The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014)

[RockySullivan]

Tom doesn't seem to jump to conclusion about the landlord. He shows that it's pretty much beyond the level of coincidence that so many murders could center around 35 Dorset.

[Monty]

A small interjection, if I may...

Gary and GUT,

Thank you for the kind words about my book. Not sure I agree, but then again, not really for me to say.

Its an interest, just glad you both found it equally as interesting.

As for rational argument...that doesn't sound like me.

Monty

[MrBarnett]

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,

Do you still not get it?

The discussion was about police corruption and whether it was plausible that Thick's nickname of Johnny Upright was given to him because he was the most corrupt officer of the lot. So bent in fact that he was prepared to frame Pizer for the WM at the behest of his paymasters.

I thought not and gave reasons. Others agreed.

You then suggested that certain Brits had a rose tinted view of the Victorian Met.

I denied this for my part and explained that my grandfather, a contemporary of Arthur Harding from Spitalfields and a bit of a rogue, had many amusing little anecdotes about coppers on the take.

The comment I then made about the threat to the status quo was the one posed by Thick if he had indeed been involved in the cover up . Nothing to do with the threat posed by your groundbreaking approach.

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.



Gary.

[MrBarnett]

I forgot your other stock in trade dismissal of criticism: It's all in my book'. As if your book were the ultimate repository of Ripper lore.

Instead of dismissing alternative views with insults and stock responses why not have a go at responding as many other theorists seem happy to do.

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

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?

Nope, because it doesn't fit. Same as the statement by Margaret Sullivan, about which I will respond later.

Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Tom doesn't seem to jump to conclusion about the landlord. He shows that it's pretty much beyond the level of coincidence that so many murders could center around 35 Dorset.

Hi Rocky,

You could have knocked me down with a feather when Tom pointed that out. Especially when he revealed the 'secret' hidden in plain sight on Nichols' death cert. But then he went and spoilt it all by saying:

'In want of a document stating that Pearly Poll was the woman who identified Pizer, this confirmation of a link between Nichols and Poll is the next best thing'.

Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Sullivans

From The Echo:

The house belongs to Mr M'Carthy who keeps a chandlers shop in Dorset Street, and also owns some common lodging-houses in the district, notably one in which 'Pearly Poll', Mog Sullivan and other women - incidentally mentioned in the enquiries relating to the atrocities - were accustomed to live.


From THE BOOK:

There was at least one other Margaret or Mog Sullivan living in Whitechapel in 1888, but considering it was Daniel's sister who later married William Crossingham, the probability is that the two are one and the same and that the address being alluded to in the report is 35, Dorset Street.

Not in THE BOOK:

As a lodging house dweller, Mog may not have confined herself to Whitechapel establishments. Contrary to Tom's statement on JTRF, the East end was not unique. Other areas of London had similar establishments catering for similar clientele.

No. of Margaret Sullivans in Whitechapel (courtesy of FindMyPast) in:

1881- 16
1891- 7

In London as a whole:

1881- 264
1891- 228

'At least one' is demonstrably true, but possibly a little misleading.

There was also a Mog Sullivan lodging in Poplar in 1891 who very definitely wasn't the MS who married Crossingham.


The way the Echo report reads, 'Mog' was of a type with Poll. A lodging house resident and possibly a prostitute.

Margaret was part of the lodging house establishment and is much more likely to have been the MS who had been a lodging house deputy in Thrawl Street in 1885 (though I would hesitate to claim that as 'probable' based on the name and occupation alone).

When she appeared in court in 1897, MS stated that she arrived in Dorset Street 6 years previously.

The most logical conclusion that can be drawn from the full facts is that Mog and Margaret were probably different women. So perhaps Daniel Sullivan wasn't JTR after all.

[MrBarnett]

Tom doesn't seem to jump to conclusion about the landlord. He shows that it's pretty much beyond the level of coincidence that so many murders could center around 35 Dorset.

Rocky,

Can I ask you a question, just to see whether I am totally off track.

My idea of a stereotype of an East End pub landlord is someone who is 'probably' tough, not averse to picking up a bit of knock off gear from his customers occasionally and has a mutually beneficial relationship with the local cops which allows him to have a few after hours lock-ins without fear of losing his licence. And in the days before gambling was legalised he probably used illegal bookies himself and turned a blind eye to their activities on his premises.

My question is whether the impression you get from Tom's book is of something more organised and sinister? Not least from the fact that he devotes a whole chapter titled 'The Lords of Spitalfields' to them. Of course he issues a caveat towards the end of book, but by then the idea is in the readers mind. And anyone following his posts will know that he believes the 'Lords' were 'the law' in Spitalfields.

I don't see anything to support that in his book. What I see ( and what most of us already knew or could have guessed) is the following:

They were tough.

They crammed dossers into poorly maintained accommodation.

They were involved in a single illegal boxing match which they held outside their manor, presumably so as not to upset the police.

One of them (though not one who features in the WM) acts as a go-between for bookies and police.

That's about it as far as I can see.

As for his contention that the 'Lords' had a monopoly on the provision of food and drink in the East End, that is patently absurd. On their premises obviously, but are realty meant to believe they controlled every pub, shop, market stall and street vendor within walking distance of their lodging houses?

Gary

[RockySullivan]

Rocky,

Can I ask you a question, just to see whether I am totally off track.

My idea of a stereotype of an East End pub landlord is someone who is 'probably' tough, not averse to picking up a bit of knock off gear from his customers occasionally and has a mutually beneficial relationship with the local cops which allows him to have a few after hours lock-ins without fear of losing his licence. And in the days before gambling was legalised he probably used illegal bookies himself and turned a blind eye to their activities on his premises.

My question is whether the impression you get from Tom's book is of something more organised and sinister? Not least from the fact that he devotes a whole chapter titled 'The Lords of Spitalfields' to them. Of course he issues a caveat towards the end of book, but by then the idea is in the readers mind. And anyone following his posts will know that he believes the 'Lords' were 'the law' in Spitalfields.

I don't see anything to support that in his book. What I see ( and what most of us already knew or could have guessed) is the following:

They were tough.

They crammed dossers into poorly maintained accommodation.

They were involved in a single illegal boxing match which they held outside their manor, presumably so as not to upset the police.

One of them (though not one who features in the WM) acts as a go-between for bookies and police.

That's about it as far as I can see.

As for his contention that the 'Lords' had a monopoly on the provision of food and drink in the East End, that is patently absurd. On their premises obviously, but are realty meant to believe they controlled every pub, shop, market stall and street vendor within walking distance of their lodging houses?

Gary

Hi mr b, the picture I got is they were involved in organize crime, possibly pimps & connected to the criminal street gangs, hawking, bribes, gambling, boxing/fighting ..the crime thats in the slums. I believe I read on here once that most of the tenants in Kelly's building were prostitues. That alone was enough to paint a picture of McCarthy as a criminal for me, toms interpretation of the slumlords as criminals just seemed logical

[Pcdunn]

Deleted Duplicate post.

[Tom_Wescott]

When she appeared in court in 1897, MS stated that she arrived in Dorset Street 6 years previously.

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_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

[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

[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.

[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]

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