Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Robert]

Esther's birth date in the 1939 register is given as Christmas Eve 1882. She is living at the same address that she was living at in 1965 - #195 Reede Rd Dagenham.

[Elamarna]

Dusty

The present journey time is 14-16 minutes. Which doesn't settle anything looking for a 1888 timetable I guess.


Steve

[Robert]

From the 1911 census it looks like Esther was born at 10 Montague Court - according to her.

[MrBarnett]

Esther's birth date in the 1939 register is given as Christmas Eve 1882. She is living at the same address that she was living at in 1965 - #195 Reede Rd Dagenham.

Not far from Pondfield Park, which in my day was terrorised by a gang of vertically-challenged skinheads known as the Pondfield Pygmies .

[Robert]

Were they mown down?

It's a lot less bovver with a hover.

[Patrick S]

MysterySinger, you rock! Do you have any exact quotes from this daughter?

Patrick,

Hey, thanks for that! You are obviously digging deep into all matters Buck's Row and I look forward to seeing what all you turn up. Yes, Lilley is a legit witness. Some additional research on the train times would be useful. Lechmerians will simply have to continue dismissing her, as well as Millous/Mallows. They'll say Lilley was 'asleep' and that Millous is a figment of my imagination. As you can imagine, I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks, Tom. As with so many things relative to "Chuck the Ripper" we must pick and choose what and whom to believe in order to construct some narrative that points to Lechmere as Nichols' killer.

Although, in my view, even if one does that, the narrative isn't coherent or convincing. Thus it must be with Lilley, as well. We must view Lilley as dishonest. She tells us she was awake. But, she's lying. She was sound asleep. She describes events in detail. But, it's all invention, lest she cast some measure of doubt upon the Lechmere theory. And so it must be with Robert Paul, as well. He's a glory-seeker, the 1888 equivalent of a 21st century aspiring reality TV star. He also holds some grudge against the police, thus he tells awful lies about what Mizen said and did. He's weak-minded, too. Easily controlled by Lechmere, pushed aside, out of earshot, while Lechmere does all the talking, pulling the Mizen scam - not ONLY on Mizen - but on Paul himself! Conversely, every word uttered by Mizen is true. He was tricked by Lechmere, told a PC wanted him in Bucks Row. He didn't continue calling people up. That was a lie told by Lechmere and corroborated by Paul, just because.

Further, we must assume only good, honest, noble, and true motivations for Mizen when he allows PC Neil to testify that he - and he alone - found Nichols body. Mizen was on the scene with Neil. Yet he never mentioned the two men who told HIM about the body. Mizen didn't tell Neil at anytime before his inquest testimony. He didn't tell anyone it seems.......until, that is, he told his story on the stand...AFTER Robert Paul's "Remarkable Statement" in Lloyd's described his actions as "a great shame".

Ah. But he was duped by Lechmere's fraud, Paul's police grudge and his desire for publicity. We must also see Lechmere's appearing at the inquest as sinister, the work of an evil genius. This was no innocent man appearing to do his civic duty. We are asked to believe this man killed Nichols and then appeared at the inquest of his own volition - even though he was barely mentioned in Paul's statement in Lloyd's, he wasn't described beyond being called "a man". Mizen didn't ask his name. Yet he comes forward. But we mustn't believe the most reasonable explanation for him having done so. We must believe others. Harder to believe. Convoluted. Counterintuitive. But, necessary to keep Lechmere in the picture.

[Elamarna]

Returning very briefly to the train.


Having checked a Bradshaw from 1906 the time was 14 minutes.
Modern day freight trains tend to go slower than passenger services, however they do not stop at stations and at 3 am there are unlikely to be many signalling issues.

Unless we can find a definite scheduled time for arrival at 3.30 at Whitechapel of the 3.7 from New Cross it seems that the train may have been recorded as going by at that time.

The press article reads:

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.

It can be read that it was the time it passed, rather than the scheduled time; however it is not clear and we must be careful.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Were they mown down?

It's a lot less bovver with a hover.

I hope you record your puns in a book, Bob Monkhouse style.

[MrBarnett]

Looking at the original London Hospital record, the name looks very much like Millows, although it could be Millous.

What is certain, though, is that 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.

[Dane_F]

Some very interesting stuff turning up in here. Glad to kee an eye on what's happening here as I continue to read the book.

[Debra A]

Looking at the original London Hospital record, the name looks very much like Millows, although it could be Millous.

What is certain, though, is that 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.

Tom read it as Millows himself. It was me who said I thought it read Millous, a variation of Milhouse when Tom asked my opinion as to what it said.

[Tom_Wescott]

Looking at the original London Hospital record, the name looks very much like Millows, although it could be Millous.

What is certain, though, is that 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.

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom read it as Millows himself. It was me who said I thought it read Millous, a variation of Milhouse when Tom asked my opinion as to what it said.

Thank you, Debs. But I agreed with your observation, which was also shared by Robert Linford. Barnett's hindsight criticisms are decidedly less impressive.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Tom read it as Millows himself. It was me who said I thought it read Millous, a variation of Milhouse.

She wasn't a pre-op Richard Nixon, was she?

[MrBarnett]

Tom read it as Millows himself. It was me who said I thought it read Millous, a variation of Milhouse when Tom asked my opinion as to what it said.

Debs,

I also thought it looked like Millous initially.

As I'm sure you will have appreciated, that was not the main point of my post. Do you have an opinion on when this woman (however you spell her name) was admitted to the London Hospital? Is there any evidence that it was within a few minutes of a supposed JTR attack on the night of 30/31 August, 1888? Or do the records suggest it was 24-48 hours later?

Gary