Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[David Orsam]

I answered it. Yes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. A question containing two possible answers is not a 'direct' question.

A question with two possible answers certainly can be a direct question but all you are doing is ducking and diving and evading it because the answer "yes" to a question with two possible answers is certainly not a direct answer.

Focus on #231 if you prefer. I think the question in that one was very clear:

what date was MM admitted to hospital?

[David Orsam]

You're doing what Gary does. Isolating one item and obsessing on it. What I do instead is take in a lot of disparate pieces of information to form a larger picture. In the case of Gary, when I make a comment like that, I'm not referencing a single comment. So, in short, you're taking me out of context.

I'm not sure how asking you a question is a sign of me 'obsessing' about something. Would you mind answering the question?

[Tom_Wescott]

I already asked you a direct question in #225, Tom, but it wasn't answered.

I will repeat it though:

Do you accept that the woman in question was admitted to hospital on a different day to the attack on Nichols or are you saying that MrBarnett has read the London Hospital records wrong?

I answered it. Yes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. A question containing two possible answers is not a 'direct' question.

[Tom_Wescott]

But Tom, what he said was this:

"Margaret is shown as being admitted on 1st September, 1888 - so unless there was a 24 - 48 hour delay in recording her admission, or she was able to staunch her blood-loss for a day or two, she did not have her radial artery severed on the night of 30/31 Aug."

How is that statement in any way reflective of "pettiness" or "jealousy"? Isn't he making a pertinent observation that Margaret's admittance on the day after the Nichols murder is hardly indicative of her being attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August, before Nichols was killed?

When I read his post I was wondering what you would have to say about it and I feel I still am.

You're doing what Gary does. Isolating one item and obsessing on it. What I do instead is take in a lot of disparate pieces of information to form a larger picture. In the case of Gary, when I make a comment like that, I'm not referencing a single comment. So, in short, you're taking me out of context.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

But if you have questions, feel free to ask.

I already asked you a direct question in #225, Tom, but it wasn't answered.

I will repeat it though:

Do you accept that the woman in question was admitted to hospital on a different day to the attack on Nichols or are you saying that MrBarnett has read the London Hospital records wrong?

[David Orsam]

I haven't criticized him for that, have I? I'm pretty sure the only thing I've criticized him for has been his petty jealousies.

Well what you said to MrBarnett was this:

"You're zeroing in on one thing and choosing to remain blind to all the other stuff, such as the articles appearing later that referred back to a surviving victim."

Surely telling him he is zeroing on one thing but "remaining blind" to other things was a criticism was it not?

My criticism of you is that you seem to be ducking the question.

That question is this: what date was MM admitted to hospital?

[David Orsam]

Yes. And no, it wasn't an unfair comment. Maybe I'm old school, but I believe pettiness and jealousies are something we leave behind in our youth. Or maybe that's just another of my 'Americanisms'. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

But Tom, what he said was this:

"Margaret is shown as being admitted on 1st September, 1888 - so unless there was a 24 - 48 hour delay in recording her admission, or she was able to staunch her blood-loss for a day or two, she did not have her radial artery severed on the night of 30/31 Aug."

How is that statement in any way reflective of "pettiness" or "jealousy"? Isn't he making a pertinent observation that Margaret's admittance on the day after the Nichols murder is hardly indicative of her being attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August, before Nichols was killed?

When I read his post I was wondering what you would have to say about it and I feel I still am.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's hardly fair, though, to criticise MrBarnett for zeroing in on what is, on any view, an absolutely crucial question, namely: what date was MM admitted to hospital?

I haven't criticized him for that, have I? I'm pretty sure the only thing I've criticized him for has been his petty jealousies. Wow, this seems to have struck a chord with a couple of you. That wasn't my intention. It's between Gary and myself. But if you have questions, feel free to ask.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't think that's a fair or appropriate comment, Tom. MrBarnett has made a very pertinent observation which demands a response. Do you accept that the woman in question was admitted to hospital on a different day to the attack on Nichols or are you saying that MrBarnett has read the London Hospital records wrong?

Yes. And no, it wasn't an unfair comment. Maybe I'm old school, but I believe pettiness and jealousies are something we leave behind in our youth. Or maybe that's just another of my 'Americanisms'. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

You're zeroing in on one thing and choosing to remain blind to all the other stuff, such as the articles appearing later that referred back to a surviving victim.

But isn't it true that there are precisely zero articles which refer to a surviving victim of an attack by JTR on either 31 August or 1 September 1888?

It's hardly fair, though, to criticise MrBarnett for zeroing in on what is, on any view, an absolutely crucial question, namely: what date was MM admitted to hospital?

[David Orsam]

Barnett's hindsight criticisms are decidedly less impressive.

What do you mean by "hindsight criticisms", Tom? In what way has Barnett used hindsight to make any criticisms?

[David Orsam]

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

I don't think that's a fair or appropriate comment, Tom. MrBarnett has made a very pertinent observation which demands a response. Do you accept that the woman in question was admitted to hospital on a different day to the attack on Nichols or are you saying that MrBarnett has read the London Hospital records wrong?

[MrBarnett]

Gary, you're not getting it. There is when something happened and when it was recorded. They needn't be the same thing and, in fact, rarely are. You're zeroing in on one thing and choosing to remain blind to all the other stuff, such as the articles appearing later that referred back to a surviving victim. I know MysterySinger's findings have you thoroughly irked, but I find those very compelling as well. While I'm always skeptical of family lore, I'm cautious not to discount it too quickly. But you just keep discounting all the stuff you don't like Gary. You seem to enjoy that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Let me first address your statement that l was 'irked' by MS's finding. Is this another case of your using the Wescott English Dictionary? I'm thoroughly intrigued by the finding. So much so that it occurred to me to go and knock on the door of 195, Reede Road and ask if the current owners remember the Samuels family.

The fact that there is a family anecdote of a brush with JTR and a record of someone with that family's name being admitted to the LH in Sept, 1888 is rather exciting - especially for me living very close to where the family lived.

Now to the point about my missing the point. You have stated unequivocally that MM's admission to the LH took place on the same morning as the incident in Brady Street. The written evidence explicitly contradicts that. That evidence is curiously missing from your book.

You don't tell us that MM was admitted to the LH on 1/9. You tell us that you 'reached out' to the London Hospital for 'copies of all individuals who registered between the hours of 10pm on August 30th and the time of the Nichols murder the next morning'. You then mention your discovery of Millous and the reader is left with the impression that she was admitted between the times you mention.

Only if the records are incorrect can that have been the case. If they are correct, then she could have been admitted as late as midnight on 1/9 - two days after the Brady Street incident.

[Tom_Wescott]

The incident in Brady Street happened at least 20-odd, and possibly as much as 48, hours before the date Maragaret's admission was recorded.

Gary, you're not getting it. There is when something happened and when it was recorded. They needn't be the same thing and, in fact, rarely are. You're zeroing in on one thing and choosing to remain blind to all the other stuff, such as the articles appearing later that referred back to a surviving victim. I know MysterySinger's findings have you thoroughly irked, but I find those very compelling as well. While I'm always skeptical of family lore, I'm cautious not to discount it too quickly. But you just keep discounting all the stuff you don't like Gary. You seem to enjoy that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

MM was recorded as having been admitted on 1/9 and discharged on 18/8 after having spent 17 days in hospital.

There is NO way that can be worked back to and admittance around midnight on 30/8.

Unless, of course, you enlist the services of Dianne Abbott.

Never let it be said...

Of course, if the hospital only counted whole calendar days, that would work out to 17.

Annie Glick was admitted and discharged on the same day - her no. of days was 0.

In Tom's book there is one omission (admission date) and one error (discharge date) which coveniently obscure the fact that there is no evidence of MM sustaining her injury on 30/31 Aug.