening or his explanation of there actually being a bloodstain (possibly a hand). These are very critical points in my eyes.

Well I've discussed it with him in this thread (having discussed it at great length with him and others in another thread two years ago) so I'm not sure that 'no one' is strictly accurate.