Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

Did I say that Polly created the bloodstain? Was it a woman's hand?

I was thinking more of the killer actually.

I daresay your Brady Street theory is more convoluted than my own. But props to you for even having one. Pretty much every other Ripperologist finds it more convenient to simply ignore it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

It could not have been Polly. No blood on her hands.

Did I say that Polly created the bloodstain? Was it a woman's hand?

I was thinking more of the killer actually.

[David Orsam]

Well, then it must be galling to see my minimal handful of critics (a group in which I count yourself) saying that it's all a bunch of fantasy. But you'll be heartened to know that the vast majority of readers totally dig it.

You mean I am a critic of yours saying that my own theory is a bunch of fantasy?

Seems unlikely.

And I am only a critic of your book on this one specific point, albeit that it does affect an entire chapter, and I wouldn't even have bothered to post had you admitted your error promptly, as you should have done.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, your very question demonstrates your confusion. There are NO press reports which discuss a surviving victim from the night of 31 August. Somehow you have got it into your head that there were but there weren't.

Well, you see, it's like this...I'm bad with dates.

Yes, there were reports of an attack that night but we know that Mary Ann Nichols was attacked that night in the area. If you actually remember what I posted on this forum you might recall my theory that it was Nichols who was attacked in Brady Street. To me, if there was an attack, that is the most likely outcome, especially as, and let me repeat this, there were no reports, either in the press or in police records, of any other woman in Brady Street being injured or admitted to hospital during the night/early hours of 30/31 August.

David, the fact is, that the news reports were vague and demonstrably incorrect in reference to their dates at times. But they DID point to at least one (probably more) surviving victims. That's why I looked through the entire month of December. Margaret Millous remains the best candidate. You don't have to like it. You don't have to accept it. Part and parcel of putting forth something new and controversial is receiving backlash. What would be nice for a change is if some (even one!) of the people providing this backlash followed it up with something that's actually better than what I proposed.

As for Polly Nichols, she had nothing at all to do with Brady Street. It just doesn't fit.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Sure, David, whatever you say.

Just to clarify, in fairness to you, that it was the issue of the possibility of records at the London Hospital for the Bucks Row attack that led to the idea on your part that there may be records of a Brady Street attack but I should say that you did consider that the LH records might hold a record of a knife attack in the area of Brady Street that night. Unfortunately for you, however, it has transpired that they do not.

[Tom_Wescott]

It really is extraordinary that you claim that I dismiss all evidence that something happened in Brady Street when, not only have I said nothing of the sort (have you imagined it?) but I have actually argued tooth and nail on this forum that something DID happen in Brady Street that night and, moreover, did so long before you got round to it!

Well, then it must be galling to see my minimal handful of critics (a group in which I count yourself) saying that it's all a bunch of fantasy. But you'll be heartened to know that the vast majority of readers totally dig it.

But it's when you say "show me a better candidate" that I have to ask you: a better candidate for what? If you mean, a better candidate for an attack in Brady Street then Mary Ann Nichols strikes me as the best candidate!

It could not have been Polly. No blood on her hands.

But if there was another woman attacked she might easily not have gone to hospital. You seem to think that it is certain that if a woman was attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August she must have ended up in the London Hospital. I don't know why you think this.

Call me sentimental, but where I come from, if you're bleeding profusely and standing across from a hospital, it occurs to you to go there.

There is not a single newspaper report of such a thing happening nor any mention in any police report of it. It strikes me as a fantasy of your own creation, especially now that we know that there are precisely zero candidates who were admitted to the LH on 31 August.

Just so we're clear. You were investigating the Brady Street bloodstains ages before me and the reason you did not think to look at the London Hospital registers is because it makes no sense that a bleeding woman who'd just been attacked might seek medical help. And the reason I DID get this idea is because I'm fantastical.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

But then where did this woman go and what happened to her and who is the surviving victim discussed in all those news reports that thus far I've been the only author to gather together and discuss and attempt to find an answer for?

You've asked me a lot of questions, David. So let me ask you this. What are YOUR answers to the questions I pose in my book. You don't like my answers. So what are your better answers?

Tom, your very question demonstrates your confusion. There are NO press reports which discuss a surviving victim from the night of 31 August. Somehow you have got it into your head that there were but there weren't.

Yes, there were reports of an attack that night but we know that Mary Ann Nichols was attacked that night in the area. If you actually remember what I posted on this forum you might recall my theory that it was Nichols who was attacked in Brady Street. To me, if there was an attack, that is the most likely outcome, especially as, and let me repeat this, there were no reports, either in the press or in police records, of any other woman in Brady Street being injured or admitted to hospital during the night/early hours of 30/31 August.

[Tom_Wescott]

No Tom, you're getting confused. You wanted to find out if there really was a woman attacked by her husband in Bucks Row that night (because there were bloodstains reported up the other end of Bucks Row) and taken to the London Hospital, as reported. That is what first prompted you to request the LH records, remember?

Sure, David, whatever you say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

What? No. I talk about Hummerston in my book. That was days later....or was it?

No Tom, you're getting confused. You wanted to find out if there really was a woman attacked by her husband in Bucks Row that night (because there were bloodstains reported up the other end of Bucks Row) and taken to the London Hospital, as reported. That is what first prompted you to request the LH records, remember?

[David Orsam]

I made the same suggestion about the victim not going to the London Hospital and Tom agreed with me that that's a possibility.

That's why I asked him what he meant by "show me a better candidate". It seemed to be asking me to show him a better candidate who was admitted to hospital, specifically the London Hospital, thus making it a given that such a person ended up in hospital. If on the other hand he just meant someone attacked in the street, how could it be possible to find a record any such person? Other than Mary Ann Nichols, of course.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not convinced your summary of events is quite right Tom. Weren't you actually hoping to find in the LH records the identity of the woman who was reported to have had her throat cut in Bucks Row by her husband and was said to have been carried to the London Hospital?

What? No. I talk about Hummerston in my book. That was days later....or was it?

Secondly, most of what you are saying I already argued on this forum. I found the Coldwells, presented the police statements, and argued that something DID take place on Brady Street that night. It's all in the archives of this forum if you need me to dig it up. So you didn't need to persuade me in your book of any of this for one second. It was an argument I had already made.

<checks references in Ripper Confidential> Nope, that was David Gates.

anyone[/U] was admitted to the London Hospital (or any hospital) as a result of anything that happened in Brady Street that night. There isn't a jot of evidence for it, let alone that it was Margaret M who, the record shows, as Debra has confirmed, was admitted the following day.

I get that. But then where did this woman go and what happened to her and who is the surviving victim discussed in all those news reports that thus far I've been the only author to gather together and discuss and attempt to find an answer for?

You've asked me a lot of questions, David. So let me ask you this. What are YOUR answers to the questions I pose in my book. You don't like my answers. So what are your better answers?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. And isn't that 'reality cheque' in the UK?

[jmenges]

But if there was another woman attacked she might easily not have gone to hospital. You seem to think that it is certain that if a woman was attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August she must have ended up in the London Hospital. I don't know why you think this.

I made the same suggestion about the victim not going to the London Hospital and Tom agreed with me that that's a possibility.

JM

[David Orsam]

I say again...show me a better candidate. Dismissing all the evidence that something happened in Brady Street is lazy and proves your motives have nothing at all to do with the 'truth'.

It really is extraordinary that you claim that I dismiss all evidence that something happened in Brady Street when, not only have I said nothing of the sort (have you imagined it?) but I have actually argued tooth and nail on this forum that something DID happen in Brady Street that night and, moreover, did so long before you got round to it!

And the irony is that you and I both posted in the thread in which I did so! Clearly your memory is not what it might be (perhaps you thought I was David Gates?).

But it's when you say "show me a better candidate" that I have to ask you: a better candidate for what? If you mean, a better candidate for an attack in Brady Street then Mary Ann Nichols strikes me as the best candidate! But if there was another woman attacked she might easily not have gone to hospital. You seem to think that it is certain that if a woman was attacked in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August she must have ended up in the London Hospital. I don't know why you think this. There is not a single newspaper report of such a thing happening nor any mention in any police report of it. It strikes me as a fantasy of your own creation, especially now that we know that there are precisely zero candidates who were admitted to the LH on 31 August.

[David Orsam]

But...you read my book, right? If so, you know that can't be the case. You'd know that I followed the bloody trail in Brady Street, presented all the police statements, the statements of the Coldwells, and determined something actually DID take place on Brady Street that night. It's difficult to determine otherwise. So THAT'S the evidence I had. Only THEN did it occur to me to reach out for LH records and only then did I discover the name of Margaret Millous. She of the mysteriously cut arm who as of this moment remains the best candidate for having been the Brady Street victim.

I'm not convinced your summary of events is quite right Tom. Weren't you actually hoping to find in the LH records the identity of the woman who was reported to have had her throat cut in Bucks Row by her husband and was said to have been carried to the London Hospital?

Secondly, most of what you are saying I already argued on this forum. I found the Coldwells, presented the police statements, and argued that something DID take place on Brady Street that night. It's all in the archives of this forum if you need me to dig it up. So you didn't need to persuade me in your book of any of this for one second. It was an argument I had already made.

What you haven't persuaded me of is that anyone was admitted to the London Hospital (or any hospital) as a result of anything that happened in Brady Street that night. There isn't a jot of evidence for it, let alone that it was Margaret M who, the record shows, as Debra has confirmed, was admitted the following day.

[David Orsam]

So....this IS all about defending Gary's honor? And here I thought it was about me accidentally attributing your research to David Gates.

Oh crikey, is THAT what you meant earlier? Goodness, Tom, that is delusional thinking. I couldn't care less about you calling me David Gates in your book and I thought I already said so. I was just letting you know that you'd got it wrong so you could correct if it you wanted to.

Seriously, Tom, if you think that is the reason I posted in this thread, or has anything at all to do with it, you need a major reality check.