Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[David Orsam]

The blood in Brady Street was at least a bloody handprint in front of Honey's mews and may also have included drops running in the direction of where Brady intersects with Buck's Row. But the blood apparently did not turn onto Buck's Row.

Right, and following on from that, it has been said that the "bloody handprint" you refer to might be that of a woman called Margaret Millows, so a few questions:

1. On what date was Margaret Millows admitted to the London Hospital?

2. Did Gary Barnett misread the hospital records when he concluded that they show that Margaret Millows was admitted to the London Hospital on 1 September?

3. When you read the document in question from the London Hospital in preparation for your book, did you see and appreciate that the entry for Margaret Millows appeared under the heading of "Sep 1?".

4. If you did see and appreciate that the entry for Margaret Millows appeared under the heading of "Sep 1" (a) what did you think it meant? and (b) why did you not mention this fact in your book?

5. If Margaret Millows was admitted to the London Hospital on 1 September, what effect, if any, would you say this has on your theory, as presented in your book, that she was attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August?

6. Do you still maintain, as you say in your book, that Margaret Millows must have been not very far from the London Hospital when she sustained her injury (because otherwise else she would have bled to death)?

[Tom_Wescott]

I have no idea why you think I have a "counter argument" to your stuff on Packer. I don't even have any recollection of what reasons you gave why Packer should not be taken seriously as a witness. The subject is of little or no interest to me. I am, however, interested in the issue of the blood in Brady Street which is why I have been asking you questions about it.

The blood in Brady Street was at least a bloody handprint in front of Honey's mews and may also have included drops running in the direction of where Brady intersects with Buck's Row. But the blood apparently did not turn onto Buck's Row.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

But let's talk about other parts of the book. I'd like to hear your counter-argument to my stuff on Packer.

I have no idea why you think I have a "counter argument" to your stuff on Packer. I don't even have any recollection of what reasons you gave why Packer should not be taken seriously as a witness. The subject is of little or no interest to me. I am, however, interested in the issue of the blood in Brady Street which is why I have been asking you questions about it.

[David Orsam]

Hi David. Not really.

Can I ask you to explain why you are not now proposing to answer my questions, Tom?

[Tom_Wescott]

So Tom, seven days later, eight days after I posted them (#460), are you proposing to answer my "pertinent questions" any time soon?

Hi David. Not really. But let's talk about other parts of the book. I'd like to hear your counter-argument to my stuff on Packer. I've outlined why he should not be taken seriously as a witness, so It'd be helpful if you (or Ed Stow, Christer, etc) would tell us your reasons why we SHOULD take him seriously.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

That doesn't mean I won't answer your pertinent questions, it simply means I will do so at a time and in a manner of my own choosing. I'm not a trained monkey who dances on command

So Tom, seven days later, eight days after I posted them (#460), are you proposing to answer my "pertinent questions" any time soon?

[Dane_F]

Right, and what I have been asking you repeatedly is what difference does it make that there was a time gap between those two events. In other words, what difference would it make if there was an entire week or an entire month or even an entire year between the time of entry by MM into the hospital building and the time that the record was created showing a date of admission to the hospital of 1 September?

If you cannot see the answer for yourself, I cannot help you. Good day Sir.

[Tom_Wescott]

Was able to finish the Mortmer/Schwartz essay just now. You do an excellent job of marshaling all the arguments against Schwartz, only to pull away from the obvious conclusion at the last minute through a rather elaborate dance.

I suppose the most agreement you'll get from me on your conclusion is that I agree if Schwartz is a real witness, Pipeman is a better candidate for the Ripper than BS man.

I invented the argument that Schwartz was not a real witness, so it's mine to pull away from. And I do so because of certain factors that were beyond his control. Namely, that a man similar to Pipeman was placed in the exact same spot around the same time by another witness (Brown) and Schwartz happened to pick a time when the street was empty (confirmed by Mortimer). He also had the correct timing (12:45am, as opposed to midnight). He also stood up to interrogation with Abberline, who had quickly seen through Violenia very recently and would have had his BS detector on high (or so one assumes). Because of these reasons (particularly the first two), it's impossible to conclude he made up the story.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be caution. You might recall my 'elaborate dance' regarding Schwartz's complete disappearance from the records after Nov. 1st. To date, that is. Hopefully, something will turn up. But this should give everyone pause. Schwartz should not be looked at as the be all end all of Berner Street. The real value of Schwartz is that by providing a more detailed description of Pipeman, he's describing Brown's Overcoat Man, who is the most likely suspect for Stride's murder. If we remove Schwartz, we're still left with Brown as the last person to see Stride alive and with a man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Damaso Marte]

Yes, please. And read the Schwartz one twice if you've got the stomach for it. There's very particular reasons why I believe we're compelled to take Schwartz seriously.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Was able to finish the Mortmer/Schwartz essay just now. You do an excellent job of marshaling all the arguments against Schwartz, only to pull away from the obvious conclusion at the last minute through a rather elaborate dance.

I suppose the most agreement you'll get from me on your conclusion is that I agree if Schwartz is a real witness, Pipeman is a better candidate for the Ripper than BS man.

[David Orsam]

I'm not a trained monkey who dances on command.

To repeat the point Tom, you said to me earlier:

"if you have questions, feel free to ask."

Well I asked you some questions and now I'm supposedly trying to command you to dance like a monkey.

[Tom_Wescott]

I was actually reading the Fanny Mortimer/Israel Schwartz essay last night. Fell asleep at 1:00 AM reading it, actually, but not because it was boring.

This is something on which I have well developed views: I am a strong proponent of the idea that Israel Schwartz is not a credible witness and that the easiest solution is to ignore him. Everything else then more or less snaps into place. I'll finish that section tonight.

Yes, please. And read the Schwartz one twice if you've got the stomach for it. There's very particular reasons why I believe we're compelled to take Schwartz seriously.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

In case you can't tell, the thread has moved on. I moved on days ago. So, sing a different song. Got any good jokes? <insert insult about my work being the 'biggest joke' here>. No, seriously. Lighten up, will ya? If it were just you, or maybe just Gary, that'd be one thing. But obviously, since some of the biggest losers around have attached themselves to the issue, I cannot answer their questions as a matter of principle. It is my job to deprive them of any and all satisfaction. That doesn't mean I won't answer your pertinent questions, it simply means I will do so at a time and in a manner of my own choosing. I'm not a trained monkey who dances on command. So, no disrespect to you intended and you shouldn't take my obstinance personally.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Damaso Marte]

Hi Damaso, thanks for that. I'm curious what you thought of the Fanny Mortimer and Israel Schwartz essays. To me those are among the most 'hardcore Ripperology' parts of the book, along with the Nichols stuff and the Goulston Street essay in section 3. My guess is the part where I lost you was in 'Murder in the Neighborhood'. The Stride stuff in that was good but the topography stuff, which works great in a magazine, rather slowed down the pace I had established earlier on. Such is the pitfall of an essay-oriented book. Plus I'm now told it was all wrong, so...

Yours truly ,

Tom Wescott

I was actually reading the Fanny Mortimer/Israel Schwartz essay last night. Fell asleep at 1:00 AM reading it, actually, but not because it was boring.

This is something on which I have well developed views: I am a strong proponent of the idea that Israel Schwartz is not a credible witness and that the easiest solution is to ignore him. Everything else then more or less snaps into place. I'll finish that section tonight.

[David Orsam]

Now I have not,in all the years posting here,talked to or personally met and conversed with any other poster.So do not include me as being for or against anyone on a personel level.
The hospital records certainly have the 1st as the date of admission,but was that the date on which the injury occurred?That is what I believe Tom was trying to determine.He seemingly believes the injury could have occurred on the day previous to admission.That is what should have been argued.
Could it? I believe it possible.I could be wrong,but insisting his mistake over the 1st,on it's own,disproves his belief,doesn't prove he's wrong.

Yes but, Harry, when I asked Tom directly in this thread on what date Margaret was admitted to hospital, he told me August 31st. That was on 7 May which was a full three days after Gary Barnett had posted a cropped image of the admission register on JTR forums, so Tom had had plenty of time to think about it. He has never actually corrected his answer and consequently it is been difficult if not impossible to proceed with an orderly debate in the manner you suggest. But if, as you accept, the date of admission was 1 September and the injury was inflicted at about 3am on 31st, Tom needs to explain the reason for the minimum 21 hour delay before Margaret was admitted to hospital.

[David Orsam]

Based on what you've learned about me throughout our exchange on this thread, and what you've read from the exchanges in which you did not participate, how do you think I processed the paragraph above?

That is one of the strangest questions I've been asked on this forum, Tom. You told me in this thread on 5 July:

"if you have questions, feel free to ask."

I've now asked you 10 questions – reasonable questions I think - and you have given no indication that you are prepared to answer them, let alone that you will answer them. In fact, you haven't even given any indication that you are aware that of their existence.

How do I think that you processed a paragraph in which I tried to assure you that no-one is trying to humiliate you or get one over on you? I really have no idea. I like to think that you "processed" it by reading it and understanding the words to mean that no-one is trying to humiliate you or get one over on you. That is what they were intended to mean. Obviously I can't actually speak for anyone else but I am certainly not trying to humiliate you or get one over on you (do you think that is what people ARE trying to do then?) and I wanted to make the point to encourage you to answer the questions in case that is what is worrying you.

Are you going to answer them?