Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Tom_Wescott]

Iīm even wiser, Tom - I realize that you will not answer the question I asked.

So....why'd you ask it? You could have been doing any one of a thousand things instead.

The downside of this business is that I expected more from you. A lot more, to be frank.

No you didn't. Don't lie. You've been around here long enough to know that coming at me demanding I do something is counterproductive.

The upside is that you will have precious little to live up to in the future, and so life should be easier for you in days to come.

Life's extremely easy at the moment. You mean to say it only gets better? I share your optimism.

Being unversed in modern day entertainers like Miley Cyrus, I can offer a man from the olden days, the dane Robert Storm Pedersen, who said "Itīs but a short warmth to wet your pants". If you apply that to the pertinent issue of choices - such as that of reliability and/or booksales - you may be wise enough yourself to understand my take on things.

If I piss my pants I'll sell more books? Is that some Swedish superstition? It's best not to wax philosophical to a guy who just quoted Miley Cyrus. It's liable to go over his head. Or down his leg? Anyway, creepy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

This was my original post re Margaret Mallows. As I sometimes do, I thought I would attempt to flesh out the character known as Millous in the book upon reading it for the first time. So many characters seem to exist as a name only in Ripperlore and I find it fascinating to use Ancestry to find out some more background where I can. It didn't take long to come across a likely candidate in Margaret Mallows. The Ripper tale regarding Esther came via the usual Ancestry links. In most cases I don't bother sharing my findings, of which there are many, but this seemed too compelling not to, even before the info re Esther came to light. I was trying to assist others - more dedicated Ripperologists than I - with some basic info as, for example, a newspaper search might just throw up something using the alternative names.

At this stage I have no info on her hospital admission date other than the book and this forum though September 1st is the most obvious choice as far as I can tell from this forum. I've not yet seen any posts from anywhere else than on here but I'll probably get around to it at some point.

I'm near the end of Tom's book which I have greatly enjoyed reading and I've got the Bank Holiday Murders book waiting for me next. Yay.

Hi MysterySinger, much thanks for this. You might have heard the new Rippercast where I gave you a shout out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

Something concerns me.

Repeatedly on this thread, the "challenge" has been thrown down for anyone, in some posts, you, to provide a more likely "candidate" as to the possibility of the same killer of Polly having "attacked" another woman other than this Mallows/Millows/Mellows woman.

Erm..isnt that being just a little presumptuous anyway?
There is reasonable doubt as to whether the wounds to the forearm where defensive wounds because of an attack or a suicide attempt.
There is a reasonable doubt, stronger than the first such, above, that the actual date of the injured woman's arrival at the London Hospital is matching the date needed to enhance the proposition made by the author.
Thirdly, there is the disturbing fact that not one newspaper reported this incident, in the wake of a murder 200 yards or so away..which by following all the newspapers throughout the period of murders one sees a proliferation of reports linked to the Whitechapel murderer/Leather Apron.
Lastly, there is no known police report of any such "attack" which further relegates the "possibility" of a "same person attacker" having done such a thing at this time.

Therefore...why would you, I or anyone else find the need to "find a better candidate" for something that cannot be established even occurred?

To do so is to believe that it happened. The evidence clearly shows that it was, at this particular time and date, highly unlikely as both the newspapers would have pounced upon the tiniest hint of such a thing, and there would have been mention of it in police papers.

IF Mallows/Millows/Mellows WAS attacked....and the attacker failed in killing her, it would have been registered by both of the above as was done on other occasions during this 4 month or so period of killings.

Exactly why DO we have to "find a better candidate"? To do so only enhances the proposition the suthor wants us to believe.


Phil

This is why people who try to comment on a book based on other comments that they read but have not read the book itself inevitably end up looking stupid. Clearly there was ample amount of newspaper coverage of the blood and screaming and running in Brady Street or else there would have been nothing for me to follow up on.

Handily the most irrelevant post on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I doubt Tom mislead anyone.An attack may have happened as he said.
The person may have been admitted on the 1st,but attacked the day before.
I doubt the London Hospital procedures 1888 were much different from the Shire hospitals of the 1930's,where both attendance and admittance ledgers were kept.
One attended at the Casualty Department,details were recorded,treatment was administered,and the following ensued.The patient was told they needed no further treatment and discharged,were told to come again for further treatment at a given time,advised to return if they felt the need,or admitted.
So Tom's victim attended on the 31st,was discharged at that time,returned on the !st and was admitted? What's wrong with that? Oh!,Tom got a little confused with the detail.Big deal.

Thank you, Harry. By the way, I had you in mind when write my Fanny Mortimer/Israel Schwartz chapters. You were definitely ahead on the game on this one, my friend.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

This is why people who try to comment on a book based on other comments that they read but have not read the book itself inevitably end up looking stupid. Clearly there was ample amount of newspaper coverage of the blood and screaming and running in Brady Street or else there would have been nothing for me to follow up on.

Handily the most irrelevant post on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Another failure from your side.
I have read the book.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

This is why people who try to comment...

Handily the most irrelevant post on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This is why deflection..again..through disguised insults .. wins no awards.
You dedicate a chapter to this Mallows/Millows/Mellows woman.
There is more than reasonable doubt that this woman was not the victim of an attack. Had she been..without doubt. . There would have been a police investigation into the incident. Show us those police reports.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Tom_Wescott: So....why'd you ask it? You could have been doing any one of a thousand things instead.

Indeed. Itīs a bit like how you could have done one of a thousand other things than claiming that Millows was admitted to the LH on the 31:st. As choices go, I think I made the better one.

No you didn't. Don't lie. You've been around here long enough to know that coming at me demanding I do something is counterproductive.

I was not so much referring to your refusal to answer my question, as I was thinking of how it seems you have lacked sorely in your research, Tom. I find that disappointing.

Life's extremely easy at the moment. You mean to say it only gets better? I share your optimism.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Tom.

If I piss my pants I'll sell more books? Is that some Swedish superstition? It's best not to wax philosophical to a guy who just quoted Miley Cyrus. It's liable to go over his head. Or down his leg? Anyway, creepy.

Down the leg, more likely, cooling off in the process. But letīs leave it there - empty jesting is not my department, and if I am sucked into it I run the risk of coming out shorthanded.

[Tom_Wescott]

Another failure from your side.
I have read the book.



Phil

That'll teach me to give you the benefit of the doubt in regards your ignorance.

I had to look up the word 'failure' in the dictionary. Alas, it does not appear in my copy. I'm going to have to assume it's something very familiar to you. So, I guess we're both ignorant in our own ways.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

This is why deflection..again..through disguised insults .. wins no awards.

I'll have to take your word for that. I'm a humble man who always defers to the experts. Fun fact: You know what does win awards? My books.

You dedicate a chapter to this Mallows/Millows/Mellows woman.

Only one chapter? Your eyes are failing you, old chap. You'd better take better care of those orbs. They be the only two balls you've got.

There is more than reasonable doubt that this woman was not the victim of an attack. Had she been..without doubt. . There would have been a police investigation into the incident. Show us those police reports.

Phil

Why didn't I think of that! Oh yeah, because the vast majority of contemporary police reports don't exist. You must know other Ripperologists besides me. You can ask around. You know what does exist? Met files from the last 20 years. You think we might find something interesting in there?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hmmm....do you actually own my book?



Actually, the register reads 'Millows'.



I'd find it difficult to make the connection as well if that woman hadn't had her arm cut when the Ripper was on the prowl. But, this is Ripperology, so when in doubt, write it off as coincidence.

Only just saw this:

Hmmm....do you actually own my book? – Yes I do Tom, in kindle form, and don't understand the purpose of the question.

Actually, the register reads 'Millows'. – Fine, but that's not what you say in your book.

I'd find it difficult to make the connection as well if that woman hadn't had her arm cut when the Ripper was on the prowl. But, this is Ripperology, so when in doubt, write it off as coincidence. – Well if MM WAS a Ripper victim, I can only conclude that a story about her daughter being "approached" by Jack the Ripper at the age of 8 (which, presumably, places the event in about 1891) is a coincidence because I find it hard to think of how it can sensibly be connected to a violent assault on her mother in 1888, at least not without a huge dose of imagination.

[David Orsam]

Oh stop pretending you care, David. The self-righteous act has grown stale. Like suddenly it's me and a bunch of Catholic Bishops. I hardly think so.

When you told me to "Please, be nice", Tom, I wondered if you were a Catholic Bishop for a moment. In fact, perhaps you think you are the Pope and infallible? I do know it's hard for you to accept that anyone can criticise or challenge you, or anything you have written, without having some kind of sinister ulterior motive or deep personal grudge, but you might want to consider your own behaviour first before impugning the motives of others. He that is without sin let him cast the first stone, as one of those Catholic Bishops might say.

[David Orsam]

David,

Something concerns me.

....

Therefore...why would you, I or anyone else find the need to "find a better candidate" for something that cannot be established even occurred?

To do so is to believe that it happened. The evidence clearly shows that it was, at this particular time and date, highly unlikely as both the newspapers would have pounced upon the tiniest hint of such a thing, and there would have been mention of it in police papers.

IF Mallows/Millows/Mellows WAS attacked....and the attacker failed in killing her, it would have been registered by both of the above as was done on other occasions during this 4 month or so period of killings.

Exactly why DO we have to "find a better candidate"? To do so only enhances the proposition the suthor wants us to believe.

I have no idea why you addressed that post to me, Phil, assuming I am the "David" referred to. It was Tom who asked for a "better candidate", not me. But I'm glad to see that Tom has now addressed your concerns and I will leave you two to sort it all out.

[Patrick S]

Tom_Wescott: So....why'd you ask it? You could have been doing any one of a thousand things instead.

Indeed. Itīs a bit like how you could have done one of a thousand other things than claiming that Millows was admitted to the LH on the 31:st. As choices go, I think I made the better one.

No you didn't. Don't lie. You've been around here long enough to know that coming at me demanding I do something is counterproductive.

I was not so much referring to your refusal to answer my question, as I was thinking of how it seems you have lacked sorely in your research, Tom. I find that disappointing.

Life's extremely easy at the moment. You mean to say it only gets better? I share your optimism.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Tom.

If I piss my pants I'll sell more books? Is that some Swedish superstition? It's best not to wax philosophical to a guy who just quoted Miley Cyrus. It's liable to go over his head. Or down his leg? Anyway, creepy.

Down the leg, more likely, cooling off in the process. But letīs leave it there - empty jesting is not my department, and if I am sucked into it I run the risk of coming out shorthanded.

In reading Christer's posts on this thread I'm reminded of two things. First, I'm reminded of Little League Baseball coaches I've known who take things so seriously that it sours the experience for everyone involved. They berate one another, umpires, opposing players, their own players, parents. Games that should be FUN are reduced to soul-sucking examples of what a lack of perspective can drive a man to say and do. Everyone shows up at the field with a common interest, ready to have a good time........ Only to leave feeling like they've been kicked in the nuts.

Second, I'm reminded of the myriad times posters - myself included - have driven Christer to lament the lack of courtesy and respect shown him and his work - mainly his documentary - on these pages. More than once it's driven him into hiding, angry, upset, wounded. I think of this because often what has hurt Christer so was criticism and insolence far milder than what he's directed at Tom and his work here.

Anyway. Carry on.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom_Wescott: So....why'd you ask it? You could have been doing any one of a thousand things instead.

Indeed. Itīs a bit like how you could have done one of a thousand other things than claiming that Millows was admitted to the LH on the 31:st. As choices go, I think I made the better one.

I did do a 1,000 other things. They're in the other 330 pages of my book. For every error I make I correct 12. You're welcome.

No you didn't. Don't lie. You've been around here long enough to know that coming at me demanding I do something is counterproductive.

I was not so much referring to your refusal to answer my question, as I was thinking of how it seems you have lacked sorely in your research, Tom. I find that disappointing.

You know who the last person was to laud you for your research? Me. On Rippercast. And before that? Hmmm...you'd have to ask an elephant. See, that's how I roll - I build up. Create. I don't tear down. Can you say that about yourself?

Life's extremely easy at the moment. You mean to say it only gets better? I share your optimism.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Tom.

Wow, so my death is imminent now, is it? Imagine what that will do for my book sales!

If I piss my pants I'll sell more books? Is that some Swedish superstition? It's best not to wax philosophical to a guy who just quoted Miley Cyrus. It's liable to go over his head. Or down his leg? Anyway, creepy.

[B]Down the leg, more likely, cooling off in the process. But letīs leave it there

Don't just leave it there, man! Cleanse yourself! No more posts from you until you're showered and changed!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

When you told me to "Please, be nice", Tom, I wondered if you were a Catholic Bishop for a moment. In fact, perhaps you think you are the Pope and infallible? I do know it's hard for you to accept that anyone can criticise or challenge you, or anything you have written, without having some kind of sinister ulterior motive or deep personal grudge, but you might want to consider your own behaviour first before impugning the motives of others. He that is without sin let him cast the first stone, as one of those Catholic Bishops might say.

David, you take yourself too seriously. I'm more playful than anything. These exchanges are breezy for me. A pleasant distraction. Little more than that. If and when I get bored of them, I'll let you know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott