Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[martin wilson]

Hugely enjoyable read. The first half is beautifully written but mea culpa, I got all turned around at Berner street and the will flagged.
I'm not inclined to dismiss Millous/Millows, Mallows. There was no evidence of huge gouts of arterial spray in Brady street, suggestive of an initially manageable injury which however wouldn't stop bleeding and required hospitalization.
Friday at a city hospital? Probably a madhouse.
17 days in hospital suggests infection or complications after surgery, it also may explain the lack of police and press interest, we are post Chapman and there were no doubt dozens of ripper stories.
I take away from it a woman may have been attacked and survived, and for me Millous/Nicholls Stride/Eddowes show a similarity in terms of compulsion.
Well played Tom. I commend the book to anyone, although a grounding may help. Above all else it's tremendous fun.

[Garza]

Hey Tom, don't know if you've blocked this thread out lol, but I just finished your book.

I really liked it.

1. I think you have finally won me over to JtR using robbery as a rouse, I have fought it for years, but I think it makes sense. Bundy used the pretence of being injured, Jack used the pretence of robbery.
2. That being the case do you think that is why Liz Stride did not appear to struggle? Basically hole a knife to her throat and said lie down, and he shoved her down with her basically frozen?
3. How would someone learn such a strangle hold in Victorian East End? Army? A gang? That would be interesting to follow up on.

If you can remember I am a big Berner Street nut myself and I agree with most of what you day about Berner street. I think yes, we have to centre our witness testimony around Fanny Mortimer. However I can't agree with you on Schwartz.

If you take out his testimony, all the other witness testimonies fits so neatly. Instead of getting tangled up, the wisest course is to choose the path with the least resistance. Take Schwartz out, everything becomes wonderfully simple.

There were lots of people giving false testimony during these crimes, Schwartz just got further than most - someone was bound to.

Even if you want to squeeze Schwartz in, according to Schwartz there was a shout of "Lipski" (a negative racial term) and 3 "Quiet" screams from Liz in a Victorian terraced housing in a narrow street. Obviously there is no such housing in the good old US of A, but such housing gives a lot of echoing (depending on the width of the street). I have lived in such housing.

The echos would have carried even greater in Dutfield's yard as well!

Yet despite the echos and the racial epithet (which would have garnered attention) , no-one else close in the vicinity heard a single thing - and that is what is most damning about Schwartz's testimony in my mind.

[Garza]

Aww man another Tom book, gotta get me that :-) .

[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