Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[drstrange169]

Hello Debra,

>>I haven't looked in to the protocol of admissions to the London Hospital. Was admission recorded immediately on entering the hospital for treatment? What I mean is- was there an outpatients department where casualties without a ticket could walk in and be treated and then admitted later to a ward if the case was serious enough?<<

Patients were admitted by the porters who had a large glass office in the middle of the entrance, I have a picture of it somewhere.

"“In the receiving-room a porter is stationed night and day, and when patients are brought in by the police or others, he promptly admits them, and hands them over to the nurses."

Montague Williams, writing about the London hospital in 1894

Presumably, it is these Porter admissions records, everyone is currently accessing.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

>>I haven't looked in to the protocol of admissions to the London Hospital. Was admission recorded immediately on entering the hospital for treatment? What I mean is- was there an outpatients department where casualties without a ticket could walk in and be treated and then admitted later to a ward if the case was serious enough?<<

Patients were admitted by the porters who had a large glass office in the middle of the entrance, I have a picture of it somewhere.

"“In the receiving-room a porter is stationed night and day, and when patients are brought in by the police or others, he promptly admits them, and hands them over to the nurses."

Montague Williams, writing about the London hospital in 1894

Presumably, it is these Porter admissions records, everyone is currently accessing.

Hi DS,

Thanks.

One thing to make clear here; no one is 'currently 'accessing' these records as far as I'm aware, otherwise we would know for sure what the records were and be able to give source numbers.

Tom requested copies of female admissions from the dates he stated in the book from the archives and then shared those images with both Gary and myself. The pages are not professionally photographed and some pages are quite faded and headings and pages cropped accidentally. The copies I received did not come with ref. numbers but It is my understanding that the pages come from female patient records for two sets of admission records, one of surgeon's admissions and one physician's.

I may be wrong here, but If these were the porter's books I'd expect there to be male and female patients listed together as they entered, not separated in to different books. These registers seem to have been compiled afterwards.
Regarding the date; Margaret Millous was admitted with an accident number ( I mistakenly said 'no ticket' yesterday) and the date in the margin that heads the list of admissions Margaret appears with is Sept 1. Margaret is recorded as being discharged on 18th Sept after a 17 day stay.

[drstrange169]

The Porters did indeed sort the women from the men in their records.

"“In the receiving-room a porter is stationed night and day, and when patients are brought in by the police or others, he promptly admits them, and hands them over to the nurses. To the right and left are two rooms, one for the reception of women, and the other for the reception of men."

Whether the Porter records are one and the same as the ones you are seeing, I have no idea.

I'd guess, if they only cover patients admitted to wards, they would not be Porter records, if they cover general admissions, they probably would be Porter records.

[drstrange169]

I vaguely remember, many years ago, perhaps before the big Casebook crash, someone started cataloguing the admission records for autumn of 1888 here in his posts.

[Debra A]

The Porters did indeed sort the women from the men in their records.

"“In the receiving-room a porter is stationed night and day, and when patients are brought in by the police or others, he promptly admits them, and hands them over to the nurses. To the right and left are two rooms, one for the reception of women, and the other for the reception of men."

Whether the Porter records are one and the same as the ones you are seeing, I have no idea.

I'd guess, if they only cover patients admitted to wards, they would not be Porter records, if they cover general admissions, they probably would be Porter records.

Thanks. I can see that says the men and women were physically separated after admission but is that the same as the porter keeping separate male and female admission books?
The records Tom obtained are split further into female surgeon's admissions and female physician's admissions. The information may have been taken from the porter's book but I don't think these are the porter's books themselves but registers compiled at a later date.

[Debra A]

I vaguely remember, many years ago, perhaps before the big Casebook crash, someone started cataloguing the admission records for autumn of 1888 here in his posts.

I don't remember anyone doing it for the London Hospital records but Chris Scott did transcribe the Whitechapel Infirmary admission and discharge records for 88 and 89 and post them.

[Robert]

I suppose a transcription of an original or a transcription of a transcription etc might explain the spelling issue.

[Jon Guy]

For those unfamiliar with the British domestic scene, Diane Abbott is a respected mathematician with modest political ambitions.

I thought it was Sid`s wife in Bless This House ?

[MrBarnett]

It's clear from a careful study of the admissions records that they must have been compiled retrospectively.

Tom, why don't you stop the ****-stirring and personal insults and just explain why you are absolutely convinced that MM was admitted on the 31/8 when the record says 1/9.

My point is that in skimming over the record in your book and categorically stating that MM was admitted on 31/8 you are deliberately misleading your readers. The only record I have seen gives the date as 1/9.

[MrBarnett]

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?

David,

Over on JTRForums Tom stated that I misread the record. Perhaps he can explain how.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Thanks. I can see that says the men and women were physically separated after admission but is that the same as the porter keeping separate male and female admission books?
The records Tom obtained are split further into female surgeon's admissions and female physician's admissions. The information may have been taken from the porter's book but I don't think these are the porter's books themselves but registers compiled at a later date.

Hi Debs,

Yes, the fact that the surgeons/physicians patients are segregated and that within each category (accident/without/ticket) patients are listed consecutively suggests very strongly that the records were compiled retrospectively.


Gary

[MrBarnett]

Hello Debra,

>>I haven't looked in to the protocol of admissions to the London Hospital. Was admission recorded immediately on entering the hospital for treatment? What I mean is- was there an outpatients department where casualties without a ticket could walk in and be treated and then admitted later to a ward if the case was serious enough?<<

Patients were admitted by the porters who had a large glass office in the middle of the entrance, I have a picture of it somewhere.

"“In the receiving-room a porter is stationed night and day, and when patients are brought in by the police or others, he promptly admits them, and hands them over to the nurses."

Montague Williams, writing about the London hospital in 1894

Presumably, it is these Porter admissions records, everyone is currently accessing.

Thanks, DrStrange.

So patients were 'admitted' by porters as they entered the hospital.

[Elamarna]

Certainly the entry does appear to cast the suggestion in a different light. It seems a shame to me that Tom does not at present wish to give a definitive reason for his beleif, hopefully we will get one.

However you seem to accept that the records were filled in retrospectively, and having done that myself I am well aware that dates entered are NOT always correct.

With that in mind it is possible that the date of the first could be wrong, however in the absence of a counter argument we must I feel at present accept the 1st as the date of admission.

It would be good of we could reach a conclusion soon rather than later.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Certainly the entry does appear to cast the suggestion in a different light. It seems a shame to me that Tom does not at present wish to give a definitive reason for his beleif, hopefully we will get one.

However you seem to accept that the records were filled in retrospectively, and having done that myself I am well aware that dates entered are NOT always correct.

With that in mind it is possible that the date of the first could be wrong, however in the absence of a counter argument we must I feel at present accept the 1st as the date of admission.

It would be good of we could reach a conclusion soon rather than later.


Steve

Good point Steve. And before Tom twists my point out of all recognition, let me make it once more:

I am objecting to his categorical statement that MM sustained her injuries on the morning of 30/31. I'm also questioning why he provides us with a full transcription of Susan Ward's record (with just one small mistake) but speaks only in the vaguest terms about MM's (with a much more significant mistake).

[Elamarna]

Good point Steve. And before Tom twists my point out of all recognition, let me make it once more:

I am objecting to his categorical statement that MM sustained her injuries on the morning of 30/31. I'm also questioning why he provides us with a full transcription of Susan Ward's record (with just one small mistake) but speaks only in the vaguest terms about MM's (with a much more significant mistake).

To be fair I am more concerned on the date of admission.
Depending on the extent of the injury it is possible that she may not have attended immediately especially if the blood loss had been staunched, however given the length of stay that seems unlikely but not impossible.
Tom has made it very clear that he believes the admission date to be 31st, and as I said previously the date of the 1st need not be conclusive I would however like to know what makes him so certain?

Steve