The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014)

[RockySullivan]

I hope it's not me.

it's not fair to call MrB a spammer tom,
Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising

Ha ha

[Tom_Wescott]

Just saw this. I do hope that Tom and you have read my answer to that particular criticism? There never was any leaving out of any relevant material; an Echo article of the 3:rd of September clearly lays down that Mizen saw the blood running when he first came to Bucks Row and found Neil there:

Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.
(The Echo, Sep 3)

This tells us that the papers that seemingly reported about Mizen finding Nichols bleeding half an hour after she had been cut ( at the very least) were misrepresentations, led on by the order in which Mizen said what he said. The Echo, however, clarifies the picture - and tells us how the others managed to get it wrong to boot. So Toms notion that I had withheld evidence was groundless from start to finish.

In all honesty, I donīt think Tom said outright that I had withheld evidence - he asked whether this was so. There was - sadly - another poster who accused me of dishonesty, but that should not reflect on Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, I did see your response some time later and can understand your point. Also, I appreciate the fact that you have not published an essay or book on the blood evidence. However, you HAVE posted lengthy and detailed posts on the subject and I find it unfortunate that you never tackled the issue of the Star report where Mizen describes the blood as 'congealed'. Such a word can cast serious doubt on a theory that the blood was 'fresh' and still running or at least can cause confusion to the reader. So I was surprised when I learned about the 'congealed' comment from a non-Lechmere poster.

However, this is different from what Barnett is claiming regarding me. He's suggesting I withheld some piece of evidence which even now I'm not aware of.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Just in case anyone missed it. We have a troll and a spammer, ladies and gentleman.

I hope it's not me.

[Fisherman]

Tom,

The sand reference was made in a subsequent post. You are happy to accuse Fisherman of cheating for not mentioning a press report that contradicts his views on blood flow.
Gary.

Just saw this. I do hope that Tom and you have read my answer to that particular criticism? There never was any leaving out of any relevant material; an Echo article of the 3:rd of September clearly lays down that Mizen saw the blood running when he first came to Bucks Row and found Neil there:

Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.
(The Echo, Sep 3)

This tells us that the papers that seemingly reported about Mizen finding Nichols bleeding half an hour after she had been cut ( at the very least) were misrepresentations, led on by the order in which Mizen said what he said. The Echo, however, clarifies the picture - and tells us how the others managed to get it wrong to boot. So Toms notion that I had withheld evidence was groundless from start to finish.

In all honesty, I donīt think Tom said outright that I had withheld evidence - he asked whether this was so. There was - sadly - another poster who accused me of dishonesty, but that should not reflect on Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I will continue to post my concerns about your conclusions until I get bored it closed down by admin or peer opinion.

Just in case anyone missed it. We have a troll and a spammer, ladies and gentleman.

I don't recall stating that you knew of these facts before you wrote your book.

You stated I 'cheated' by withholding information in my book. Which of course I didn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

No, GUT. I want to be able to raise my nitpicking points without personal insults.

If admin feel that I am the one who initiates the personal stuff, they can close ME down or give me a wrap on the knuckles.

You seem to me someone who has a level head on his shoulders, and also who has considerable legal lnowledge.

Perhaps you can tell me whether the fact that someone's sister has a similar name to someone who shared a room with someone involved in a crime makes them a person of interest.

A simple honest yes or no will do.

Gary

Short answer maybe.

[MrBarnett]

No, GUT. I want to be able to raise my nitpicking points without personal insults.

If admin feel that I am the one who initiates the personal stuff, they can close ME down or give me a wrap on the knuckles.

You seem to me someone who has a level head on his shoulders, and also who has considerable legal lnowledge.

Perhaps you can tell me whether the fact that someone's sister has a similar name to someone who shared a room with someone involved in a crime makes them a person of interest.

A simple honest yes or no will do.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it. Perhaps you should put this vast knowledge in a book so some nut could follow you around a message board attacking it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There you go again with the personal stuff: I'm a nut because I disagree with your conclusions.

You say it's suspicious that three women braved the East end streets at 5 in the morning.

I say it's not. I have as much research at my finger tips as you and in addition personal knowledge that leads me to believe your interpretation is wrong.

Now if your errors of interpretation, as I see them, were random mistakes I wouldn't bother to point them out. But they seem to trend in the same direction, towards some grand conspiracy. And that concerns me.

If that makes me a zealot, then that's what I am.

Gary.

[GUT]

So for some reason you want to have the thread closed down.

Nice

[MrBarnett]

What 'threat' do I pose to you or anyone else? I suppose you're some sort of martyr for 'taking me on'? Most of the people reading this thread have read my book and consider it quite sensible and well-researched. Nobody is required or even encouraged to agree with all my conclusions, where I even offer firm conclusions. But you're coming off a bit like a zealot, or are you not aware?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Have you realised that you totally misread my comment? You haven't mentioned it.

Is that because you merely skim my posts because I'm a newbie and a zealot?

If so, that's fine. I have no appetite for tit for tat insults, but I will continue to post my concerns about your conclusions until I get bored it closed down by admin or peer opinion.

Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Again I ask for your source for this. Also, please provide your source for where she was all of 1888. While you're at it you state that this information you're sharing was known to me prior to writing my book. Please provide your source for this claim. I only skimmed over your last few posts after noting more personal attacks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

I don't recall stating that you knew of these facts before you wrote your book.

I may have assumed that since you laid the WM at Daniel Sullivan's door based on a connection with his sister you would have known of the one time she appears in the historical record. Especially since that episode has been discussed both here and on JTRF on a number of occasions. Perhdodvthstvaas you slipped those threads.

Also the fact that when anyone raises any objections to your conclusions you tend to respond with 'it's all in my book'.

A short while ago a well respected Ripperologist had the audacity to question your assertion that the East End was unique in respect of lodging house culture. Your response was something along the lines of, 'I explain it all in my book'.

Presenting yourself possibly gives the wrong impression.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Emma Smith was probably drunk and undernourished and certainly on her own.
Can you see the difference between that and two sturdy women, one of whom is a lodging house deputy?

[MrBarnett]

Tom,

The personal attacks originated with you.

If you deal them out, don't be surprised if you receive something similar in return, although I would not stoop so low as to accuse you of having a 'hard on' in relation to any of your favourite historical characters. That really is personal and rather immature. I have been critical of your work and the way you attack people on the forums, but never personal. It ill becomes an award winning author to stoop to such a puerile level.

For someone who is so knowledgeable about the facts of the case, who has so much knowledge that he can confidently link Daniel Sullivan to the WM through a absurdly tenuous link to his sister I am amazed that you are not aware of the one time that Margaret Sullivan came to the public's attention.

In 1897 she was the victim of an attack at 20, Dorset Street. During the ensuing court case she stated that she arrived in Dorset Street 1891.

I have posted a bit more on this over on JTRF, which if you can bring yourself to read it, may be of use to you.

Gary.

[Tom_Wescott]

I know it would suit your purpose if I had indeed thrown my hands up in horror at the threat you pose, but any objective reading of what I wrote would not draw that interpretation from what I said.

What 'threat' do I pose to you or anyone else? I suppose you're some sort of martyr for 'taking me on'? Most of the people reading this thread have read my book and consider it quite sensible and well-researched. Nobody is required or even encouraged to agree with all my conclusions, where I even offer firm conclusions. But you're coming off a bit like a zealot, or are you not aware?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

RE the toughness of East End women. I have a feeling that if you googled till doomsday your knowledge wouldn't match mine.

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it. Perhaps you should put this vast knowledge in a book so some nut could follow you around a message board attacking it.

But let's just look at the written record. Arthur Harding and Jerry White both provide examples of tough old birds slugging it out with men on the streets. Is that in your book alongside your suggestion that the women seemed to know the streets were no longer dangerous?

And Emma Smith wasn't a tough old bird? She seemed like one to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott