Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[David Orsam]

I tried looking back for you post but I guess I went too far because I found myself distracted by a whole bunch of posts from people telling me they enjoyed my book and about how a Margaret Mallows might have been attacked by Jack the Ripper.

Well that's fine but did a single one of those people appreciate that the records show that this Margaret Mallows was actually admitted to hospital a full 20 hours after the attack on Nichols, at least, rather than at about the same time as your book appears to claim?

If not then did they enjoy the book as fiction or non-fiction?

[David Orsam]

You've just reminded me of something I hadn't thought about in a long time. When I was in high school this new kid in school, a pretty big guy, would hang around my girlfriend when I wasn't around. It didn't bug me much, until one day she told me he'd slapped her on the butt. That, I'm sure you'd agree, is NOT cool. I was pretty scrawny then, and he looked like he hit the gym every day. But I had to defend my girl's honor and so I confronted him and told him what I thought of his actions. I wasn't looking for a fight, just an apology, but I was braced for a beating. To my surprise, he immediately melted and became apologetic. I told him it wasn't ME he needed to apologize to, but her. So I marched him over to her and he apologized and there never was another problem. That made me feel all puffy chested and good! It taught me that sometimes you can take on a big dog and win. Other times it's just futile and foolish. But you never know if you don't try, right?

Was there any point to this?

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't agree, Tom, because I still don't know on what basis you felt able to state that MrBarnett misread the hospital record and I'm certainly surprised you haven't apologised for making this statement which you now seem to accept was wrong.

You've just reminded me of something I hadn't thought about in a long time. When I was in high school this new kid in school, a pretty big guy, would hang around my girlfriend when I wasn't around. It didn't bug me much, until one day she told me he'd slapped her on the butt. That, I'm sure you'd agree, is NOT cool. I was pretty scrawny then, and he looked like he hit the gym every day. But I had to defend my girl's honor and so I confronted him and told him what I thought of his actions. I wasn't looking for a fight, just an apology, but I was braced for a beating. To my surprise, he immediately melted and became apologetic. I told him it wasn't ME he needed to apologize to, but her. So I marched him over to her and he apologized and there never was another problem. That made me feel all puffy chested and good! It taught me that sometimes you can take on a big dog and win. Other times it's just futile and foolish. But you never know if you don't try, right?

Well I note with satisfaction that there has been no substantive response to my post #293 of this evening - certainly no disagreement with it - so I'm concluding that I got that all right and I have explained your explanation fully and correctly to the members of this forum.

I tried looking back for you post but I guess I went too far because I found myself distracted by a whole bunch of posts from people telling me they enjoyed my book and about how a Margaret Mallows might have been attacked by Jack the Ripper. As for the other members of the forum, I'm sure they don't need YOU to explain ME to them. That's why I wrote a book, you know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I believe I've explained myself fully, David, either or both here or at the forums.

I don't agree, Tom, because I still don't know on what basis you felt able to state that MrBarnett misread the hospital record and I'm certainly surprised you haven't apologised for making this statement which you now seem to accept was wrong.

Well I note with satisfaction that there has been no substantive response to my post #293 of this evening - certainly no disagreement with it - so I'm concluding that I got that all right and I have explained your explanation fully and correctly to the members of this forum.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know why you keep making this personal Tom but the fact of the matter is that I am more friends with you than I am with MrBarnett, with whom I have not only had no contact but who, I seem to recollect, has made some posts attacking me in the past (not me personally I don't think, but my posts).

It's not about personalities though, Tom, it's just about a simple factual point which you could have resolved at least three days ago by accepting that the record shows a date of admission of Margaret of 1 September, rather than, as you did, claiming that MrBarnett had not only misread the record but (bizarrely) was motivated by jealousy.

Having clarified what the record actually says, if you had any arguments as to why the record is, or might be, wrong or misleading you could have made them then.

I believe I've explained myself fully, David, either or both here or at the forums. To be honest, the two (or 3) threads are beginning to run together in my mind. By the way, you get a shout out in my Rippercast interview just posted.

I appreciate that you don't know Gary Barnett very well or at all. Please keep that in mind when assuming what I have to say about him is either wrong or 'bizarre'. Maybe it's neither. Or, as he says, perhaps I'm a bit loopy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

OMG, it's totes adorbs that you two have found each other and bonded over your....erm...similarity. It's like Matt Dillon and the pizza guy in Something About Mary.

I don't know why you keep making this personal Tom but the fact of the matter is that I am more friends with you than I am with MrBarnett, with whom I have not only had no contact but who, I seem to recollect, has made some posts attacking me in the past (not me personally I don't think, but my posts).

It's not about personalities though, Tom, it's just about a simple factual point which you could have resolved at least three days ago by accepting that the record shows a date of admission of Margaret of 1 September, rather than, as you did, claiming that MrBarnett had not only misread the record but (bizarrely) was motivated by jealousy.

Having clarified what the record actually says, if you had any arguments as to why the record is, or might be, wrong or misleading you could have made them then.

[Tom_Wescott]

One Minute he says he's a fan, then he friend-requests me on Facebook; and then, when I persist in asking some awkward questions, I'm old, drunk and mad.

Previously when I pointed out the list of geographical errors in his book, he started mumbling darkly about influential Ripperologists who were watching what I was writing, but had not yet responded.

And I'm the loopy one?

I'm still a fan! I get all worked up over your books, post incessantly about inconsequential details in hopes of a 'Gotcha' moment. I even buy all the old journals off eBay of the stuff you've written in the past so I can compare and contrast and maybe grab a new 'Gotcha' moment. I enter into new fields of study with the clear objective of alienating EVERYONE except the lowest common denominators. And I inspire betting pools about how many times I'll repeat the same asinine and irrelevant question.

Oh crap, you're right...I AM the loopy one, because I've completely reversed our roles here. Pardon me while I go off and deal with my new identity crisis.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If you care to look back at why I intervened in this thread you will see that it was in response to a post you addressed to MrBarnett which stated:

"Gary, you're really far too old and accomplished to be this petty and jealous."

OMG, it's totes adorbs that you two have found each other and bonded over your....erm...similarity. It's like Matt Dillon and the pizza guy in Something About Mary.

So no, Tom, I do not want you to have made a big mistake, I did not buy your book to find your big mistake and I have no "obsession" about you.

Then my apologies. As you said, I must have read you completely wrong.

It's time to man up Tom and just say that you got it wrong on this occasion. Can you even do it?

Doh!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

The question of the date of admittance of an individual on a London Hospital record should have been a very simple question of fact which could and should have been resolved very quickly (rather than having to play a game of 20 questions) and I have no idea why Tom, or anyone else, would think that an attempt by someone to resolve it has any kind of personal element whatsoever.

[MrBarnett]

Is that what you want, David? You want me to have made a 'big mistake'? Why would you spend your money on a book and then hope for a 'big mistake'? That seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to me. But then, I'm of the cut who champions such works and hopes for their success. Does that make me the weird one? The odd one out?

And no, I don't believe I've made a 'big mistake' regarding Millous, although it's recently been pointed out to me in private that by responding to certain individuals on certain sites who may or may not be 'all there' that I'm only giving them more ammunition for their personal obsessions. Perhaps that's true, and if so, that would be my big mistake.

But why is it important to you for certain people in the field to be guilty of making a 'big mistake'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

One Minute he says he's a fan, then he friend-requests me on Facebook; and then, when I persist in asking some awkward questions, I'm old, drunk and mad.

Previously when I pointed out the list of geographical errors in his book, he started mumbling darkly about influential Ripperologists who were watching what I was writing, but had not yet responded.

And I'm the loopy one?

[David Orsam]

Is that what you want, David? You want me to have made a 'big mistake'? Why would you spend your money on a book and then hope for a 'big mistake'? That seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to me. But then, I'm of the cut who champions such works and hopes for their success. Does that make me the weird one? The odd one out?

And no, I don't believe I've made a 'big mistake' regarding Millous, although it's recently been pointed out to me in private that by responding to certain individuals on certain sites who may or may not be 'all there' that I'm only giving them more ammunition for their personal obsessions. Perhaps that's true, and if so, that would be my big mistake.

But why is it important to you for certain people in the field to be guilty of making a 'big mistake'?

Tom, can I suggest you set aside these bizarre theories you clearly have about me because you don't understand me at all, although I love the way you ask me a question before answering it yourself and then concluding, on the basis of your own answer, that I am weird.

If you care to look back at why I intervened in this thread you will see that it was in response to a post you addressed to MrBarnett which stated:

"Gary, you're really far too old and accomplished to be this petty and jealous."

It was actually the total injustice of this comment which drew me into this thread which is why I said "I don't think that's a fair or appropriate comment, Tom. MrBarnett has made a very pertinent observation which demands a response." It has now become perfectly clear that MrBarnett was entirely justified in observing that the hospital record shows MM as having been admitted on 1 September.

So no, Tom, I do not want you to have made a big mistake, I did not buy your book to find your big mistake and I have no "obsession" about you. All I see in your comments here, as I saw in your comments aimed at MrBarnett, are an attempt to deflect attention away from an embarrassing error which you clearly realise you have made but childishly refuse to admit to.

It's time to man up Tom and just say that you got it wrong on this occasion. Can you even do it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Is this a very long and weird way of you admitting you made a big mistake in your book Tom?

Is that what you want, David? You want me to have made a 'big mistake'? Why would you spend your money on a book and then hope for a 'big mistake'? That seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to me. But then, I'm of the cut who champions such works and hopes for their success. Does that make me the weird one? The odd one out?

And no, I don't believe I've made a 'big mistake' regarding Millous, although it's recently been pointed out to me in private that by responding to certain individuals on certain sites who may or may not be 'all there' that I'm only giving them more ammunition for their personal obsessions. Perhaps that's true, and if so, that would be my big mistake.

But why is it important to you for certain people in the field to be guilty of making a 'big mistake'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

P.S. Anyone following this thread is aware of the error I'm REALLY guilty of in your eyes -misattributing a source to someone else instead of yourself. An honest mistake on my part but one that clearly unsettled you.

I've read over this a few times Tom and I literally have no idea what you mean by it. Misattributing a source to someone instead of myself? What????

[David Orsam]

David, you should know that it's okay with me that it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't need to. It all makes a great deal of sense to a great deal of people. It's also okay with me if you choose to be semantical over my forum posts. It's never me who ends up looking lost or silly. I can only hope you write a book about my book the way you so honored Simon Wood, whose sales subsequently soared, leading him to win a book of the year award. My book is still #1 at Amazon UK (Bank Holiday Murders is #7) so I don't know that I need the help, but hey, free publicity! Yankee Dollars! But you'd better get on it. Simon's working on his next best seller and I know that will keep you occupied. And I don't want your essay series on Ripper Confidential to be a rush job!

Is this a very long and weird way of you admitting you made a big mistake in your book Tom?

[David Orsam]

Mr. Barnett received his copy of the records from me, or did you not know that? Your memory is slipping, David. You asked when I thought she was admitted to the hospital and I said Aug. 31st. I've never said 'the entry was 31 August'. Mr. Barnett has also conceded the entries in the register were made later and out of sequence. This obsessive focus on an entry date is fogging over the far more compelling pieces of evidence.

I'm perfectly aware that you MrBarnett obtained his copy of the records from you Tom and I have no idea why you think I might believe otherwise.

What I simply don't understand is how you reached the conclusion that Margaret was admitted to hospital on 31 August if you were aware that the documentary record states that she was admitted on 1 September. There is no other evidence about her admission to hospital other than the documentary record is there?

And when MrBarnett said that the record shows that she was admitted on 1 September you claimed that he had misread the record. How did he do so if the record shows an entry of 1 September?

I certainly never read in your book that the record shows admittance on 1 September. Were you deliberately withholding that information from your readers?