Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Elamarna]

Before replying I did think long and hard about transferring to another thread, but as Tom's book covers Bucks Row in some detail I shall reply here on this occasion.

However any replies will not be on this thread, its about Tom's work, not other peoples.

Elamarna: Well you do appear to get very defensive when ever anything is said which questions the "facts" as you call them.

Tell me, Steve, which "facts" are you referring to?

Given that you posted:

"there are many facts involved that are not conjecture at all "


Maybe I should have asked you what those were, as I am unable to see any facts in the theory at all, just misinterpretations and supposition. but this is not the thread for that.

Still I suppose it natural considering the time invested in the attempt to prove Mr lechmere/cross as the killer, and still no nearer than when you began.

Oh, Steve - I am a lot closer than when I began - contrary to those who pursue the traditional suspects. And I am not much flustered by your misgivings, I´m afraid. Takes the fun out of it, I know - but there you are.

I am most sorry Christer but I see nothing that supports that statement, And I am pursuing no one, just looking for the truth.

Personally, I´d say that the one wasting time and space is you, who have posted a whopper of a thread where the main message is that we cannot be certain of the timings and the street patterns offered in the Bucks Row case. Heureka! I even think I saw it suggested that Lechmere could have walked any one of six different paths on the murder morning.
Six? More like sixhundred and sixtysix, Steve. Why limit yourself?

Firstly I assume you are using whopper in the size sense, not that which refers to untruths.

Yes at least six, I did not limit it, but only posted six, the others are much the same time wise. but the probably route is clear from the documentary, of course, that position as not been eased by the refusal to say which you walked, Although that seems easy to work out.

If you feel that the thread only says there is much uncertainty, then the level of comprehension demonstrated is sorely lacking.

And there is no uncertainty with regards to street patterns in 1888, that is made very clear, seems you missed that.

Anyway research to do. Newspapers to read, videos to critic and posts to prepare.

You do that, Steve, you do that. With any luck, you will stumble over something interesting this time. You will have to do a lot better this time over, though. "Debunking" the message from the docu about how the str
Sorry i eet layout is the same today as back then was not exactly a great achievment. It was "debunked" a long time before the docuy was shot. It has been pointed out by me and Edward that Robert Pauls home from back in 1888 is nowadays contained in close proximity to the cashiers of a supermarket, for example. Noting that the docu slipped up there, and pinning it on me is not sound.

Given that This is a complete review of Bucks Row I have undertaken, it is essential to point out all the mistakes regardless of if it has been done before.


When did I pin it on you?
I was talking about the documentary, which many still take at face value, at no point in that section did I mention or allude to you.

I mentioned and showed that the suggestion that Paul and Lechmere must have seen each other before Bucks Row was unsound. The fact that Paul's home is now covered by a supermarket is irrelevant.

The same goes for the street layout, which many still quote as if it were true, and if one is doing a complete review of the crime scene one must include all the details, not matter how obvious to others those may be. that is how research works.

I find it hard to work up any enthusiasm about such "debates", which is to a degree why I have left your thread unanswered. It sounded to me as if the piece de résistance of your research will be presented in the latter stages of your project, so I will look out for it then. If I miss it, you must tell me what it was.
Actually, if I have already missed out, don´t hesitate to tell me.[/B]

No problem, its not a debate, it is a presentation of data.
Something some people have said is useful to have it all in table format and together rather than dotted over many threads and posts.

If it were a book, the first section posted would be an appendix at the back, and yes it is very dry, lists of distances and possible speeds.
However one needs to get the details up first on a forum, which is why the debate comes last.

No certainly you have not missed them; it is not one item of interest but several, regarding wounds, bleeding, witness accounts, timings of course, reliability of witnesses, I could go on and on.

New information comes in all the time and as of today actually I finally have the last bit needed to complete the part on bleeding.


Look forward to the serious debate later.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Before replying I did think long and hard about transferring to another thread, but as Tom's book covers Bucks Row in some detail I shall reply here on this occasion.

However any replies will not be on this thread, its about Tom's work, not other peoples.




Given that you posted:

"there are many facts involved that are not conjecture at all "


Maybe I should have asked you what those were, as I am unable to see any facts in the theory at all, just misinterpretations and supposition. but this is not the thread for that.




I am most sorry Christer but I see nothing that supports that statement, And I am pursuing no one, just looking for the truth.





Firstly I assume you are using whopper in the size sense, not that which refers to untruths.

Yes at least six, I did not limit it, but only posted six, the others are much the same time wise. but the probably route is clear from the documentary, of course, that position as not been eased by the refusal to say which you walked, Although that seems easy to work out.

If you feel that the thread only says there is much uncertainty, then the level of comprehension demonstrated is sorely lacking.

And there is no uncertainty with regards to street patterns in 1888, that is made very clear, seems you missed that.




Given that This is a complete review of Bucks Row I have undertaken, it is essential to point out all the mistakes regardless of if it has been done before.


When did I pin it on you?
I was talking about the documentary, which many still take at face value, at no point in that section did I mention or allude to you.

I mentioned and showed that the suggestion that Paul and Lechmere must have seen each other before Bucks Row was unsound. The fact that Paul's home is now covered by a supermarket is irrelevant.

The same goes for the street layout, which many still quote as if it were true, and if one is doing a complete review of the crime scene one must include all the details, not matter how obvious to others those may be. that is how research works.




No problem, its not a debate, it is a presentation of data.
Something some people have said is useful to have it all in table format and together rather than dotted over many threads and posts.

If it were a book, the first section posted would be an appendix at the back, and yes it is very dry, lists of distances and possible speeds.
However one needs to get the details up first on a forum, which is why the debate comes last.

No certainly you have not missed them; it is not one item of interest but several, regarding wounds, bleeding, witness accounts, timings of course, reliability of witnesses, I could go on and on.

New information comes in all the time and as of today actually I finally have the last bit needed to complete the part on bleeding.


Look forward to the serious debate later.



Steve

I am sorry, Steve, but to me, most of this post is a total waste of space and a great example of how to misunderstand different matters. I will not take up any time or space to reply to it.
I may reconsider when you have posted the rest of your research, but I cannot promise anything.

Til then!

[Patrick S]

People better suited than you to make these kinds of calls have opted for Lechmere being a very serious bid for the killer´s role, Patrick. Andy Griffiths said that he was of tremendeous interest and Scobie said that he would warrant a trial.

Of course, you can mock their views and - if you wish - lead on that they were conned or payed to give those views. But the fact remains that this was what they said. And the fact equally remains that they are better suited to make the call than you or me.

There is a mean streak out here that refuses to go away. It makes Steve say that I haven´t come anywhere closer to proving my case than when I started, and you to claim that the documentary was a farce, more or less.

I cannot stop people from posting such views, just as little as I can stop people from saying that Hitler was a clever guy with a commendable take on the immigration problem. Anybody can say anything on the web - and many do.

I am quite willing to discuss the case in serious terms, but I have explored to the full what happens when I engage in discussion with people who are first and foremost interested in shooting down what cannot be shot down - but who do not care one bit about that matter.

Whether you are one of these people or not remains to be seen - you have been, but you commendably managed to clear yourself of that approach. It seems you are now looking to catch up on your old ways.
Maybe I am wrong about that, I don´t know. It would be a sad thing if it was so, but it is not for me to decide what route you should use.
It is, however, for me to decide whether I am interested in going down whatever route you choose in your company.

Any which way, Patrick, you will probably find the boards a less trying place to visit in days to come, since I do not plan to visit them to any larger degree. My interest has tapered off to a degree, and I find I make myself much more useful doing other things than pointing out when people out here are being unrealistic and lacking in judgment.

Oh, come on, Fish! You dish it out with the best of them. I put a little extra mustard in my post because I read that tenor in your responses to a few others on this thread. As I reckoned you were doing, I was just having fun. I'm sorry if it came off as mean spirited.

I accept that you think I'm one of those who is "unrealistic and lacking in judgment". As you believe in a thing that I don't believe in, that's going to be the case. That's not a problem for me.

Anyway, I haven't been to the boards much lately. I stopped by to check out the thread re: Tom's book and stumbled upon your posts. If you'd start posting new and interesting things re: Lechmere, I'd be back more often.

I've said this before and I'll say it again in that think I caught you on a bad day because you usually you give me as I good or better than I give you: I don't agree with your theory based on what you've presented to date. In all honesty I don't think it's absurd or ridiculous. It's interesting and compelling, well researched, and it's added immensely to our knowledge of Nichols, Bucks Row, etc. (NO ONE can refute that). I respect the work you've put in, and I respect you. I think the documentary based on your theory and starring YOU (!) is very well done, probably one of if not the best produced Ripper programs I can recall and if you attend the East End Conference in August I won't let you buy a pint, they'll all be on me and I'd love to spend all of my free time debating Lechmere with you and others who are interested. Frankly, I was hoping you'd be added as a speaker.....I'm sure it's not too late!

[Fisherman]

Oh, come on, Fish! You dish it out with the best of them. I put a little extra mustard in my post because I read that tenor in your responses to a few others on this thread. As I reckoned you were doing, I was just having fun. I'm sorry if it came off as mean spirited.

I accept that you think I'm one of those who is "unrealistic and lacking in judgment". As you believe in a thing that I don't believe in, that's going to be the case. That's not a problem for me.

Anyway, I haven't been to the boards much lately. I stopped by to check out the thread re: Tom's book and stumbled upon your posts. If you'd start posting new and interesting things re: Lechmere, I'd be back more often.

I've said this before and I'll say it again in that think I caught you on a bad day because you usually you give me as I good or better than I give you: I don't agree with your theory based on what you've presented to date. In all honesty I don't think it's absurd or ridiculous. It's interesting and compelling, well researched, and it's added immensely to our knowledge of Nichols, Bucks Row, etc. (NO ONE can refute that). I respect the work you've put in, and I respect you. I think the documentary based on your theory and starring YOU (!) is very well done, probably one of if not the best produced Ripper programs I can recall and if you attend the East End Conference in August I won't let you buy a pint, they'll all be on me and I'd love to spend all of my free time debating Lechmere with you and others who are interested. Frankly, I was hoping you'd be added as a speaker.....I'm sure it's not too late!

If I was a vain man, I´d be very flattered, Patrick. Thankfully, I´m not.

See you around!

[The Grave Maurice]

Well done, Tom!

I thoroughly enjoyed this book; it's well written and raises several interesting points to ponder. Just one minor thing, Tom: you might want to check out the difference between a wicker door and a wicket door in a gate.

[Tom_Wescott]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book; it's well written and raises several interesting points to ponder. Just one minor thing, Tom: you might want to check out the difference between a wicker door and a wicket door in a gate.

Did I put wicket? You're kidding.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

I thought it was just a typo but then you talked about anybody hiding behind it being able to see out, presumably because it was loosely-woven wicker. A small point but something to bear in mind for the second edition

Looking forward to your podcast. Break a leg.

[The Grave Maurice]

I didn't make the point clearly, did I. It actually should be "wicket", i.e., a small door in a larger gate. You wrote "wicker". I'm pretty sure it wasn't a wicker wicket.

[Tom_Wescott]

I didn't make the point clearly, did I. It actually should be "wicket", i.e., a small door in a larger gate. You wrote "wicker". I'm pretty sure it wasn't a wicker wicket.

Yeah, 'wicker' was intentional.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dane_F]

Still in the process of finishing the book. Nearly through part 2 now. I found the Stride stuff interesting mainly because of giving a different outlook on the witnesses and why there was mixed statements about the blood. Fun stuff.

[MysterySinger]

Having received the book yesterday I am finding it a very good read. I like the style in which it is written and there's just the right amount of detail. A couple of minor spelling errors perhaps and some Americanisms as would be expected, but I think it is excellent.

Whether or not this has been addressed before within this thread I'm not sure but there does seem a little vagueness as to when Polly Nichols was born whereas according to the find a grave index she was born on 26th August 1845 (and another source puts her birth at 1 Dawes Court, Shoe Lane, London). Her parents I have as Edward Walker and Caroline Webb. That said, I haven't located Polly or her mother in the 1851 Census whereas Edward was with his parents.

[Tom_Wescott]

Having received the book yesterday I am finding it a very good read. I like the style in which it is written and there's just the right amount of detail. A couple of minor spelling errors perhaps and some Americanisms as would be expected, but I think it is excellent.

Whether or not this has been addressed before within this thread I'm not sure but there does seem a little vagueness as to when Polly Nichols was born whereas according to the find a grave index she was born on 26th August 1845 (and another source puts her birth at 1 Dawes Court, Shoe Lane, London). Her parents I have as Edward Walker and Caroline Webb. That said, I haven't located Polly or her mother in the 1851 Census whereas Edward was with his parents.

Hi Mystery. Americanisms. I like that. There are no typos in my books, just Americanisms.

As for Nichols's birth, I was a bit vague because the sources are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MysterySinger]

With regard to Margaret Millous, I believe this to be Margaret Mallows - in the records variously as Mallows, Mellows and Millows and forename sometimes Mary or Margaret.

She was a charlady and was married to husband John who was a bricklayer. They had children Maria, John and Esther. I also understand that Esther was interviewed by the BBC in the 1950s/60s re being approached aged 8 by Jack the Ripper (I think more likely aged 4 at the time). Esther was married to Abraham (Arthur) Samuels. I wonder whether a JTR suspect carried out an assault whilst Margaret was actually with her children?

With husband John, they lived in 1881 at 17 Goulstone Court and in 1891 at 5 Harriot Place (close to Fashion Street). John died in the second quarter of 1893 and in September Margaret Mallows was residing at 18 Thrawl Street.

If I have the right lady, Margaret was previously Margaret O'Leary.

[MysterySinger]

Extract from an 1893 workhouse entry...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mystery. What's this about the 1950s and 60s? Do you have links or sources for this? Very interested.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott