Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[David Orsam]

Is that what you want, David? You want me to have made a 'big mistake'? Why would you spend your money on a book and then hope for a 'big mistake'? That seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to me. But then, I'm of the cut who champions such works and hopes for their success. Does that make me the weird one? The odd one out?

And no, I don't believe I've made a 'big mistake' regarding Millous, although it's recently been pointed out to me in private that by responding to certain individuals on certain sites who may or may not be 'all there' that I'm only giving them more ammunition for their personal obsessions. Perhaps that's true, and if so, that would be my big mistake.

But why is it important to you for certain people in the field to be guilty of making a 'big mistake'?

Tom, can I suggest you set aside these bizarre theories you clearly have about me because you don't understand me at all, although I love the way you ask me a question before answering it yourself and then concluding, on the basis of your own answer, that I am weird.

If you care to look back at why I intervened in this thread you will see that it was in response to a post you addressed to MrBarnett which stated:

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

It was actually the total injustice of this comment which drew me into this thread which is why I said "I don't think that's a fair or appropriate comment, Tom. MrBarnett has made a very pertinent observation which demands a response." It has now become perfectly clear that MrBarnett was entirely justified in observing that the hospital record shows MM as having been admitted on 1 September.

So no, Tom, I do not want you to have made a big mistake, I did not buy your book to find your big mistake and I have no "obsession" about you. All I see in your comments here, as I saw in your comments aimed at MrBarnett, are an attempt to deflect attention away from an embarrassing error which you clearly realise you have made but childishly refuse to admit to.

It's time to man up Tom and just say that you got it wrong on this occasion. Can you even do it?

[MrBarnett]

Is that what you want, David? You want me to have made a 'big mistake'? Why would you spend your money on a book and then hope for a 'big mistake'? That seems counterproductive and counterintuitive to me. But then, I'm of the cut who champions such works and hopes for their success. Does that make me the weird one? The odd one out?

And no, I don't believe I've made a 'big mistake' regarding Millous, although it's recently been pointed out to me in private that by responding to certain individuals on certain sites who may or may not be 'all there' that I'm only giving them more ammunition for their personal obsessions. Perhaps that's true, and if so, that would be my big mistake.

But why is it important to you for certain people in the field to be guilty of making a 'big mistake'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

One Minute he says he's a fan, then he friend-requests me on Facebook; and then, when I persist in asking some awkward questions, I'm old, drunk and mad.

Previously when I pointed out the list of geographical errors in his book, he started mumbling darkly about influential Ripperologists who were watching what I was writing, but had not yet responded.

And I'm the loopy one?

[David Orsam]

The question of the date of admittance of an individual on a London Hospital record should have been a very simple question of fact which could and should have been resolved very quickly (rather than having to play a game of 20 questions) and I have no idea why Tom, or anyone else, would think that an attempt by someone to resolve it has any kind of personal element whatsoever.

[Tom_Wescott]

If you care to look back at why I intervened in this thread you will see that it was in response to a post you addressed to MrBarnett which stated:

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

OMG, it's totes adorbs that you two have found each other and bonded over your....erm...similarity. It's like Matt Dillon and the pizza guy in Something About Mary.

So no, Tom, I do not want you to have made a big mistake, I did not buy your book to find your big mistake and I have no "obsession" about you.

Then my apologies. As you said, I must have read you completely wrong.

It's time to man up Tom and just say that you got it wrong on this occasion. Can you even do it?

Doh!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

One Minute he says he's a fan, then he friend-requests me on Facebook; and then, when I persist in asking some awkward questions, I'm old, drunk and mad.

Previously when I pointed out the list of geographical errors in his book, he started mumbling darkly about influential Ripperologists who were watching what I was writing, but had not yet responded.

And I'm the loopy one?

I'm still a fan! I get all worked up over your books, post incessantly about inconsequential details in hopes of a 'Gotcha' moment. I even buy all the old journals off eBay of the stuff you've written in the past so I can compare and contrast and maybe grab a new 'Gotcha' moment. I enter into new fields of study with the clear objective of alienating EVERYONE except the lowest common denominators. And I inspire betting pools about how many times I'll repeat the same asinine and irrelevant question.

Oh crap, you're right...I AM the loopy one, because I've completely reversed our roles here. Pardon me while I go off and deal with my new identity crisis.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

OMG, it's totes adorbs that you two have found each other and bonded over your....erm...similarity. It's like Matt Dillon and the pizza guy in Something About Mary.

I don't know why you keep making this personal Tom but the fact of the matter is that I am more friends with you than I am with MrBarnett, with whom I have not only had no contact but who, I seem to recollect, has made some posts attacking me in the past (not me personally I don't think, but my posts).

It's not about personalities though, Tom, it's just about a simple factual point which you could have resolved at least three days ago by accepting that the record shows a date of admission of Margaret of 1 September, rather than, as you did, claiming that MrBarnett had not only misread the record but (bizarrely) was motivated by jealousy.

Having clarified what the record actually says, if you had any arguments as to why the record is, or might be, wrong or misleading you could have made them then.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know why you keep making this personal Tom but the fact of the matter is that I am more friends with you than I am with MrBarnett, with whom I have not only had no contact but who, I seem to recollect, has made some posts attacking me in the past (not me personally I don't think, but my posts).

It's not about personalities though, Tom, it's just about a simple factual point which you could have resolved at least three days ago by accepting that the record shows a date of admission of Margaret of 1 September, rather than, as you did, claiming that MrBarnett had not only misread the record but (bizarrely) was motivated by jealousy.

Having clarified what the record actually says, if you had any arguments as to why the record is, or might be, wrong or misleading you could have made them then.

I believe I've explained myself fully, David, either or both here or at the forums. To be honest, the two (or 3) threads are beginning to run together in my mind. By the way, you get a shout out in my Rippercast interview just posted.

I appreciate that you don't know Gary Barnett very well or at all. Please keep that in mind when assuming what I have to say about him is either wrong or 'bizarre'. Maybe it's neither. Or, as he says, perhaps I'm a bit loopy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I believe I've explained myself fully, David, either or both here or at the forums.

I don't agree, Tom, because I still don't know on what basis you felt able to state that MrBarnett misread the hospital record and I'm certainly surprised you haven't apologised for making this statement which you now seem to accept was wrong.

Well I note with satisfaction that there has been no substantive response to my post #293 of this evening - certainly no disagreement with it - so I'm concluding that I got that all right and I have explained your explanation fully and correctly to the members of this forum.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't agree, Tom, because I still don't know on what basis you felt able to state that MrBarnett misread the hospital record and I'm certainly surprised you haven't apologised for making this statement which you now seem to accept was wrong.

You've just reminded me of something I hadn't thought about in a long time. When I was in high school this new kid in school, a pretty big guy, would hang around my girlfriend when I wasn't around. It didn't bug me much, until one day she told me he'd slapped her on the butt. That, I'm sure you'd agree, is NOT cool. I was pretty scrawny then, and he looked like he hit the gym every day. But I had to defend my girl's honor and so I confronted him and told him what I thought of his actions. I wasn't looking for a fight, just an apology, but I was braced for a beating. To my surprise, he immediately melted and became apologetic. I told him it wasn't ME he needed to apologize to, but her. So I marched him over to her and he apologized and there never was another problem. That made me feel all puffy chested and good! It taught me that sometimes you can take on a big dog and win. Other times it's just futile and foolish. But you never know if you don't try, right?

Well I note with satisfaction that there has been no substantive response to my post #293 of this evening - certainly no disagreement with it - so I'm concluding that I got that all right and I have explained your explanation fully and correctly to the members of this forum.

I tried looking back for you post but I guess I went too far because I found myself distracted by a whole bunch of posts from people telling me they enjoyed my book and about how a Margaret Mallows might have been attacked by Jack the Ripper. As for the other members of the forum, I'm sure they don't need YOU to explain ME to them. That's why I wrote a book, you know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

You've just reminded me of something I hadn't thought about in a long time. When I was in high school this new kid in school, a pretty big guy, would hang around my girlfriend when I wasn't around. It didn't bug me much, until one day she told me he'd slapped her on the butt. That, I'm sure you'd agree, is NOT cool. I was pretty scrawny then, and he looked like he hit the gym every day. But I had to defend my girl's honor and so I confronted him and told him what I thought of his actions. I wasn't looking for a fight, just an apology, but I was braced for a beating. To my surprise, he immediately melted and became apologetic. I told him it wasn't ME he needed to apologize to, but her. So I marched him over to her and he apologized and there never was another problem. That made me feel all puffy chested and good! It taught me that sometimes you can take on a big dog and win. Other times it's just futile and foolish. But you never know if you don't try, right?

Was there any point to this?

[David Orsam]

I tried looking back for you post but I guess I went too far because I found myself distracted by a whole bunch of posts from people telling me they enjoyed my book and about how a Margaret Mallows might have been attacked by Jack the Ripper.

Well that's fine but did a single one of those people appreciate that the records show that this Margaret Mallows was actually admitted to hospital a full 20 hours after the attack on Nichols, at least, rather than at about the same time as your book appears to claim?

If not then did they enjoy the book as fiction or non-fiction?

[David Orsam]

As for the other members of the forum, I'm sure they don't need YOU to explain ME to them. That's why I wrote a book, you know.

Yet you told me only a few moments ago that you believe that you have explained yourself fully in both this forum and JTR Forums, so you obviously felt there was a need for an explanation, something which cannot be found anywhere in your book Tom.

Likewise I felt that your explanation needed an explanation so I provided one - and I'm certain the members of this forum did need me to do so because it's impossible to understand your explanation without reading your posts in JTR forums.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yet you told me only a few moments ago that you believe that you have explained yourself fully in both this forum and JTR Forums, so you obviously felt there was a need for an explanation, something which cannot be found anywhere in your book Tom.

Likewise I felt that your explanation needed an explanation so I provided one - and I'm certain the members of this forum did need me to do so because it's impossible to understand your explanation without reading your posts in JTR forums.

You provide a great service, David. Thank you for that. I also appreciated Mr. Barnett's concession (I think on this thread?) that he's not certain Millous was admitted on Sept. 1st, only that her entry in the register is dated Sept. 1st. Your certainty is perplexing. You might be the only person among us who is so certain. But I have no interest in convincing you or anybody of anything. Some of my favorite people in Ripperology routinely disagree with me and I'm cool with that because we otherwise get along just fine and respect each other for the work we do. It all bleeds together in the end. So, I'm perfectly able to agree to disagree and shake hands. Are you? Or do you NEED some sort of concession or apology from me?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Who do you post as at jtrforums?

[David Orsam]

You provide a great service, David. Thank you for that. I also appreciated Mr. Barnett's concession (I think on this thread?) that he's not certain Millous was admitted on Sept. 1st, only that her entry in the register is dated Sept. 1st.

But that's what we are discussing here Tom, what the entry in the register says. Remember, that very same register you claimed that MrBarnett had misread.

There is precisely zero additional evidence relating to the date of admission of MM, so a suggestion of any date other than 1 September is nothing more than speculation and guesswork which actually undermines the credibility of your own document.

Of course, the register could be wrong about the admission date, no-one can deny the possibility, albeit that this is not what you have said in your book. But if you start saying that the information in the document you obtained is not accurate where does it end? I mean, equally, perhaps her address is wrong in the document? Perhaps she gave a false address? Would they have checked? Perhaps she lived in Bucks Row and was the woman who was reported to have had her throat cut by her husband on the night of 31 August? And perhaps the newspaper report got it slightly wrong, it was her arm. Perhaps she gave a false name and she was someone completely different.

The whole point of the document in your book was that it was supposed to show a woman being admitted to hospital with a defensive wound almost contemporaneous to the murder of Nichols and certainly during the same morning. But the document does not show that does it?

[Darryl Kenyon]

One other problem i have with the theory is that if Jack did attack Margaret in the early hours of 31 Aug, why hang about for any given length of time, perhaps even an hour or two before killing Polly. Brady st was less than 200 yards from Bucks row. Jack attacks a woman leaves her alive [which he must have known], the first thing i would do would be to scarper, like he did after the Stride murder, to another part of Whitechapel. The woman could probably recognize him and who is to say that she wouldn't have bumped into a copper as she presumably ran to the London hospital. Suppose he had killed Tabram a week earlier [and maybe even Smith], the last thing i would expect him to do would be to loiter around the immediate vicinity looking for another victim.