The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014)

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, how much have you looked into the torso murders? Are the Scotland Yard files on the case completely lost? Has anyone been allowed to go thru the torso files? I imagine since they case received much less attention than the ripper case there would be less looting of the torso files. Is it possible some of the torso files have not been gone thru yet? Debra A should be forced to write a book on the torso case!

Other than owning and reading the two published books on the torsos, and of course reading the posts and articles by Debs and Rob Clack, I've not yet made a special study of the murders. Like you I've been hoping for a Debs and Clack authored book on the cases and have bugged Debs numerous times about writing it. As for Le Grand, I'm looking forward to writing that book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm amazed that other theories and books are torn to shreds by all and sundry on theses forums and yet this one seems to have some kind of immunity. Three words come to mind: Emperor, new and clothes.

I'm not going to spend a great deal of time replying to Gary Barnett as anyone who's read my book can easily tell that Barnett is completely misrepresenting my work and conclusions. He's stated on the jtrforums that he doesn't like how my book upsets the 'status quo' of Ripperology. That offends him for some reason, though Lord knows why. That's his prerogative. I would suggest he stop re-reading my book if it's so offensive. I don't believe in upsetting any status quo just for the sake of doing so, as many people seem to like to do. I'm annoyed by that as much as anyone. But if 'status quo' means we just keep repeating ourselves without asking what I see as the 'big questions', then I'm happy to do what I can to create a new status quo.

I don't know what Barnett is trying to get at with Emperor, new and clothes, nor do I think my book enjoys any sort of 'immunity' that is not offered other books and theories. Based on the support he's given Edward Stow in their various attacks on my book elsewhere, I gather the Charles Lechmere is one of those theories he feels has been unfairly attacked. Perhaps he's right, though what that has to do with my book I have no idea. For all I know, Lechmere is the 'Shadow Man' or 'Stalwart Man' described in my book. I doubt he is, but you never know. The burden to prove that falls on Stow and Fisherman, not myself, since they're the ones proclaiming to have solved the case by naming Lechmere.

More later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't think one can compare these two books. I have read both and they are both excellent in their own ways, but very different. Tom delves into the Ripper case and makes one think "out of the box" but there is quite a bit of conjecture in it, simply because we don't know. His take on Pearly Poll and the landlords is very interesting. Pearly Poll does seem to be the key to at least part of the mystery. Helena's book is very factual and delves into the life and crimes of George Chapman. Both books are thoroughly researched and well written but each stand on their own merit. As a Ripper book Tom's is high up on my list, Helena's is the only thorough and best book on Chapman. Out of the two I enjoyed Helena's more but that has mostly to do with the personal aspect of reading about members of my own family. Maud Marsh was my grandmother's first cousin. Their mothers were sisters.
If one is to compare books, it has to be on the same subject, in my opinion. How does Tom's book compare to other JtR books? In Helena's case there is no comparison. No one has written and researched Chapman as thoroughly as she has done.

Hi Amanda, thanks for that. Yes, the Pearly Poll stuff is really the crux of the book. It seems some have missed that but I'm glad you have not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Tom,

More conspiracies? I seem to remember that Ed Stow, Monty and myself disagreed with your assessment of William Thick's character. You responded to that by claiming to have sensed a tendency amongst Brits to view the Victorian cops through rose tinted specs. That was your way of attempting to close the discussion down.

I hold no brief for Lechmerism, but I will say that I admire the stamina those guys show in defending the nitty gritty of their theory.

I'm not sure how I have misrepresented your conclusions. The conclusion drawn in relation to Daniel Sullivan is a direct quote from your book. As for the significance of the Lords of Spitalfields (to which you devote a whole chapter) I know you hedge many of your suggestions with 'I'm not claiming' etc but I'm sure I'm not the only reader who assumes that's much the same as Francis Urquhart's 'You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment'.

But perhaps you haven't worked out all the detail yet, and perhaps in the final analysis the Lords will turn out to be mere fringe players after all.

If you can show me the quote where I bemoan the challenge to the Ripperologigal status quo represented by your groundbreaking approach, I will gladly retract it. (Good hunting.) Actually, I'm too much of a newbie to even know what the status quo is.

There are many things in the book that I feel need challenging. I will give voice to some of them just to see whether others share my views. I'd hate the 'new Ripperology' to be built on sand.

Gary

[Tom_Wescott]

More conspiracies? I seem to remember that Ed Stow, Monty and myself disagreed with your assessment of William Thick's character. You responded to that by claiming to have sensed a tendency amongst Brits to view the Victorian cops through rose tinted specs. That was your way of attempting to close the discussion down.

Correction, you and Neil disagree with it. Stow disagrees with anything I and other researchers right just based on his own principal. You're not such a newbie that you don't know that.

I'm not sure how I have misrepresented your conclusions.

For starters, you said my book is built on sand, that I intentionally withheld evidence that contradicts my 'conclusions', and with the Emperor accusation you're insinuating that it's a pack of lies and I know it. I'd say that's an outrageous misrepresentation of both me and my book.

If you can show me the quote where I bemoan the challenge to the Ripperologigal status quo represented by your groundbreaking approach, I will gladly retract it. (Good hunting.) Actually, I'm too much of a newbie to even know what the status quo is.

It took me five seconds. Post #98 on the Tom Wescott's TBHM thread at the forums. You wrote:

I've no personal experience other than the occasional pub lock-in where some people appeared not to have to pay for their drinks. But I'd always assumed that the rules of the game were just a slightly offset version of those the public abide by. My wife's family contains a few ex coppers and they are about as upright as they come (in the non-ironic sense).

Thick as described in the book steps well over the Mark and threatens the status quo.

Gary

Clearly it was the way I presented my evidence against William Thick that set you off on your tangent. I won't apologize for it, I'll just say that if I made it all up and there's nothing to back my claims as you say then this will be obvious to all or at least most of my readers.

What I'm still waiting on is for you to show me how wrong I am about Pearly Poll. If you can do that, then you'll have something worth reading. Nitpicking around the edges is making you look like a bit of a...well...a nitpicker with an irrational grudge.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Tom,


'Correction, you and Neil disagree with it. Stow disagrees with anything I and other researchers right just based on his own principal. You're not such a newbie that you don't know that.'

So it wasn't 3 of us who disagreed and gave rational arguments for our opinions it was 2+1. I stand corrected.


'For starters, you said my book is built on sand, that I intentionally withheld evidence that contradicts my 'conclusions', and with the Emperor accusation you're insinuating that it's a pack of lies and I know it. I'd say that's an outrageous misrepresentation of both me and my book.'

You said I was misrepresenting your conclusions. I was not. I was questioning your interpretation of facts. 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. Why is that any different from your leaving out a statement by Margaret Sullivan that she did not live in Dorset Street in 1888, which scuppers your 'clear link' between Daniel Sullivan and the WM? If my statement is outrageous, then so must be yours.



'It took me five seconds. Post #98 on the Tom Wescott's TBHM thread at the forums. You wrote:

I've no personal experience other than the occasional pub lock-in where some people appeared not to have to pay for their drinks. But I'd always assumed that the rules of the game were just a slightly offset version of those the public abide by. My wife's family contains a few ex coppers and they are about as upright as they come (in the non-ironic sense).

Thick as described in the book steps well over the Mark and threatens the status quo.

Gary'

Tom do you seriously interpret that as some kind of Ripperological Luddite manifesto? The context was a discussion of police corruption and whether it was plausible that Thick took things beyond the cosy little arrangement (the status quo) and involved himself in a cover up of the WM.

Can it really be interpreted in the way you suggest?




'Clearly it was the way I presented my evidence against William Thick that set you off on your tangent. I won't apologize for it, I'll just say that if I made it all up and there's nothing to back my claims as you say then this will be obvious to all or at least most of my readers.

What I'm still waiting on is for you to show me how wrong I am about Pearly Poll. If you can do that, then you'll have something worth reading. Nitpicking around the edges is making you look like a bit of a...well...a nitpicker with an irrational grudge.'

Your book goes beyond the inconsistencies in the familiar Pearly Poll story. (Which clearly exist and which you have laid out for us all to see. Well done for that.) You attempt to make a connection between Poll and Nichols, I think you call it your doosie (I'm not familiar with the term, perhaps you can enlighten me). And you tease us with the possible involvement of The Lords, Shadow Man, Stalwart Man, Thick, etc etc. Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is. Maybe all this stuff is just padding and the nub of the book is the revelation Pearly Poll was a rum old girl.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I admire the way Ed and Christer tirelessly answer the detailed questions that are endlessly thrown at them. Your approach is very different. You immediately personalise things. People are irrational grudge-bearers or dinosaurs or police apologists if they don't agree with you.

As for nitpicking, is your suggestion that Daniel Sullivan is 'very possibly' JTR so insignificant that we should let it pass without examination? Do you stand by that statement?

And if you devote an entire chapter to the 'Lords of Spitalfields' are we not entitled to ask why when you provide little or no evidence that shows them in any sinister light?


Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Mere Women

More nitpicking, I'm afraid.

What are we to make of the fact that two women escorted Emma Smith to hospital?

The author finds it significant. He states: 'It's almost as though they knew they were no longer in danger or else they would have summoned a man to escort them.'

Just think about the implications of that. Someone or some group had the power to make the East End streets safe at the click of their fingers.

Really? Has anyone ever had that kind of power over any inner city area? The three delicate little flowers were able to walk the streets of Whitechapel without fear of toughs from Bethnal Green or St Georges, drunk foreign sailors on their first leave in London, or mad Jews from Mulberry Street? Whoever the author has in mind, I doubt their reach was quite that extensive. So the streets were still potentially dangerous and we have to look elsewhere for an explanation.

Here are a few random thoughts that at least don't require the support of a grand conspiracy:

If Smith was attacked by a group of unknown men, she would presumably have felt safer in the company of women with whom she was familiar.

Given the nature of her injuries it would have been more 'seemly' for her to be accompanied by women.

Was 18 George Street a women only establishment? The author suggested so in a recent post. If so, and they didn't want to broadcast what had happened, the choice of companions would presumably have been limited to women.

And let's not forget, her chaperones were probably not delicate flowers like Lady Mary from Downton Abbey.They're more likely to have been in the mould of Biddy the Chivver or Mog the Man. Tough East End women who could stand their ground against any man who approached with evil intent.

And, of course, by the time they set out for the hospital it was broad daylight.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Questions for Tom Wescott


Tom, I have two questions for you :-)

1. Did you have to come over to England to do any research?


2. Whilst researching and writing, did you ever feel frustrated that you could not quickly and easily visit London (locations, record offices etc)?


Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

PS I love seeing this! A big thrill!

[MrBarnett]

One more thought

I almost forgot Howard Brown's excellent suggestion that Smith may have been attacked in the lodging house.

[Tom_Wescott]

Questions for Tom Wescott


Tom, I have two questions for you :-)

1. Did you have to come over to England to do any research?


2. Whilst researching and writing, did you ever feel frustrated that you could not quickly and easily visit London (locations, record offices etc)?


Helena

Hi Helena, no and yes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

So it wasn't 3 of us who disagreed and gave rational arguments for our opinions it was 2+1. I stand corrected.

No, it was only Neil Bell who gave any sort of rational argument. You merely offered incorrectly that no one but Arthur Harding spoke up against Thick and then argued that because the coppers in your wife's family are solid so must Thick have been and that my representation of Thick was upsetting the status quo. You and I have a different understanding of the term 'rational argument'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

You said I was misrepresenting your conclusions. I was not. I was questioning your interpretation of facts. 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. Why is that any different from your leaving out a statement by Margaret Sullivan that she did not live in Dorset Street in 1888, which scuppers your 'clear link' between Daniel Sullivan and the WM? If my statement is outrageous, then so must be yours.

You obviously have a hard on for Daniel Sullivan and Thick. Please provide your source for the part in bold.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

More nitpicking, I'm afraid.

What are we to make of the fact that two women escorted Emma Smith to hospital?

The author finds it significant. He states: 'It's almost as though they knew they were no longer in danger or else they would have summoned a man to escort them.'

Just think about the implications of that. Someone or some group had the power to make the East End streets safe at the click of their fingers.

Really? Has anyone ever had that kind of power over any inner city area? The three delicate little flowers were able to walk the streets of Whitechapel without fear of toughs from Bethnal Green or St Georges, drunk foreign sailors on their first leave in London, or mad Jews from Mulberry Street? Whoever the author has in mind, I doubt their reach was quite that extensive. So the streets were still potentially dangerous and we have to look elsewhere for an explanation.

Here are a few random thoughts that at least don't require the support of a grand conspiracy:

If Smith was attacked by a group of unknown men, she would presumably have felt safer in the company of women with whom she was familiar.

Given the nature of her injuries it would have been more 'seemly' for her to be accompanied by women.

Was 18 George Street a women only establishment? The author suggested so in a recent post. If so, and they didn't want to broadcast what had happened, the choice of companions would presumably have been limited to women.

And let's not forget, her chaperones were probably not delicate flowers like Lady Mary from Downton Abbey.They're more likely to have been in the mould of Biddy the Chivver or Mog the Man. Tough East End women who could stand their ground against any man who approached with evil intent.

And, of course, by the time they set out for the hospital it was broad daylight.

This entire post is strange. The entire Smith event is explained in my book which you claim to have read numerous times. As for people in general and womankind in particular, I'll have to leave that up to someone else to explain to you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Your book goes beyond the inconsistencies in the familiar Pearly Poll story. (Which clearly exist and which you have laid out for us all to see. Well done for that.) You attempt to make a connection between Poll and Nichols, I think you call it your doosie (I'm not familiar with the term, perhaps you can enlighten me). And you tease us with the possible involvement of The Lords, Shadow Man, Stalwart Man, Thick, etc etc. Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is. Maybe all this stuff is just padding and the nub of the book is the revelation Pearly Poll was a rum old girl.

You're the first person to suggest my book was 'padded' at all. If anything, it's been suggested to me that I shouldn't have packed so much new stuff into a single 200 page book. The heart of the book is indeed Pearly Poll and my research into her. Everything else stems from that, including the 'Lords' and Leather Apron (i.e. Thick). I don't recall ever typing the word 'doosie'. If you agree with my Pearly Poll revelations but feel there are other and better suggestions for her cohorts than the ones I suggested, then I'm all ears. But if all you want to do is blindly nitpick then I've got other things to do.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I admire the way Ed and Christer tirelessly answer the detailed questions that are endlessly thrown at them. Your approach is very different. You immediately personalise things. People are irrational grudge-bearers or dinosaurs or police apologists if they don't agree with you.

Not at all. I'm always ready to be corrected when I've made a mistake and I take sound constructive criticism on board as well or even better than most authors. In fact, I encourage such things as they add to my research and understanding. If you have anything at all constructive to offer, I've yet to see it, but will acknowledge it if and when I do. The hater stuff I've little patience for though. When someone comes at me out of the gate caling me the Emperor with new clothes and other nonsense like that, they're going to be treated in kind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott