Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

I already thought this was an odd form of wording, Tom, for you to write that the archivist "had" these people being admitted on 31 August, as opposed to the archivist telling you this was the case, but I now see from your subsequent posts on JTR Forums that even this limited claim is not true.

On its own, this doesn't even make sense

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!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh hello! You told me two days ago that the entry was 31 August didn't you? Have you changed your mind?

Did MrBarnett read the hospital record correctly after all?

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hence the Sept. 1st entry.

Oh hello! You told me two days ago that the entry was 31 August didn't you? Have you changed your mind?

Did MrBarnett read the hospital record correctly after all?

[David Orsam]

The archivist who provides these records had these as people being admitted on August 31st.

I already thought this was an odd form of wording, Tom, for you to write that the archivist "had" these people being admitted on 31 August, as opposed to the archivist telling you this was the case, but I now see from your subsequent posts on JTR Forums that even this limited claim is not true.

What I understand has actually happened is that you asked the archivist of the London Hospital for records of admittance in the period from 10pm on 30th August to the time of Nichols' death and that, in response, you received the document showing, amongst other entries, an entry for the admittance of MM. It is on this fact alone that you are basing your conclusion that her admittance was on 31st August.

On its own, this doesn't even make sense because, if you follow your own logic, she could have been admitted between 10pm and midnight on 30th August. But has it not occurred to you that it was impossible for the archivist to satisfy your request, because the entries in the hospital record are not timed? So there was no way on earth he (or she) could have given you entries of admission exclusively between 10pm on 30 Aug and circa 3:45am on 31 Aug. He (or she) has obviously given you a document containing a range of entries in which patients admitted between those times/dates must fall but which also, inevitably, includes entries outside of those times/dates.

Further, it is clear from your JTR forum post that the archivist has not told you, either directly or indirectly, that MM was admitted on 31 August. It was a pure assumption on your part.

Given that the very experienced researcher Debra Arif has stated categorically that the document shows that MM was admitted to hospital on 1 September – at least 20 hours after the murder of Nichols – can you provide a single sensible reason why her conclusion should not be accepted?

[John G]

Cutting the radial artery is sometimes a means of attempted suicide. Nonetheless, such attempts are often unsuccessful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6666386, and https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ctive_analysis.

An explanation for this is that arteries have muscles around them, which can contract to stem the bleeding:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/...ics.davidkelly

[Tom_Wescott]

I donīt think anybody has claimed it was necessarily the wrist that was cut, Tom - what is said is that a cut wrist would tally with an opened-up radial artery, and so it cannot be ruled out that it was a suicide attempt.
If you have information to the contrary, it would be interesting to take part of it.

As an aside, regardless if she attempted suicide, that does not mean that she must have sought out the hospital on her own account. She could have been brought there by somebody else, could she not? Plus, of course, it is not uncommon for those who try to take their lives to regret it and try and save themselves.

The woman listed just under Millous named I believe 'Margaret Hurley' was clearly marked as suicidal and in the same hand as Millous's entry. It seems reasonable to me that had Millous come in with a slit wrist she would have been similarly marked as 'suicidal', whether or not she regretted it and tried to save herself.

And yes, regardless of how she received the injury, she may have passed out from blood loss and then brought to the hospital by someone else on the morning of August 31st, not able to fully provide her details until the next day. Hence the Sept. 1st entry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

The radial artery is the major artery in the forearm. But it seems it's been decided it was her wrist that was cut? Did she cut her wrist and then run immediately to London Hospital? Did she perhaps cut her own wrist in front of Honey's Mews and then run screaming to LH?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I donīt think anybody has claimed it was necessarily the wrist that was cut, Tom - what is said is that a cut wrist would tally with an opened-up radial artery, and so it cannot be ruled out that it was a suicide attempt.
If you have information to the contrary, it would be interesting to take part of it.

As an aside, regardless if she attempted suicide, that does not mean that she must have sought out the hospital on her own account. She could have been brought there by somebody else, could she not? Plus, of course, it is not uncommon for those who try to take their lives to regret it and try and save themselves.

[Elamarna]

The radial artery is the major artery in the forearm. But it seems it's been decided it was her wrist that was cut? Did she cut her wrist and then run immediately to London Hospital? Did she perhaps cut her own wrist in front of Honey's Mews and then run screaming to LH?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,
There is indeed a tendency to always assume the most obvious. Radial artery goes through wrist so must be cut there. As you point out it is the major artery in the Forearm. And indeed it need not have been so serve as to require immediate attention.
I know that is not what you have said in the book, but it is indeed possible that the initial blood loss while impressive to see may not have been that great. However over hours it may have continued to bleed resulting in a great deal of blood lose, which would lead to cardiac arrest eventually if unattended to. This alone could account for the 17 day stay in hospital.


Steve

[Tom_Wescott]

The radial artery is the major artery in the forearm. But it seems it's been decided it was her wrist that was cut? Did she cut her wrist and then run immediately to London Hospital? Did she perhaps cut her own wrist in front of Honey's Mews and then run screaming to LH?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Elamarna]

I donīt think Tom is suggesting that an attacker went for the wrist - he suggests, if I am correct, that the wound was of a deflective character.

Fisherman, I love it when we agree!


Steve

[Fisherman]

That's what I was thinking Darryl. It also strikes me that targeting the wrists would be a very odd way of attempting to murder someone.

I donīt think Tom is suggesting that an attacker went for the wrist - he suggests, if I am correct, that the wound was of a deflective character.

[Fisherman]

Do you think it may have been a suicide attempt?

Going on the little information I have gleaned from here, quite possibly yes. As far as I understand, the damage established in her case was to the radial artery, which is one of the two arteries of the lower arm. I do not know whether it has been established exactly where in the lower arm she was cut, but it seems a very real possibility to me that it was a suicide attempt. If there is information to contradict the suggestion, Iīd be happy to take it on board.

[Elamarna]

That's what I was thinking Darryl. It also strikes me that targeting the wrists would be a very odd way of attempting to murder someone.

Hi John

Two points:
Are we sure that the wrist is the area of the wound, the radial artery covers a larger area than this and it may just be us jumping to conclusions; you know 2+2=5.

Also not sure targeting the wrist is the correct idea, Tom implies this was a defensive wound, the hands and arms being raised.

Interesting debate.


steve

[MrBarnett]

If the hospital thought that she had attempted suicide, she may have been prosecuted - I'm not sure how much common sense was exercised.

Good point, Rob. Perhaps suspicions of attempted suicide were noted in a code of some sort. A code which Tom alone has cracked.

[Robert]

If the hospital thought that she had attempted suicide, she may have been prosecuted - I'm not sure how much common sense was exercised.