Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Elamarna]

Why does Marriott always get to be The Mangler and I'm the baby killer?

So, you're an Olympic weight lifter and Abby is into the MMA. And yet you're two of the nice ones.

For the record, there's actually not a lot of trouble makers in Ripperology. It just seems that way when they choose to band together and gang up on someone. And they only gang up on people who put out books that receive positive attention for being 'original'. Somehow this is a trigger mechanism for them. I reserve certain sides of my personality only for these individuals and only when they behave a certain way. Otherwise I'm all good times and noodle salad. This comment does not of course refer to all those who have criticisms of my book (most criticisms are healthy and appreciated), but I think it's obvious I'm referring to a very, very small and particular group of individuals.

If you think they had the knives out for me, wait until the Swanson book comes out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom

I am sure Adam is well prepared with his tin helmet.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Why does Marriott always get to be The Mangler and I'm the baby killer?

So, you're an Olympic weight lifter and Abby is into the MMA. And yet you're two of the nice ones.

For the record, there's actually not a lot of trouble makers in Ripperology. It just seems that way when they choose to band together and gang up on someone. And they only gang up on people who put out books that receive positive attention for being 'original'. Somehow this is a trigger mechanism for them. I reserve certain sides of my personality only for these individuals and only when they behave a certain way. Otherwise I'm all good times and noodle salad. This comment does not of course refer to all those who have criticisms of my book (most criticisms are healthy and appreciated), but I think it's obvious I'm referring to a very, very small and particular group of individuals.

If you think they had the knives out for me, wait until the Swanson book comes out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

WAS a lifter. Retired 12 years ago. Although I still train, the intensity of training required to compete is more hazardous to your health than arguing about "the carman" with Christer.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom

I am sure Adam is well prepared with his tin helmet.


Steve

The entire Cabal is, I'm sure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

WAS a lifter. Retired 12 years ago. Although I still train, the intensity of training required to compete is more hazardous to your health than arguing about "the carman" with Christer.

I've just recently hired a trainer to work out with me twice a week and it's killing me. LOL. I can't imagine what must go into working yourself up to being a weight lifter. I do know that some order cheap testosterone and steroids from overseas in powder form and mix it and inject it themselves. That is playing with fire in the worst way. But I'd like to think most are smarter than that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

WAS a lifter. Retired 12 years ago. Although I still train, the intensity of training required to compete is more hazardous to your health than arguing about "the carman" with Christer.

But my argument carries more weight.

[Patrick S]

But my argument carries more weight.

Now. THAT was good.

[Tom_Wescott]

But my argument carries more weight.

Okay, Fish has done it again. It's now between this and Gary's hat-band joke for best post of the thread. I'm torn. But I do take off my large, stretched hat to you for this, Fish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Clearly when I say we do not know how much time has elapsed I am speaking about when Millous went into the hospital and when the record was made. We know the record was made at a later time but how much later, we cannot say.

Right, and what I have been asking you repeatedly is what difference does it make that there was a time gap between those two events. In other words, what difference would it make if there was an entire week or an entire month or even an entire year between the time of entry by MM into the hospital building and the time that the record was created showing a date of admission to the hospital of 1 September?

[David Orsam]

Based on what you've learned about me throughout our exchange on this thread, and what you've read from the exchanges in which you did not participate, how do you think I processed the paragraph above?

That is one of the strangest questions I've been asked on this forum, Tom. You told me in this thread on 5 July:

"if you have questions, feel free to ask."

I've now asked you 10 questions – reasonable questions I think - and you have given no indication that you are prepared to answer them, let alone that you will answer them. In fact, you haven't even given any indication that you are aware that of their existence.

How do I think that you processed a paragraph in which I tried to assure you that no-one is trying to humiliate you or get one over on you? I really have no idea. I like to think that you "processed" it by reading it and understanding the words to mean that no-one is trying to humiliate you or get one over on you. That is what they were intended to mean. Obviously I can't actually speak for anyone else but I am certainly not trying to humiliate you or get one over on you (do you think that is what people ARE trying to do then?) and I wanted to make the point to encourage you to answer the questions in case that is what is worrying you.

Are you going to answer them?

[David Orsam]

Now I have not,in all the years posting here,talked to or personally met and conversed with any other poster.So do not include me as being for or against anyone on a personel level.
The hospital records certainly have the 1st as the date of admission,but was that the date on which the injury occurred?That is what I believe Tom was trying to determine.He seemingly believes the injury could have occurred on the day previous to admission.That is what should have been argued.
Could it? I believe it possible.I could be wrong,but insisting his mistake over the 1st,on it's own,disproves his belief,doesn't prove he's wrong.

Yes but, Harry, when I asked Tom directly in this thread on what date Margaret was admitted to hospital, he told me August 31st. That was on 7 May which was a full three days after Gary Barnett had posted a cropped image of the admission register on JTR forums, so Tom had had plenty of time to think about it. He has never actually corrected his answer and consequently it is been difficult if not impossible to proceed with an orderly debate in the manner you suggest. But if, as you accept, the date of admission was 1 September and the injury was inflicted at about 3am on 31st, Tom needs to explain the reason for the minimum 21 hour delay before Margaret was admitted to hospital.

[Damaso Marte]

Hi Damaso, thanks for that. I'm curious what you thought of the Fanny Mortimer and Israel Schwartz essays. To me those are among the most 'hardcore Ripperology' parts of the book, along with the Nichols stuff and the Goulston Street essay in section 3. My guess is the part where I lost you was in 'Murder in the Neighborhood'. The Stride stuff in that was good but the topography stuff, which works great in a magazine, rather slowed down the pace I had established earlier on. Such is the pitfall of an essay-oriented book. Plus I'm now told it was all wrong, so...

Yours truly ,

Tom Wescott

I was actually reading the Fanny Mortimer/Israel Schwartz essay last night. Fell asleep at 1:00 AM reading it, actually, but not because it was boring.

This is something on which I have well developed views: I am a strong proponent of the idea that Israel Schwartz is not a credible witness and that the easiest solution is to ignore him. Everything else then more or less snaps into place. I'll finish that section tonight.

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

In case you can't tell, the thread has moved on. I moved on days ago. So, sing a different song. Got any good jokes? <insert insult about my work being the 'biggest joke' here>. No, seriously. Lighten up, will ya? If it were just you, or maybe just Gary, that'd be one thing. But obviously, since some of the biggest losers around have attached themselves to the issue, I cannot answer their questions as a matter of principle. It is my job to deprive them of any and all satisfaction. That doesn't mean I won't answer your pertinent questions, it simply means I will do so at a time and in a manner of my own choosing. I'm not a trained monkey who dances on command. So, no disrespect to you intended and you shouldn't take my obstinance personally.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I was actually reading the Fanny Mortimer/Israel Schwartz essay last night. Fell asleep at 1:00 AM reading it, actually, but not because it was boring.

This is something on which I have well developed views: I am a strong proponent of the idea that Israel Schwartz is not a credible witness and that the easiest solution is to ignore him. Everything else then more or less snaps into place. I'll finish that section tonight.

Yes, please. And read the Schwartz one twice if you've got the stomach for it. There's very particular reasons why I believe we're compelled to take Schwartz seriously.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I'm not a trained monkey who dances on command.

To repeat the point Tom, you said to me earlier:

"if you have questions, feel free to ask."

Well I asked you some questions and now I'm supposedly trying to command you to dance like a monkey.

[Damaso Marte]

Yes, please. And read the Schwartz one twice if you've got the stomach for it. There's very particular reasons why I believe we're compelled to take Schwartz seriously.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Was able to finish the Mortmer/Schwartz essay just now. You do an excellent job of marshaling all the arguments against Schwartz, only to pull away from the obvious conclusion at the last minute through a rather elaborate dance.

I suppose the most agreement you'll get from me on your conclusion is that I agree if Schwartz is a real witness, Pipeman is a better candidate for the Ripper than BS man.