Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

The Jeff Davis 8 really is an interesting case. If I might suggest a starting point that really lays out the details of the case it would be this one: https://medium.com/matter/who-killed...8-d1b813e13581

Dane, I'm reading this article you provided. It seems it might be more a case of drug murders, but that many women in such a small area, so connected, is terribly curious. Needless to say, I thought of both Polly Nichols an Catherine Eddowes when I read this: 'Guillory also had her four kids placed with relatives. A task force witness supports the claim that in her final days she “was scared of someone,” but she would not say who, and that she “knew who killed the girls.”'

If you feel up to the task, you might consider writing a piece about the Jeff Davis 8, comparing and contrasting it to the early Whitechapel murders (beginning, as I do, with Horsnell). You could submit it to Ripperologist magazine or some other journal or blog you're familiar with. I think it would be a great piece. It's unfortunate that something so tragic as the Jeff Davis 8 is not more widely known. I suspect if the victims were soccer moms it would be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Fish, my last post to you was more of a general rant and not intended for you to take personally. But you don't take yourself just a wee bit seriously. And I do not make fun of Ripperology. Satirize it and myself occasionally, but I never disrespect it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Who´s to take me seriously if I don´t do it, Tom?

It´s good to hear that you don´t intentionally make fun of ripperology, anyways.

[Dane_F]

Dane, I'm reading this article you provided. It seems it might be more a case of drug murders, but that many women in such a small area, so connected, is terribly curious. Needless to say, I thought of both Polly Nichols an Catherine Eddowes when I read this: 'Guillory also had her four kids placed with relatives. A task force witness supports the claim that in her final days she “was scared of someone,” but she would not say who, and that she “knew who killed the girls.”'

If you feel up to the task, you might consider writing a piece about the Jeff Davis 8, comparing and contrasting it to the early Whitechapel murders (beginning, as I do, with Horsnell). You could submit it to Ripperologist magazine or some other journal or blog you're familiar with. I think it would be a great piece. It's unfortunate that something so tragic as the Jeff Davis 8 is not more widely known. I suspect if the victims were soccer moms it would be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Drugs were involved for sure Tom. But keep reading. What becomes apparent is the murders weren't all about drugs. If anything the main suspect is rumored to have killed them to cover up the original murder, which was about drugs. At least the author seems to think that was the reason for the subsequent murders.

Yet another interesting correlation to JTR murders as some people have theorized that at least one or more of the murders were done to "silence" people who were rumored to know who the killer was.

The rumors of police corruption/incompetence is equally as intriguing of a link to JTR. You've got it all in the Jeff Davis 8. Police officer(s?) sleeping with eventual victims. Bad handling of crime scenes or evidence. Police making money on the side. Victims rumored as police informants! No one caring because the victims were "unfortunates" until multiple murders in. And these are just the tip of the iceberg of similarities from the top of my head.

It really is amazing that not more has been published and researched on the Jeff Davis 8. The only reason I am familiar with it is because I live about 1 hour away and at the time of the series I was actually working in the town that it happened in. I remember when the first murder happened and no one cared because it was "just some drugged out prostitute". Even when it was realized it was a serial killer most people seemed apathetic because of the type of people he was killing. Isn't it amazing even 100+ years later some of the same issues that plagued the JTR series still plagued another serial murder case?


As far as writing an article on the similarities between the two murders series, that is a very good idea. Maybe something I will look into. I'm glad you are finding the case as interesting as I have.

[Tom_Wescott]

As far as writing an article on the similarities between the two murders series, that is a very good idea. Maybe something I will look into. I'm glad you are finding the case as interesting as I have.

It's always more real when it's close to home, isn't it? If you choose to write something feel free to hit me up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dane_F]

I don't like to generalize people, so I won't, because there are wonderful exceptions. But yes, a lot of the more old school Ripperologists seem to be rather stuck in the mid-90s as regards their thinking of the case. They'll gleefully accept new details about people, places and things, but would prefer their overall understanding of the case not be significantly modified. It was settled within the first handful of books that they read and won't change. I'm not sure if that's 'unfortunate' as you say or if it's just human nature, but it is what it is. And most Ripper books are written for and by that crowd. Some are damn good and I use them. But it does get stale, so I think it's time for next level stuff.

Ripperology isn't going away. That's a fact. Some day my books won't be considered 'new' and young people will view them as almost contemporaneous to Begg, Sugden, et al and will consider them in tandem with them, instead of 20 years later. That's when I expect the work will be taken more seriously. It's extremely gratifying to see so many 'get it' in the here and now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There are absolutely exceptions. Some of most out of the box thinking I have read lately has come from people long in the Ripper Community. Mr. Simon Wood comes to mind. Agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant. He is tossing a lot of interesting ideas out there that cause you to think deeper on Ripper murders.


You do hit on a very key point however: "And most Ripper books are written for and by that crowd. Some are damn good and I use them. But it does get stale, so I think it's time for next level stuff."

This has been my overwhelming feeling for years now. I was introduced to JTR in the early 2000s when I was a teen. I have less experience and knowledge on the case than almost anyone who passionately posts about it here. Yet even I feel the case can be so stale with the same re-telling of the story over and over just slightly modified to fit the authors favorite suspect into the picture.

What the authors did 20 years ago was amazing and gives us such a wonderful foundation of research to build off of. But that work has been done. It's time for a new type of suspect book. Not one based around trying to twist the known facts to fit the person's favorite suspect but instead a book that uses new information and new research to give us a new perspective. No easy task for sure, but just what we need.

Also, if I can be greedy, I really would like Debra to do a book on the Torso murders. I have been blown away by 3 things I've read in the last 3 years. Pearly Poll, Margret Millous, and Deb's posts on Elizabeth Jackson and the types of mutilations she had.

[Abby Normal]

There are absolutely exceptions. Some of most out of the box thinking I have read lately has come from people long in the Ripper Community. Mr. Simon Wood comes to mind. Agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant. He is tossing a lot of interesting ideas out there that cause you to think deeper on Ripper murders.


You do hit on a very key point however: "And most Ripper books are written for and by that crowd. Some are damn good and I use them. But it does get stale, so I think it's time for next level stuff."

This has been my overwhelming feeling for years now. I was introduced to JTR in the early 2000s when I was a teen. I have less experience and knowledge on the case than almost anyone who passionately posts about it here. Yet even I feel the case can be so stale with the same re-telling of the story over and over just slightly modified to fit the authors favorite suspect into the picture.

What the authors did 20 years ago was amazing and gives us such a wonderful foundation of research to build off of. But that work has been done. It's time for a new type of suspect book. Not one based around trying to twist the known facts to fit the person's favorite suspect but instead a book that uses new information and new research to give us a new perspective. No easy task for sure, but just what we need.

Also, if I can be greedy, I really would like Debra to do a book on the Torso murders. I have been blown away by 3 things I've read in the last 3 years. Pearly Poll, Margret Millous, and Deb's posts on Elizabeth Jackson and the types of mutilations she had.

Totally agree with you on debs and the Jackson/torso thing. I've been asking her for a while to write a book on the torsos case and or any connection to the ripper. Same thing to fish and or ed stow also, and throw lech into it by all means I say.

[Tom_Wescott]

Totally agree with you on debs and the Jackson/torso thing. I've been asking her for a while to write a book on the torsos case and or any connection to the ripper.

While you've been asking Debs to write a Thames Torso book I've been begging and pleading her. It hasn't worked. I'm going to learn hypnosis and try that next.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There are absolutely exceptions. Some of most out of the box thinking I have read lately has come from people long in the Ripper Community. Mr. Simon Wood comes to mind. Agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant. He is tossing a lot of interesting ideas out there that cause you to think deeper on Ripper murders.

I love Simon and his writing but his work is night and day from mine. I don't consider what I do to be 'alternative' or even 'out of the box'. Some of my ideas are 'new' but they're not alternative. Read what I say about the grapes and what he says and you'll see the difference.

You do hit on a very key point however: "And most Ripper books are written for and by that crowd. Some are damn good and I use them. But it does get stale, so I think it's time for next level stuff."

This has been my overwhelming feeling for years now. I was introduced to JTR in the early 2000s when I was a teen. I have less experience and knowledge on the case than almost anyone who passionately posts about it here. Yet even I feel the case can be so stale with the same re-telling of the story over and over just slightly modified to fit the authors favorite suspect into the picture.

This has been a lot of people's feelings for years, or so I keep hearing. Particularly since Stewart Evans stopped publishing.

What the authors did 20 years ago was amazing and gives us such a wonderful foundation of research to build off of. But that work has been done. It's time for a new type of suspect book. Not one based around trying to twist the known facts to fit the person's favorite suspect but instead a book that uses new information and new research to give us a new perspective. No easy task for sure, but just what we need.

Would you like to see the greatest Ripper suspect book ever written?

Also, if I can be greedy, I really would like Debra to do a book on the Torso murders. I have been blown away by 3 things I've read in the last 3 years. Pearly Poll, Margret Millous, and Deb's posts on Elizabeth Jackson and the types of mutilations she had.

Have you read the stuff she's published with Rob Clack? Some of the best stuff I've read. Rob Clack also published on the torso solo-style a couple years ago. Great stuff, but mere teases compared to what they could do in a book. But it's easier to write a book when you're in the midst of the excitement of discovery. It's harder later on when you've become burnt out on a subject. I'm speaking from my own experience, not from anything Debs has said, but I speculate (that's all I do, according to some) that such burn out plays a part in why the (relatively overwhelming) task of writing a book hasn't yet been appealing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dane_F]

I love Simon and his writing but his work is night and day from mine. I don't consider what I do to be 'alternative' or even 'out of the box'. Some of my ideas are 'new' but they're not alternative. Read what I say about the grapes and what he says and you'll see the difference.

I did not mean to imply that you and Simon had similar styles. Sorry if that is how you took it. I was merely using Simon as an example I look at as someone who has years upon years in the Ripper field and is yet still able to theorize completely new ways of looking at things without rehashing the same old tired story.

Most new ideas are sensationalized by the Author to the point that it is silly and hard for me to either accept or make the logical leaps necessary to understand their point of view. Mr. Wood I feel at least tries to ground his research, even if the opinions he has are extremely different than most.

I actually agree that your two writing styles are completely different. I think you put it a good way, your ideas are "new" but not "out of the box" while I do believe Mr. Wood has more of an "alternative" way of viewing things.

This has been a lot of people's feelings for years, or so I keep hearing. Particularly since Stewart Evans stopped publishing.

Would you like to see the greatest Ripper suspect book ever written?

Yes I agree that too many books are the same old hat. Especially the new suspect books. Either books that disregard any evidence that is contrary to their opinion or books that make too many leaps that by the end it is mere speculation upon speculation upon speculation. These are also the books tha it seem feel the need to retell the entire story of every victim in the exact same way as all the previous books.

As far as seeing the greatest Suspect Book ever written. . .Absolutely I want to see that! I have tall demands I realize. Actually, it doesn't even need to be a suspect book. I want to read the greatest victim book ever. I don't know if I could ever be convinced of a suspect (I have no pet suspects myself) but the new information surrounding the victims I find absolutely captivating.

Have you read the stuff she's published with Rob Clack? Some of the best stuff I've read. Rob Clack also published on the torso solo-style a couple years ago. Great stuff, but mere teases compared to what they could do in a book. But it's easier to write a book when you're in the midst of the excitement of discovery. It's harder later on when you've become burnt out on a subject. I'm speaking from my own experience, not from anything Debs has said, but I speculate (that's all I do, according to some) that such burn out plays a part in why the (relatively overwhelming) task of writing a book hasn't yet been appealing.

I have not read any of Deb's books, I don't think. Or maybe I have and I can't remember, unfortunately one of the problems with reading so many Ripper books is keeping everything straight in my mind. Does she have anything on Kindle? Unfortunately, being someone of the new generation I have little use or desire for paperback anymore. I don't think I've read the entire A-Z yet because there's no kindle version, I know I know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Regards,
Dane

[Tom_Wescott]

I can tell you that you haven't read any of Debs's books. She hasn't written any. The stuff she's published that I mentioned has been in the Ripper journals, such as Ripperologist.

I didn't mean to put you on the defensive with my reply re: Simon. It wasn't so much your comment, just that I've been compared a number of times with him and only because our books are 'different'. I just wanted to illustrate that they're not different in the same way. A major Ripper author sent me a wonderful PM recently and in the course of it compared my work not only to Simon's but to Trevor Marriott's. I won't go into here how I felt about that.

As for Simon, he's a much more talented writer than myself, so I agree, there's no basis of comparison for our writing styles. I wish there were.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Thanks, Tom. The cheque is in the mail.

[Dane_F]

I can tell you that you haven't read any of Debs's books. She hasn't written any. The stuff she's published that I mentioned has been in the Ripper journals, such as Ripperologist.

I didn't mean to put you on the defensive with my reply re: Simon. It wasn't so much your comment, just that I've been compared a number of times with him and only because our books are 'different'. I just wanted to illustrate that they're not different in the same way. A major Ripper author sent me a wonderful PM recently and in the course of it compared my work not only to Simon's but to Trevor Marriott's. I won't go into here how I felt about that.

As for Simon, he's a much more talented writer than myself, so I agree, there's no basis of comparison for our writing styles. I wish there were.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well then Deb needs to get on that! Not that I'm trying to turn the thread about your book into one where I talk about all the authors I like or the people I want to see write books.

As far as defensive goes, no worries at all my friend. I was concerned more about maybe I said something in such a way that I didn't intend it to come across. Your response was warranted in the light of being compared to Trevor.

I don't wish to tear down other Authors who have spent so much time and energy on this subject. I certainly don't have the knowledge, experience, or mentality to do such a thing. But I think you sell yourself short with your writing abilities. I wish I could pinpoint exactly what it is about your style that makes it a joy to read, but sadly I cannot. Maybe there is a more conversational tone to it instead of other books "lecture" style.

Anyway, back to your book I go. My goal is to be finished by mid week.

[Fisherman]

A major Ripper author sent me a wonderful PM recently and in the course of it compared my work ... to Trevor Marriott's. I won't go into here how I felt about that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I have entertained the same thought myself, Tom. Let me begin by saying that it was an unexpected experience on my behalf - to me, the two of you are worlds apart in most ways.

It also needs to be said that I have not read your latest book: I have only read The Bank Holiday Murders. So I cannot produce any in-depth analysis.

But when I read that you are proposing that Polly Nichols had been subjected to organ theft, and that Llewellyn had missed out on it (I hope this is the correct interpretation of your suggestion, otherwise you must correct me), I could find no closer parallel in Ripperology than Trevors suggestion that the eviscerated victims of the Whitechapel murders had their organs taken away in the morgue and not on the murder sites.

So, not being able to comment on your underlying reasoning, this was my reaction too: a link between you and Trevor presents itself readily.

I have experienced the exact same thing myself, and for the same kind of reason: Many people think that I am a siamese twin to those who propose Hutchinson as the killer, on account of both Hutch and Lechmere being witnesses who are accused of lying their way out of the matter.

I think I am as far removed from the Hutchinsonians as I can possibly be in terms of our respective takes on the case, but there you are - people will first and foremost see the seemingly obvious, and not go into the underlying reasoning to any larger degree.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well then Deb needs to get on that! Not that I'm trying to turn the thread about your book into one where I talk about all the authors I like or the people I want to see write books.

It's no problem. You can talk about Sesame Street if you want. It keeps my thread up towards the top.

I don't wish to tear down other Authors who have spent so much time and energy on this subject.

Me either. As a Ripper author myself, I'm told it's bad form for me to comment negatively upon the books of others. But if we're only talking about authors who've spent a lot of time and energy on the case, then Marriott is fair game.

I certainly don't have the knowledge, experience, or mentality to do such a thing.

According to one very verbose Facebook poster and his Swiss friend, neither do I.

But I think you sell yourself short with your writing abilities. I wish I could pinpoint exactly what it is about your style that makes it a joy to read, but sadly I cannot. Maybe there is a more conversational tone to it instead of other books "lecture" style.

Thank you. I believe it's a sense of urgency and excitement. All of Bank Holiday Murders and large chunks of Ripper Confidential were written WHILE I was researching and was really into it. Like all the stuff about Brady Street and Margaret Millous. Instead of taking notes like a sane person, I was writing the manuscript. Changing, rewriting, etc. This is probably not the correct way to write non-fiction, but it's how I did it. And I loved it. Also the Fanny Mortimer chapter was a true joy to write and it came out FAST. Other parts of the book were more of a slog for me, such as Goulston Street. I think that was at least six months, off and on. Because all that was old hat to me. Murder in the Neighborhood, which I wrote eons ago, is to me a very boring read. At least the topographical stuff. But I know people like that stuff. All the old essays were written the same way, quickly and with a sense of enjoyment.

Anyway, back to your book I go. My goal is to be finished by mid week.

Yeah, I should probably look at it again before I start doing podcasts. Let me know what you think of the rest of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

According to one very verbose Facebook poster and his Swiss friend, neither do I.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Swiss? SWISS??