Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[John G]

I am not a very subtle man, Tom. When I want to have a dig at somebody, I normally make sure that somebody can tell.

I did not mean it as a barb at all, actually. It was instead a bow towards Debra, who I think is the real class act on all things Torso.

I find you a refreshing person in many respects, often willing to stick your chin out and promote new thinking. I like that very much. On a number of matters, I disagree with you, but disagreement can be a useful tool too, if put to good use.

I fully realize that a publisher won´t pull the punches, and so I am not all that worried about your restoration of Lechmere back to a mere withess status. It will take more than a frisky publisher, I can say that much.

But I urge you to look at Jackson, no matter if you do it in conjunction with Debra or not. Therein lies the solution to many questions about the Ripper if I am not totally wrong. And why would I be that...?

Personally I can think of lots of reasons. I mean, the illustrious Paul Begg has already chastised you on this point, noting that you don't seem to have ensnared anyone to support your strange theory: although you attempted to ensnare him! And I obviously cannot speak for others, but are you suggesting that Debra supports your, how can I put this, somewhat unique theory?

Lechmere, intentional man of mystery, crime Lord for the ages, evisceration and dismeberer extraordinaire!

Oh Fishy, I do find you so very funny sometimes.

P.S.: I note that you're still getting into a flap about flaps!

Now I suppose you'll respond with one of your typically childish insults. By the way, I notice you used the word "twaddle" in one of your responses to me. Interestingly, Trevor Marriott tends to use the same infantile insult when he's backed into a corner.

I'd like to say that's ironic, but I'm willing to bet you don't really do irony!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve, thanks. You might have missed it in the book, but to answer this question I looked at all the evidence regarding Polly's clothes. Had blood flowed from the neck or abdomen and ended up between or under her legs, her skirts and clothing MUST have also become bloodied. But they had not. So, it stands to reason that blood originated from between the legs and after the skirts were raised. As there were no cuts to the legs, I'd say he used his knife to penetrate her vaginally. The other possibility I pursue is that this blood is residual from his having removed her uterus. It's going to be one or both of these things.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom thanks for replying but I think.a misunderstanding, I agree with you about the blood between the legs. I was thinking about Thains comment that when the body was lifted he saw a large patch of blood under her upper body and her clothing was marked from neck to waist or something like that. Can't find the exact quote.

My point was, is this the same blood Neil reports, obviously far more blood than Neil's report or is it 3 distinct areas of blood.
1. Near to neck seen by Neil
2. Under upper body seen by Thain who says only seen after body moved and Helston confirms blood on upper clothing but no pricise description to help.
3. The blood between the legs.

My view is that we have 2 areas, but that one is much larger than the pool initially reported by Neil.

Steve

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom thanks for replying but I think.a misunderstanding, I agree with you about the blood between the legs. I was thinking about Thains comment that when the body was lifted he saw a large patch of blood under her upper body and her clothing was marked from neck to waist or something like that. Can't find the exact quote.

My point was, is this the same blood Neil reports, obviously far more blood than Neil's report or is it 3 distinct areas of blood.
1. Near to neck seen by Neil
2. Under upper body seen by Thain who says only seen after body moved and Helston confirms blood on upper clothing but no pricise description to help.
3. The blood between the legs.

My view is that we have 2 areas, but that one is much larger than the pool initially reported by Neil.

Steve

There's two pools of blood total. One created by her neck, only some of which would have been visible to Neil, the rest visible after her body was lifted. The second pool was between her legs.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Elamarna]

There's two pools of blood total. One created by her neck, only some of which would have been visible to Neil, the rest visible after her body was lifted. The second pool was between her legs.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks. For that Tom

That helps, seems my first idea was right, same blood as Neil, just more than he was aware of initially and the same would apply perhaps to Llewellyn's view of the blood.

.

Steve

[Scott Nelson]

What a great book! I enjoyed every chapter, end to end. And it should win an award of some sort.

[Tom_Wescott]

What a great book! I enjoyed every chapter, end to end. And it should win an award of some sort.

Hey, thanks Scott! Feedback like that is award enough for me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

I can't remember where, but I could swear I read somewhere that Nichols was stabbed once in the vagina.

[Tom_Wescott]

I can't remember where, but I could swear I read somewhere that Nichols was stabbed once in the vagina.

Yep. More than once. I discuss that at some length. I believe she was 'interfered with' in the same manner as Smith and Tabram.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Station Cat]

Just as you have no proof at all that he was the killer, so that puts you and Tom on an even footing. I love a happy ending, Fish

Cracking point and well made Sam!!!

Having watched the Channel 5 documentary about this very subject, some time ago now I hasten to add. I'm still waiting for the promised book...... I'm looking at you Fisherman

I have just discovered Tom's book purely by chance, I thought the best place to get a review was on the forum and I wasn't disappointed. I must say I find it very intriguing, have read so many books on the subject that I loose count most of which just regurgitate the same stuff. This sounds like something refreshing and new, Amazon here I come.........

[David Orsam]

Fyi

Decent of you attempt to acknowledge my research on the Coldwell family and Handley's Mews in your book, Tom (footnotes 34, 40 and 41), but I'm not David Gates.

[Tom_Wescott]

Decent of you attempt to acknowledge my research on the Coldwell family and Handley's Mews in your book, Tom (footnotes 34, 40 and 41), but I'm not David Gates.

David, if I've misidentified your research as belonging to someone else, I'll be mortified.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

David, if I've misidentified your research as belonging to someone else, I'll be mortified.

There's no 'if' about it Tom; in footnote 40 you've referred to my Casebook thread of 8 January 2015 ('The Curious Case of Mrs Colville') but attributed it to David Gates.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8611

It was in the OP of this thread that I suggested that Honey's Mews might be a corruption of Handley's Mews, not David Gates as suggested in footnote 34.

However, you can rest assured that I'm not the slightest bit bothered about the misidentification and, like I said, it was decent of you to make the attempt.

[Robert]

But there is an 'if' about it, David.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6_efthmkAQ

[Phil Carter]

I believe David Gates is a former member of this forum. He left..I believe, 5/6 years ago. Ill health being an issue at tge time. Apologies if my memory betrays me.




Phil

[Abby Normal]

But there is an 'if' about it, David.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6_efthmkAQ

Lol! And Bread! LOL again.
Beautiful song and great soft rock band.