Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Dane_F]

I was quoting you Dane. The question I asked you was: why?

The answer is in the question, this isn't rocket science.

Here is what you asked me:

"Because the time of her admission was "recorded at a later time after she received treatment" you think "we cannot definitively say she wasn't in the hospital on the 31st"???? Why?"

Now read the first sentence over again and you have your answer. I cannot make it more clear to you than this.

[Fisherman]

What exactly IS your department, Fish? Let me guess, you're a 'truth seeker'. LOL. No really, what is your department?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As a journalist, my department is about taking in information and sifting it correctly.

Which, come to think of it, is why I am breathing down your neck right now.

[David Orsam]

The answer is in the question, this isn't rocket science.

If it's not rocket science then why do you have a problem giving the answer?

[Dane_F]

If it's not rocket science then why do you have a problem giving the answer?

It's not that I have a problem giving an answer. It's that you seem to have a problem comprehending it. But, let's try again:

Because the time of her admission was "recorded at a later time after she received treatment" "we cannot definitively say she wasn't in the hospital on the 31st".

[David Orsam]

Because the time of her admission was "recorded at a later time after she received treatment" "we cannot definitively say she wasn't in the hospital on the 31st".

Yes I read that, and I am asking you why you say it. How does the fact that the time might have been recorded after she received treatment indicate that she might have been in the hospital on the 31st?

[Tom_Wescott]

What I was saying, Tom, is that the charge of "petty and jealous" didn't strike me as "playful" and "breezy", as you now wish to present yourself, and I really don't see it in your posts at all actually. I see someone trying too hard to convey this impression.

That wasn't playful, you're right. When I told him that I was just being honest. But I'm pretty sure I've said that already? Same with my comment to Phil about taking better care of his eyes.

Anyway, I see you've now added "creepy" to the list of accusations against me, well done. Of course, I wasn't defending MrBarnett's honour, I was registering a protest against a clear injustice.

Oh no, I do not think you're creepy at all. Repetitive, perhaps, but you can't deny that. Again, I was pretty clear in what I said. I was talking about people reading the thread through and the impression they receive. You're either tired or these are terrible attempts at twisting my words.

I also don't think you should be speaking for other people, or claiming to. I'm sure if anyone has anything to say they will say it themselves.

You mean like Patrick, Dane, Steadmund, Gut, and the host of others who actually LIKE Ripperology and don't hold some sort of grudge against people who publish successfully? Yes, I for one hear them loud and clear. Others prefer PM and e-mail. The petty stuff just rolls off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dane_F]

Yes I read that, and I am asking you why you say it. How does the fact that the time might have been recorded after she received treatment indicate that she might have been in the hospital on the 31st?

This should be clear already, because we do not know how much time elapsed.

[Phil Carter]

Okay Phil but it's difficult for me to answer because I asked Tom what precisely he meant by a "better candidate" and, on the basis that it meant a better candidate for the woman who a witness said was attacked in Brady Street that night, I gave him an answer which you've no doubt read. What more can I say?

Hello David,

"The one that got away" indicates an "unsuccessful" attempt by JtR on this woman. Ipso facto the "better candidate" spoken of would be one who escaped the clutches of the killer "JtR".
However.. there is more than reasonable doubt that this Millows woman was infact attacked by "JtR". Therefore, to presume she was is misleading. So looking for a better candidate is also misleading..it is a presumption that there WAS a previously unreferred to attack.
There is precious little evidence to assume anything of the sort based on what has been presented by this author.


Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Best...post...ever

As a journalist, my department is about taking in information and sifting it correctly.

Which, come to think of it, is why I am breathing down your neck right now.

COMEDY RELIEF brought to you by Swedish Fish.

We can pretty much shut the thread down now because there will NOT be another post that tops this one.

If you actually believe that jesting is not your department, then you are selling yourself short, my friend. I am in awe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

I have to concur with this. It has been an extraordinary performance. I really have no interest in talking about Tom as a person, I would have much preferred only to discuss the issue of the admissions register of the London Hospital with the author of the book in which that register is referred to but it's been literally impossible to do it with someone who has refused to engage in a mature and professional fashion.

Hello David,

Thank you. My thoughts exactly. I find it all extremely unnecessary and sad.


Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

This thread has over 25,000 views so far.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

COMEDY RELIEF brought to you by Swedish Fish.

We can pretty much shut the thread down now because there will NOT be another post that tops this one.

If you actually believe that jesting is not your department, then you are selling yourself short, my friend. I am in awe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am very sure about jesting not being my department, yes. And I am equally sure that you have not admitted misrepresenting Margaret Millows´ admission date to the London Hospital.

Simple man that I am, I dislike such things.

I am also as certain about how many of the 25 000 you speak of are having a laugh, saying "That Wescott fellow is really toying with them" as I am that the ones saying that do not have a clue. It´s the way things go, and once we all know it, I´m fine with that.

It won´t help you one single bit, I´m afraid. You´ve sold out - and I don´t mean your books.

Now I really cannot be arsed to spend any more time on what is a basically very trivial errand. Goodnight, Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

If you must breath down my neck, here's a mint

I am very sure about jesting not being my department, yes. And I am equally sure that you have not admitted misrepresenting Margaret Millows´ admission date to the London Hospital.

Simple man that I am, I dislike such things.

Man, that cuts to the core, Fish. I should have known better than to lock horns with a man who plays a Ripperologist on TV. Tell me something. Did I intentionally misrepresent Margaret Millows's admission to the LH? If so, please say as much and very succinctly so that there's no ambiguity. And the same goes to anyone else who thinks so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman aka Christer Holmgren, star of The Missing Evidence documentary on what he thinks of the membership of Casebook.org:

I am also as certain about how many of the 25 000 you speak of are having a laugh, saying "That Wescott fellow is really toying with them" as I am that the ones saying that do not have a clue. It´s the way things go, and once we all know it, I´m fine with that.

Goodnight, Fish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Oh no, I do not think you're creepy at all. Repetitive, perhaps, but you can't deny that.

Well Tom that's not a little ironic considering that one of my main complaints is that I have had to repeat questions addressed to you because of your repeated failure to answer them!