Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[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]

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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Tom_Wescott]

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?

Aug. 31st

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Aug. 31st

Thank you for giving a clear and direct answer to my question Tom.

But you will have to forgive me for I am puzzled. I've not seen any of the records in question other than the small extract posted on JTR forums by Gary Barnett three days ago which appears to show that Margaret's entry to hospital was on 1 September 1888, it falling under the heading "Sep 1". Can you explain that?

Further, earlier in this thread (#213), Debra Arif stated:

"Regarding the admission of this woman to the hospital. The admission record for her clearly states she was admitted on Sept 1st without a ticket."

Are you saying that Debra has mis-interpreted the admission record?

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you for giving a clear and direct answer to my question Tom.

But you will have to forgive me for I am puzzled. I've not seen any of the records in question other than the small extract posted on JTR forums by Gary Barnett three days ago which appears to show that Margaret's entry to hospital was on 1 September 1888, it falling under the heading "Sep 1". Can you explain that?

Further, earlier in this thread (#213), Debra Arif stated:

"Regarding the admission of this woman to the hospital. The admission record for her clearly states she was admitted on Sept 1st without a ticket."

Are you saying that Debra has mis-interpreted the admission record?

Are you trying to get me killed? I know better than to say Debs misinterpreted a record! I just now recorded a new episode of Rippercast (their most downloaded episode in history) that should be up in a couple of days. I talk about all this stuff on there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dane_F]

I look forward to the episode of Rippercast. I am intrigued by this date issue as even from an impartial observers standpoint it does lead one to wonder what exactly was the scenario of Mrs Millous admittance to the hospital.

There is a stark difference between medical records showing someone having a hand/arm injury being admitted the day of the Polly murder and the day after. Unless it is shown that the hospital sometimes recorded the admittance dates later.

I hope this matter gets cleared up. Millous could be one of the most intriguing characters to be added to the JTR story EVER if Tom is right.