Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Fisherman]

Even if the woman was admitted on the first, I still think it's an interesting find is it not? And that she could have been a victim of the ripper, no?

Even if she was attacked after Nichols, because if his true intention at that point was to remove internal organs, having failed with Nichols because he was possibly interrupted, I could see him very soon after looking for another victim. Find this woman, attacks her, she fends him off, receiving a nasty defensive wound on her arm in the process.

Is this not possible?

Of course it is, Abby - but it becomes a case like any other case of violence nevertheless. And the gist of the matter is that Millows has seemingly been presented the wrong way, by the looks of things.

Just like she may have been attacked by the Ripper, so may any other woman who was faced with street violence by an unidentified man. She can certainly not be traded off as "the one that got away", therefore.

[Abby Normal]

Even if the woman was admitted on the first, I still think it's an interesting find is it not? And that she could have been a victim of the ripper, no?

Even if she was attacked after Nichols, because if his true intention at that point was to remove internal organs, having failed with Nichols because he was possibly interrupted, I could see him very soon after looking for another victim. Find this woman, attacks her, she fends him off, receiving a nasty defensive wound on her arm in the process.

Is this not possible?

[Debra A]

Because the way I see it is that someone has seen the name Millhous, thought it might be Millows, which looks and sounds like Mallows, and was aware of a story relating to a Margaret Mallows whose daughter supposedly aged 8 was approached by Jack the Ripper in circa 1891 (if her age is correctly recorded in the 1891 census).

Just to clarify the way the name thing happened. Tom sent me the register page, asking me to look at 'Margaret Millows', I did and wrote back that I thought it could be 'Millous'. The name 'Millows' is very rare in historical records, Millow is slighlty more common but still quite rare. A lot of transcriptions of the name turn out to be other names when looking at the original record image; the name Milton for example. After searching the name Millous on Ancestry and FMP I discovered it was sometimes used interchangeably with the name Millhous(e) and I mentioned this also. At no point did I suggest any candidate for 'Margaret Millous', as I couldn't find one.


The suggestion of the name 'Mallows' and the woman identified with that name was done by Ed Stow and the poster named 'Mystery singer.'

[MrBarnett]

When you say "significant number" do you mean the three that Rob Clack posted about at jtrforums? Emma Smith and some others. Or do you mean the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Surely you know the answer to that, you've commented on his Facebook page where he lists them.

Ed looked through 1888 generally and checked 4 patients specifically:

Emma Smith
Malvina Haynes
Georgina Green
Mary Ann Austin

[Fisherman]

When you say "significant number" do you mean the three that Rob Clack posted about at jtrforums? Emma Smith and some others. Or do you mean the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I of course refer to the names mentioned by Edward on Facebook - I thought I made it clear that this was the material I was working from.

It involves Emma Smith, who we know went to the LH on the 3rd of April, and who is recorded as being admitted on that day. It involves Malvina Hayes, who was attacked late at night on the 2nd of April - and who is listed as being admitted on that day, in spite of how she would have arrived at the hospital very close to the end of the day. It involves Georgina Green, recorded as being attacked on the 5th of May - and admitted to the hospital the very same day. And it involves Mary Ann Austin, attcked on the 25th of May 1901, and listed as being admitted on the exact same day.

It does not involve the patients listed with Millows - nor does it involve any explanation at all as to why these women would have differed in any respect from the obvious norm: the admission day is the day you arrive at the hospital.

The only remaining possibility for Millows to have been attacked before Nichols is if she delayed going to the hospital for a full day or more. As far as I´m concerned, that ends the business, unless you have evidence that Millows was an exception to the overall rule. Have you?

[Tom_Wescott]

Those who read Facebook will have noticed that Edward Stow has made a check on Margaret Millows together with a significant number of other patients at the LH in 1888. It seems the patients were always listed as having been admitted on the dates they arrived at the LH.
Unless any evidence of an exception in Millows´ case can be presented, I therefore think that Millows can safely be ruled out as having arrived at the LH on any other day than September 1.

When you say "significant number" do you mean the three that Rob Clack posted about at jtrforums? Emma Smith and some others. Or do you mean the other patients listed on the same sheet as Millous from Sept. 1?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Those who read Facebook will have noticed that Edward Stow has made a check on Margaret Millows together with a significant number of other patients at the LH in 1888. It seems the patients were always listed as having been admitted on the dates they arrived at the LH.
Unless any evidence of an exception in Millows´ case can be presented, I therefore think that Millows can safely be ruled out as having arrived at the LH on any other day than September 1.

[Tom_Wescott]

Great Tom, but the point I have been banging away at is that it would have been very helpful to your reader (i.e. me) if you had included in your book the pertinent information that Millous was shown in the record as having been admitted to hospital on 1 September - then you could have debated whether she was a Ripper victim to your heart's content and I wouldn't have said a single word about your theory. After all these posts, I'm actually none the wiser as to why you didn't mention it, but can only assume you didn't spot it.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt you're extending me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Erm, do you think you might not be jumping the gun here Tom? Has it actually been established that the woman whose name you transcribed in your book as Margaret Millhous (and who you speculate in a footnote in your book might be Margaret Millhouse) is, in fact, Margaret Mallows?

Hmmm....do you actually own my book?

Because the way I see it is that someone has seen the name Millhous, thought it might be Millows, which looks and sounds like Mallows, and was aware of a story relating to a Margaret Mallows whose daughter supposedly aged 8 was approached by Jack the Ripper in circa 1891 (if her age is correctly recorded in the 1891 census).

Actually, the register reads 'Millows'.

The problem is that I find it hard to connect the legend story about a young child being "approached" by JTR with a woman being brutally attacked in the small hours of the morning some distance from her home (with her young daughter accompanying her?).

But stranger coincidences have happened I suppose.

I'd find it difficult to make the connection as well if that woman hadn't had her arm cut when the Ripper was on the prowl. But, this is Ripperology, so when in doubt, write it off as coincidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Does that make it a certainty in my mind that Millous was the victim? No. Or that anything even happened on Brady Street? No. And I say that in my book.

Great Tom, but the point I have been banging away at is that it would have been very helpful to your reader (i.e. me) if you had included in your book the pertinent information that Millous was shown in the record as having been admitted to hospital on 1 September - then you could have debated whether she was a Ripper victim to your heart's content and I wouldn't have said a single word about your theory. After all these posts, I'm actually none the wiser as to why you didn't mention it, but can only assume you didn't spot it.

[David Orsam]

End result? A woman with a cut arm whose family has a Jack the Ripper legend about. Not bad for a day's work.

Erm, do you think you might not be jumping the gun here Tom? Has it actually been established that the woman whose name you transcribed in your book as Margaret Millhous (and who you speculate in a footnote in your book might be Margaret Millhouse) is, in fact, Margaret Mallows?

Because the way I see it is that someone has seen the name Millhous, thought it might be Millows, which looks and sounds like Mallows, and was aware of a story relating to a Margaret Mallows whose daughter supposedly aged 8 was approached by Jack the Ripper in circa 1891 (if her age is correctly recorded in the 1891 census).

The problem is that I find it hard to connect the legend story about a young child being "approached" by JTR with a woman being brutally attacked in the small hours of the morning some distance from her home (with her young daughter accompanying her?).

But stranger coincidences have happened I suppose.

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

I do not believe in too many absolutes. If I think a bleeding person MIGHT have gone to the hospital, then I consider it worthwhile to check. I don't have to first be convinced of an idea to consider it a worthwhile lead and follow it up. End result? A woman with a cut arm whose family has a Jack the Ripper legend about. Not bad for a day's work. And there's still 270 pages of the book to go. Does that make it a certainty in my mind that Millous was the victim? No. Or that anything even happened on Brady Street? No. And I say that in my book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I daresay your Brady Street theory is more convoluted than my own. But props to you for even having one. Pretty much every other Ripperologist finds it more convenient to simply ignore it.

It's no more than a little theory I once posted in this forum (and then, as usual, had to defend against the massed hordes of sceptics). I won't be writing a book about it any time soon.

[David Orsam]

Just so we're clear. You were investigating the Brady Street bloodstains ages before me and the reason you did not think to look at the London Hospital registers is because it makes no sense that a bleeding woman who'd just been attacked might seek medical help. And the reason I DID get this idea is because I'm fantastical.

Tom, just to be fully clear. I have never "investigated" the Brady Street bloodstains. I did no more than read some online newspaper articles and make a few posts about them on this forum. All I ever investigated was the Colville story and the location of Honeys Mews.

It's pure nonsense to tell me that I did not think to look at the London Hospital registers. The reason for this is that you told me you were going to do this yourself in January 2015. Had I been so minded (and pretty evil, which is not me) I could have visited the London Hospital myself to check the records and posted any findings on this forum long before your book came out but I simply did not care enough.

And had I done so I would have found nothing in any case.

[David Orsam]

Call me sentimental, but where I come from, if you're bleeding profusely and standing across from a hospital, it occurs to you to go there.

Thanks for confirming that I was reading you correctly because it has been suggested that you were open to the possibility of a woman being injured but not going to hospital.

Firstly you are assuming that there was an attack. Okay fine, I agree it's a strong possibility (as I posted on this forum over two years ago).

Secondly you are assuming that it was not an attack on Nichols. I disagree (but I could be wrong).

Thirdly, you are assuming that a woman was bleeding "profusely". Perhaps, but I'm not aware of profuse amounts of blood being found in Brady Street. You tell us it was a single bloodstain.

Fourthly, not everyone injured in an assault needs to go to hospital and not everyone who goes to hospital for treatment is admitted. Do the hospital records include entries for A&E for people treated, patched up and then sent home?

Fifthly, if Margaret Millous was, in fact, admitted to hospital on 1 September would you not agree that this would make her an unlikely candidate for having been attacked by anyone in Brady Street at least 20 hours earlier?