Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

No I can't "hang with that" Tom because I can see no credible basis on which you can make such a statement. All I can see is someone trying to fit the evidence to match a theory, which is not acceptable.

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 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'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Well Tom, somehow in this thread about your book you managed to post: "Gary, you're really far too old and accomplished to be this petty and jealous." That's the post I responded to and if you had been sensible you could have withdrawn that comment, put your hands up to the fact that you either misread or never read (we still don't know) the date of admission in the hospital register, and that could all have been done in one post instead of this protracted discussion going on over a period of days.

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I have no idea that Margaret Millous wasn't admitted the day prior. In fact, it makes great sense to me that she might have been. Can you hang with that?

No I can't "hang with that" Tom because I can see no credible basis on which you can make such a statement. All I can see is someone trying to fit the evidence to match a theory, which is not acceptable.

The only thing we have to go on with respect of MM's date of admission is the register and if that says 1 September, and if someone like Debra Arif concludes that this means MM was admitted on 1 September, then any argument that she was admitted on 31 August, however ingenious, is going against the evidence and you might just as well write a work of fiction.

Incidentally, the date the entry was actually made seems to me to be of no significance or relevance. The only issue is what does the date of "Sep 1" mean on the document - and there doesn't seem to be any possible administrative reason for this date to be included unless it is intended to signify the date of admission of those individuals listed below it. But of course that blows a massive hole in your theory and ruins an entire chapter in your book doesn't it?

[David Orsam]

Where in my book do I say Mr. Barnett was wrong about anything? This is a thread about my book, is it not?

Well Tom, somehow in this thread about your book you managed to post: "Gary, you're really far too old and accomplished to be this petty and jealous." That's the post I responded to and if you had been sensible you could have withdrawn that comment, put your hands up to the fact that you either misread or never read (we still don't know) the date of admission in the hospital register, and that could all have been done in one post instead of this protracted discussion going on over a period of days.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have no idea where Polly Nichols was living at the time she died, and you have most certainly never heard anything about that subject from me.

Thus I fail to see the relevance of the point.

But if someone claimed that her death certificate did not say she was living at 35 Dorset Street - which is effectively what you did to MrBarnett by saying he was wrong to claim the register shows an admission date of 1 September - I'm sure you would have wanted to challenge such a false point.

Where in my book do I say Mr. Barnett was wrong about anything? This is a thread about my book, is it not? But in response to what you say - you're aware that Polly's death certificate says she was living at 35 Dorset Street, yet you say you 'have no idea' where she was living at the time she died. Well, I'm aware that the register entry was made on Sept. 1st, but because of the Brady Street evidence, the story that she was 'approached' by JTR and Mr. Barnett's subsequent research which convinced him the entry was actually made at a later date, I have no idea that Margaret Millous wasn't admitted the day prior. In fact, it makes great sense to me that she might have been. Can you hang with that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Remind me again where you think Polly Nichols was living at the time she died? Because when I published what her death certificate said (35 Dorset Street) I sure heard from a lot of people that this document (far more official than a hospital register date) was wrong. I'm suspecting I might be on the wrong end of a double-standard.

I have no idea where Polly Nichols was living at the time she died, and you have most certainly never heard anything about that subject from me.

Thus I fail to see the relevance of the point.

But if someone claimed that her death certificate did not say she was living at 35 Dorset Street - which is effectively what you did to MrBarnett by saying he was wrong to claim the register shows an admission date of 1 September - I'm sure you would have wanted to challenge such a false point.

[David Orsam]

I scrolled up and the title of the thread is actually Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott. And my book is not 353 pages about a register date. So, when you say what 'we' are discussing, do you mean you? Because that's my name in the title of the thread and I think I've said about all that can be said on the matter.

Well, we certainly don't find a hospital admission date of 1 September mentioned in your book, Tom, but there is one whole chapter, entitled "The One That Got Away" about Margaret Millous, suggesting that she was attacked by Jack the Ripper in Brady Street in the early hours of 31 August, which is based entirely on the information from the London Hospital admission register, about which it is effectively said by the author that Millous was admitted to the hospital between the hours of 10pm on August 30th and 3.45am on August 31st.

You basically misled your readers on a very important point - as a paying customer of your book I can certainly put my hand on my heart and say you misled me - and I genuinely would have thought that you would have wanted to correct the position at the first possible opportunity rather than have the truth dragged out of you kicking and screaming.

[Tom_Wescott]

But that's what we are discussing here Tom, what the entry in the register says.

I scrolled up and the title of the thread is actually Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott. And my book is not 353 pages about a register date. So, when you say what 'we' are discussing, do you mean you? Because that's my name in the title of the thread and I think I've said about all that can be said on the matter.

Of course, the register could be wrong about the admission date, no-one can deny the possibility

Apparently they can. But thank you for that. Remind me again where you think Polly Nichols was living at the time she died? Because when I published what her death certificate said (35 Dorset Street) I sure heard from a lot of people that this document (far more official than a hospital register date) was wrong. I'm suspecting I might be on the wrong end of a double-standard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

I'm not a member of jtrforums Tom but, talking of that forum, I have noticed that, in connection with Esther Mallows, the word "approached" somehow seems to have transmogrified into the word "attacked" over there.

The summary of her supposed recollection is as follows:

"Esther was interviewed by the BBC in the 1950s/60s re being approached aged 8 by Jack the Ripper".

I would suggest that the two words are very different and that, had she been attacked, or witnessed an attack, the summary would not have used the word "approached".

That was my mistake, David.

[Fisherman]

The woman listed just under Millous named I believe 'Margaret Hurley' was clearly marked as suicidal and in the same hand as Millous's entry. It seems reasonable to me that had Millous come in with a slit wrist she would have been similarly marked as 'suicidal', whether or not she regretted it and tried to save herself.

And yes, regardless of how she received the injury, she may have passed out from blood loss and then brought to the hospital by someone else on the morning of August 31st, not able to fully provide her details until the next day. Hence the Sept. 1st entry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Margaret Hurley seems not to have had any explicit wound the way Millous did, and that makes me think that the staff gained their knowledge about the suicidal disposition from other things - it is likely that she either expressed a wish to do away with herself or that it was previously known that she was suicidal. When it comes to Millous, she may not have expressed a will to kill herself and she may not have been known as a suicidal person. Nor does the wound have to have been at the wrist - some suicide attempts have the wound a lot further up the arm.
To me, the possibility that Millous was a failed sucide attempt remains quite open. And the admission date very clearly points to an admission on September 1.
You have not commented on my question about how much information you got from the archivist you speak of and what was said between you. Can you help out on that score?

[David Orsam]

Who do you post as at jtrforums?

I'm not a member of jtrforums Tom but, talking of that forum, I have noticed that, in connection with Esther Mallows, the word "approached" somehow seems to have transmogrified into the word "attacked" over there.

The summary of her supposed recollection is as follows:

"Esther was interviewed by the BBC in the 1950s/60s re being approached aged 8 by Jack the Ripper".

I would suggest that the two words are very different and that, had she been attacked, or witnessed an attack, the summary would not have used the word "approached".

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.