The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014)

[Barnaby]

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet in this thread, but I just got done reading Paul Begg's review in the Ripperologist, and first congrats goes to Tom for writing what may be the "book of the year." High praise from Begg.

Two comments about the review:

First, I don't understand how presenting argument after argument in favor of one's position is a bad thing.

Second, I think Begg makes a valid point that Pearly Poll could have overheard the "soldier story" in the pubs. I would tend to agree with this if all we had on Connelly was this story. But if all she wanted was her five minutes of fame, why would she keep inserting herself into these series of murders over and over again, especially after her story was discredited and she was presumably humiliated and viewed with suspicion? And why did women keep dying shortly after meeting her?

Perhaps Begg didn't read all the arguments.

[Barnaby]

Speaking of reviews, Tom, I just posted my review of your book on Amazon. Congrats again!

[crberger]

Walking Stick...

Musings on a walking stick...
1. What was the cost?
2. Was it actually a "walking stick" or something else?
3. If something else: merely a stick?
4. I am NOT going to suggest the following:
A. A peg-leg
B. A crutch
Please excuse the meandering thoughts, it's well past my bedtime and I have some kidney stones acting up and some morphine to calm the pain.

[Cogidubnus]

OK so we're at the point where we either go with the previously accepted dictum (ie Smith being pierced by a blunt instrument) or we consider Tom's well argued proposition that this was an attack which included a vaginal stabbing with an instrument which might have been a bit sharper than that...or indeed might've been merely the sheathed instrument...

And then Tabram being vaginally impaled in a similar way...Tom please advise if you think I'm unfairly representing you...

What do folk think?

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day crberger

Then as now the cost of a walking stick varied greatly.

From a few pence to pounds.

I have been using one since I was a teenager and I have some that paid a few dollars for and some that I paid hundreds for, and none of those are antiques, just different quality material and varying levels of craftsmanship.

As with most things when you get into antiques the sky's the limit.

[nicole]

Hi all,

Firstly, Bravo! Tom on the completion of your book! It sounds really intruiging and I will purchse it as soon as I complete this post. Ive been dying to sink my teeth into a good ol' JTR book for about the last six months, but unfortunately nothing has appealed to me....UNTIL NOW!

I really look forward to this one and I will certainly submit a review in due course.

Congratulations once again, Tom.
Nicky

[Sunbury]

Book arrived

The book arrived from Amazon today, I have the Kindle version and ordered the book as a gift to friend. I am a big supporter of Kindle for older eyes but have to say I was wrong also Reading a book still wins.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

Firstly, Bravo! Tom on the completion of your book! It sounds really intruiging and I will purchse it as soon as I complete this post. Ive been dying to sink my teeth into a good ol' JTR book for about the last six months, but unfortunately nothing has appealed to me....UNTIL NOW!

I really look forward to this one and I will certainly submit a review in due course.

Congratulations once again, Tom.
Nicky

Thanks, Nicky!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

OK so we're at the point where we either go with the previously accepted dictum (ie Smith being pierced by a blunt instrument) or we consider Tom's well argued proposition that this was an attack which included a vaginal stabbing with an instrument which might have been a bit sharper than that...or indeed might've been merely the sheathed instrument...

And then Tabram being vaginally impaled in a similar way...Tom please advise if you think I'm unfairly representing you...

What do folk think?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave. I don't question that Smith was fatally wounded with a blunt instrument. That's what the doctor said and that's what we have to go with. What I'm entering into the debate is the possibility of a knife of some sort involved in the attack. There are repeated allusions to such a thing and she did suffer injuries other than the fatal one which were only documented in the medical reports that sadly don't exist.

In the case of Tabram, I offer what I feel is rather convincing evidence that Tabram was injured vaginally with a sharp instrument which I'm assuming was the same 'long, strong instrument' that inflicted the heart wound. This makes far, far more sense of all the evidence than does the standard version of events found in Ripper books.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Morning, Tom,
Thanks. Perhaps you covered all this in the book -- my memory does not remember as much as it once did, and I've loaned my copy of the book to my son.

1. While McCarthy does seem suspicious, since all the landlords lived long lives and prospered, I can't see them as the murderer, who, to my way of thinking, was completely over the edge after Kelly.

That may or may not be right. But I'm not accusing anyone at this point of murder. But I am accusing the landlords at least of complicity to cover-up the murders and subvert the investigation.

2. Someone in their circle seems more possible to me. Since someone appears to have been able to coerce Mary Ann Connelly into her act (and she appears to have moved just before Tabram's murder, indicating it was premeditated and perhaps indicating that Connelly had not intention of being involved) perhaps it was someone of her family. She did have a brother or two, wonder if one could have been one of the boxers? or even worked for one of the landlords. Connelly was sick so much, I wonder how she managed to keep a roof over her head.

I think 'Eyewitness' needs to be looked at very carefully. And Pizer's description of him could certainly fit a boxer.

3.Fenians had not occurred to me but I had considered it was someone with enough clout or coin to make it worth the landlords' while to cover up the murders. Fenians would work and there does seem to be a strong Irish thread running through the murders. If Pearly Poll was the Mary Ann Connelly I believe her to be, her parents were born in Ireland. I'm wondering if just money would have been enough. Would the landlords have continued to remain quiet toward the end of the series just for money? or once they started the cover-up they could not then expose it and their actions?

I don't understand the Fenian theories that well, but Macnaghten and Baxter seem to have favored this theory so who knows. I do know that for the most part these landlords were Irish.

4. I wonder if they were actually behind the murders -- as murders. There doesn't seem to be a reason for them to kill the women who died. I tend to think that if the murders started with them, they were not supposed to be murders (but then Martha Tabram looks premeditated) but a "here's what happens to people who go against us, who don't cooperate, who don't pay up, who don't . . . ."

These women were not important for their prostitution. They made very little and these guys had a bunch of young girls. There appears to be ZERO reason to murder these women. Yet we do know they were murdered. But I'm as much in the dark as to why as anybody.

If for some reason the landlords were behind it, then obviously Pearly Poll knew way too much. It's interesting how much they would have had to trust her. Why would a sickly woman who stayed in the infirmary as much as she was out and doesn't seem to have had any means of support have so much trust from the landlords? Why would she have been allowed to live? And apparently she was because I found her in the 1891 census -- a sick inmate at a workhouse. (IF I have the right Mary Ann Connelly.)

She must have had a huge stake in protecting the murderer to have done what she did and then to have retained the trust of the landlords . . .

Why Pearly Poll? Think I may try to run down her brothers . . . when I find a few minutes.

Why Pearly Poll? Good question. She may have been physically involved in the early murders, or at least was criminal enough they felt they could trust her, or had something over her head. It would appear that she did not want to go to the police, but was compelled to. Whoever killed Tabram was someone very close to her. And as she moves the murders travel with her. Very compelling stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet in this thread, but I just got done reading Paul Begg's review in the Ripperologist, and first congrats goes to Tom for writing what may be the "book of the year." High praise from Begg.

Thanks! I was going for best of all time, but I'll settle for 2014.

First, I don't understand how presenting argument after argument in favor of one's position is a bad thing.

Perhaps Paul is just not used to that many original ideas in a single Ripper book? I don't know. I can't disagree with him though and he sure knows a helluva lot more about writing than I do. Reading his latest book makes it clear he's only getting better. But others have said it's an exhausting read as well and could use more padding. But then a review at amazon.co.uk (one of very few, I might add) says I've padded the book too much. So, it's all perspective.

Second, I think Begg makes a valid point that Pearly Poll could have overheard the "soldier story" in the pubs. I would tend to agree with this if all we had on Connelly was this story. But if all she wanted was her five minutes of fame, why would she keep inserting herself into these series of murders over and over again, especially after her story was discredited and she was presumably humiliated and viewed with suspicion? And why did women keep dying shortly after meeting her?

Perhaps Begg didn't read all the arguments.

Paul's review was clearly hastily written, and I'm relatively certain he only skimmed my book, because of the middle section of his otherwise flattering review doesn't really represent my work very well. As for the idea that Poll was seeking '15 minutes of fame', I'm sure that if Begg weren't so rushed for time he would have thought on it and realize this is not possible. Poll was being sought by the press for an interview. But she managed to duck them. They would have paid hard cash for it too. But she said no. Think on that. As for her having heard the story in a bar, the problem is that there was not story in a bar. There is only that one Times interview with Francis Hewitt who was reciting the Jane Gillibank story and either he or the newsman got some details wrong.

Since publication, Stewart Evans uncovered something that bolsters my theory on this matter. Pearly Poll identified the body on the 8th and not the 9th, but then did NOT go to the police until the next day. In the interim there appeared the Times article. And if Poll had nothing to hide she would have spoken to the police immediately after identifying the body. But she did not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Speaking of reviews, Tom, I just posted my review of your book on Amazon. Congrats again!

Are you Chad, by chance?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

Perhaps Paul is just not used to that many original ideas in a single Ripper book? I don't know. I can't disagree with him though and he sure knows a helluva lot more about writing than I do. Reading his latest book makes it clear he's only getting better. But others have said it's an exhausting read as well and could use more padding. But then a review at amazon.co.uk (one of very few, I might add) says I've padded the book too much. So, it's all perspective.

I've now read right through Paul and John's latest offering and it's very good indeed. You're quite right it's very well written from a historical point of view...and the introduction, as you note, is a real corker...the whole thing is a very competent retelling of the WCM sequence with especial emphasis on the non-canonical victims...I certainly didn't find it an exhausting read at all...however, it didn't excite me with originality the same way your book did...it didn't force me to reconsider things in the same way...and so it won't get the same score your book did...

These things are so subjective though, aren't they?

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day Tom

Since publication, Stewart Evans uncovered something that bolsters my theory on this matter. Pearly Poll identified the body on the 8th and not the 9th, but then did NOT go to the police until the next day. In the interim there appeared the Times article. And if Poll had nothing to hide she would have spoken to the police immediately after identifying the body. But she did not.

But who tool Poll to ID the body. Usually that is done by, or with the assistance of, the police.

[Tom_Wescott]

But who tool Poll to ID the body. Usually that is done by, or with the assistance of, the police.

She apparently showed up alone at the mortuary on the 8th. Freaky, ain't it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott