Historical accuracy of articles and books

[Albert]

Hi Caz,
Excellent advice - you can always find something on Casebook about every new (or old) JTR book.
Regards
Albert

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Helena. I'm not sure I can tell you what makes for exciting reading. I've been trying to figure that out myself. There's no one style that grabs me. In the hands of a good writer, it can be exciting when there's an 'autobiographical' component to the narrative, where they take you in to the research and discovery process. To use a couple of Ripper books as examples, I thought this worked well in Howells and Skinner's Ripper Legacy, but did not work well in Chris Mile's On The Trail of a Dead Man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

I agree with Paul, and I was (in my head) including the kind of thing he cites in my general question. R.M. Gordon is an excellent example. He is determined not to let the facts get in the way of his trying to convince the world that Chapman was not only the ripper but responsible for muders in America, the torso murders, etc.

Sally, I have collected several examples of an author inventing things and I have, where they are still living and contactable, written to three of them, quoting the dodgy claims they have made, and asking them to support them by citing the source. One admitted it and apologised, one told me to go away and one has replied in a friendly tone but won't address my questions.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to write a history of their own, which is why people rely onbuying books and reading articles etc in the first place.

I look forward to more replies.

Helena

Hello Helena

The unfortunate thing is that the literature in regard to the particular suspect that you have chosen to research and write about, Severin Klosowski (George Chapman), is particularly rife with misinformation and garbled facts, and was so almost from the time the man was arrested and put on trial for the poison murder of his common-law wives.

This began with the Pall Mall Gazette interviews of Chief Inspector Frederick George Abberline published in their editions of 24 March 1903 and 31 March 1903 in which the former chief detective on the Ripper case, by now in retirement, apparently speculated that Chapman could have been the Ripper as well as the poisoner of his wives.

However, we don't know to what extent the unknown PMG reporter accurately reported what Abberline said, or whether he added to or altered what he was told by the retired detective. In the published interviews, Abberline appears to be gung ho in believing that Chapman could well have been the Whitechapel murder, but in what he may have told the writer (or that said writer hyped up) there are already the elements of mistruths that have continued in most of the later published accounts about Chapman, particularly those that finger him for the Ripper crimes such as R. Michael Gordon's books. The notable exception being Philip Sugden's excellent The Complete History of Jack the Ripper (1995, 2002) in which the author attempts to parse the truth about Chapman from the evident fiction, e.g., that the suspect lived in George Yard at the time of the 7 August 1888 murder of Martha Tabram, or that there were a series of murders that took place in the United States after Chapman arrived there that were identical to the Ripper murders.

So, Abberline is reported to have said, ". . . the date of the arrival in England coincides with the beginning of the series of murders in Whitechapel; there is a coincidence also in the fact that the murders ceased in London when 'Chapman' went to America, while similar murders began to be perpetrated in America after he landed there. The fact that he studied medicine and surgery in Russia before he came here is well established, and it is curious to note that the first series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, while the recent poisoning cases were proved to be done by a man with more than an elementary knowledge of medicine. The story told by 'Chapman's' wife of the attempt to murder her with a long knife while in America is not to be ignored, . . . There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign-looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view." (24 March 1888 interview with F.G.A. in the Pall Mall Gazette.)

Because the top detective on the Ripper case was reported to have speculated that Chapman was the Ripper, it was simple for Hargrave Adam in The Trial of George Chapman (1930) to take Abberline's apparent ideas about the man arrested by his former subordinate, Inspector George Godley, and trumpet them as if the mistruths were fact, e.g., that Chapman did live in George Yard at the time of Tabram's murder, that the Ripper murders ceased in London and that a similar series of crimes began in the United States when Chapman got there. For Donald McCormick to go even further and write in his 1959 The Identity of Jack the Ripper that Godley and Abberline had actually investigated Chapman in 1888 (apparently basing this claim on notes in Dr. Dutton's probably fictitious "diaries"). And for R. Michael Gordon to take all this skein of misinformation and untruths and to publish a series of books on the suspect adding additional speculations about Chapman being responsible for the torso murders and crimes in his native Poland and America. And so it goes on.

Helena, I am glad to know that you intend to publish an honest book about George Chapman without all the hype and misinformation. Good luck to you.

All the best

Chris

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

And what is your evidence for this statement of fact? In my experience, the vast majority of ripper authors would tell you they'd have been better off stacking shelves for Tesco or claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. Even Cornwell would have made more clear profit churning out Scarpetta clones during the time she spent veering off into 'true crime' with Sickert and his fistula of fewer dollars.

I think we ripper folk can be a bit too sniffy about ripper books. Very few turn out to be great sellers, and who are we to be all protective about the public who don't all rush in like fools, ready to be hoodwinked by the latest lame suspect theory, or poorly written/researched non-suspect account? The irony here is that it's the small number of ripper 'specialists' who actually buy everything and anything that comes out, good or bad, to add to their collection, then whinge about the money they spent on the bad! How about waiting for five minutes to see what the general opinion is on the boards before parting with a penny? Or borrowing from a library, to see what the fuss is about, and only buying if satisfied?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

That was a fairly generalised statement on my part; but I consider it to be the case. I don't mean to indicate that I think the practice is confined to books about the Ripper - the same applies to any given mystery with suffiicient notoriety.

I wouldn't like to comment on whether people are 'sniffy' or not about Ripper books. Most people are quite protective when it comes to their pet subject/area of interest in my experience. I'm sure I am myself - and I think that's ok, actually. What I was really trying to get at was that the sensationalist, historically inaccurate book is par for the course - regrettable perhaps, but there it is.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Sally,

And what is your evidence for this statement of fact? In my experience, the vast majority of ripper authors would tell you they'd have been better off stacking shelves for Tesco or claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. Even Cornwell would have made more clear profit churning out Scarpetta clones during the time she spent veering off into 'true crime' with Sickert and his fistula of fewer dollars.

I think we ripper folk can be a bit too sniffy about ripper books. Very few turn out to be great sellers, and who are we to be all protective about the public who don't all rush in like fools, ready to be hoodwinked by the latest lame suspect theory, or poorly written/researched non-suspect account? The irony here is that it's the small number of ripper 'specialists' who actually buy everything and anything that comes out, good or bad, to add to their collection, then whinge about the money they spent on the bad! How about waiting for five minutes to see what the general opinion is on the boards before parting with a penny? Or borrowing from a library, to see what the fuss is about, and only buying if satisfied?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

That was a fairly generalised statement on my part; but I consider it to be the case. I don't mean to indicate that I think the practice is confined to books about the Ripper - the same applies to any given mystery with suffiicient notoriety.

I wouldn't like to comment on whether people are 'sniffy' or not about Ripper books. Most people are quite protective when it comes to their pet subject/area of interest in my experience. I'm sure I am myself - and I think that's ok, actually. What I was really trying to get at was that the sensationalist, historically inaccurate book is par for the course - regrettable perhaps, but there it is.

Hi Caz and Sally

Of course a lot of authors possibly get into the Ripper field because they think they will make a bundle of money because of the fame of the case, and they end up not making much if anything, though it's comparable and some may make more than others. However, to my knowledge, very few have made substantial money, with the exceptions of the late Stephen Knight and Patricia Cornwell, the first because his Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (1976) was the best known book to plumb the popular Royal conspiracy, even if it relied on some enormous fibs told by the late Joseph Gorman Sickert, who later admitted his falsehoods, and the latter on the back of her success as a crime novelist.

Best regards

Chris

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

From my vantage point I believe some Ripper books are written simply because of the researchers need for validation of some kind. So many aspects of the cases seem insolvable based on the known existing evidence, so, many researcher/authors have to wind their own suspicions around a "theory" to enable some kind of cohesive storyline. They have to tell the story that they believe in.

I would think Ripper-writing should be a journey where the final destination is determined to some degree by the clues uncovered while doing the writing and researching. Starting the book with a final premise has proven to be less than satisfying for me personally.

By that I mean any book that claims to have uncovered "Jack the Ripper", because to my eye, no sound review of the known facts has ever conclusively linked all 5 Canonical murders to a single murderer.

Perhaps The Whitechapel Murders, as they first were called, is more appropriate and accurate for this area of study.

My best regards,
Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike

Broadly I believe you're right, though I think there's even an argument in favour of widening it just a little further beyond Whitechapel and the 1888-91 period...to bring in the entire flavour of the period (ie the final closure of the remnants of the old rookeries...the brothel closures...the huge social changes etc as a backdrop to not just the alleged ripper crimes, but the torso murders, and perhaps more besides)...

I think this may've been at the back of Donald Rumbelow's mind at times...hence his examination of other cases than the Ripper...the whole period is fascinating in this and other respects (eg the progression of science into detection)...

The fascination with which exposees of the Road Hill House and the Charles Bravo cases have been greeted, shows there is a potentially market there for a good writer. I'd love it if someone with the stature of Paul Begg or Stewart Evans would take it on...alas I feel it more likely that if anyone does it'll be a charlatan...

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Cog. Have you read JTR: The Definitive History, by Paul Begg? Not to be confused with 'The Facts'. That was more or less the aim of that book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

No I confess that's one that passed me by...from what you say, and from the Casebook review, I've missed something really worthwhile...which I really regret...I will remedy same asap...thanks...

However, reading the reviews, it appears there is still something of a gap...

Dave

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello Caz. As an author and owner of a tiny specialist publishing setup I'd like to come in here, if you don't mind.

In my experience, the vast majority of ripper authors would tell you they'd have been better off stacking shelves for Tesco or claiming Jobseeker's Allowance.

They probably were (working or claiming benefit) while they wrote. Over the years I've made contact with numerous book-authors and as yet have never come across one who can live off their royalties. Only about 5% of published authors support themselves from book sales.

How about waiting for five minutes to see what the general opinion is on the boards before parting with a penny? Or borrowing from a library, to see what the fuss is about, and only buying if satisfied?

Doesn't always work, I'm afraid. I've looked all over these boards trying to find a critique of R. Michael Gordon's books - I even started a thread asking for people's opinions of them, and never received a single reply. My library won't get them for me (because they are American). So you see, there isn't always the option to wait for others' opinion before parting with the "hard-earned".

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello Helena

The unfortunate thing is that the literature in regard to the particular suspect that you have chosen to research and write about, Severin Klosowski (George Chapman), is particularly rife with misinformation and garbled facts...

Helena, I am glad to know that you intend to publish an honest book about George Chapman without all the hype and misinformation. Good luck to you.

I need it -- and a lot of patience, energy and determination.

I'd like to answer your points, Chris, and also the issue of authors raking in loads of money from writing Ripper books.

I started out with the intention to write one of those little stapled local-history books one sees in museums etc. The focus was going to be - 'Did Jack the Ripper live in Hastings?' I thought that would intrigue locals and daytrippers alike. It would only take me a few weeks, sell very cheaply and earn me about £1 a copy for a coupla hundred copies for my work. I realise that there is no interest in Chapman apart from speculation as to whether he was JtR, and so the project did not seem worthy of much time or effort, as I would never be properly rewarded for it. Even a nationally-distributed paperback would not sell more than a local history booklet, so there was no point in going into too much depth or putting more than a few weeks' work into it.

There was plenty of available material on Chapman, in books, articles and websites, all I needed to do was to pull it all together, re-write it all in my own style, reduce it to fit X pages, do some local research and take a few local photos, and go to press. I've done this before with local history projects; it's lightweight, enjoyable, stress-free and well-received.

I could see straight away that the Polish names and places were all spelled wrong (even Severin is not correct: there is no 'V' in the Polish alphabet) but I could put this right easily. But then I noticed that different accounts of Chapman's life contradicted each other, and did not know which to believe. Some say he had a wife in Poland, some say he was questioned during the Ripper murders. Which accounts were true? I went back to earlier sources such as Adam's book and the oldbaileyonline. This revealed that many 'facts' that are trotted out in every synopsis of his life and believed by trusting readers, are simply not true. (For example, that he was "a surgeon"; that Lucy testified that he "attacked her with a knife".)

It also became clear that everyone, even the most highly-regarded and most widely-read authors in the Ripper field, including all our favourites, had simply cribbed off previous authors and repeated their mistakes and untruths without checking them.

So my task changed, from writing a short local history to investigating his life from scratch in order to separate the fact from the fiction, mainly for my own satisfaction.

And it's been a nightmare. This task is akin to being given a 3ft diameter ball of a thousand tangled wires and told to unpick them and lay them all out straight! A year later and I am still unpicking. I didn't expect that!

I also didn't expect such a lot of personal hostility when I uncovered facts that made it seem less likely that Chapman was the Ripper. There is nothing I would like more than to be able to prove that he was the Ripper; after all, this would make me a household name overnight. Seems people get very attached to their pet suspect and therefore get very angry if anyone dares uncover facts that go against him. One casebook member offered me all the help and support in the world until I explained that the focus of my book wasn't to prove or to argue that he was the Ripper, then that support was instantly withdrawn and I have been blanked by this person ever since. Nothing like this happened when I wrote 580 biographies of local women!

As for earning "easy money", well, this book has taken a year of my life (full time). If I put JtR in the title I will be lucky if I sell 300 copies, from which I will make less than £2 a copy. The reality is, I will earn less than £600, and that is taxable. (If I don't put JtR in the title, BTW, my sales likely won't reach 100.) So, obviously, I am not doing it for the money, but simply to set a record straight, I suppose.

While I am tearing my hair out trying to be diligent, other authors are still peddling the same old myths they cribbed off previous authors. People are paying good money for these books, and the authors are getting away with writing a load of made up nonsense. Nobody challenges them. (I've tried but they just won't reply.)

A book published just six months ago simply repeats all the untrue material previously published about Chapman, including myths that have been corrected on casebook, which shows that the author did not even visit casebook and read the Chapman threads, let alone actually do any research of his own. Here is a snip from this new book:

Klosowski had rented rooms in George Yard Buildings [not true]; the very building in which Tabram was found murdered. The police questioned a number of local people regarding the Tabram murder, including Klosowski on a number of occasions. [not true] Despite regular questioning, nothing ever came of the investigation surrounding the murder. Klosowski was allowed to walk free.

This is a book about Abberline, and so Chapman is the only JtR suspect whose life story is included in the book. What justification is there for the author trotting out this kind of nonsense, presenting it as truth and charging people to read it?

I've spent months moaning to whoever will listen about how appalled I am at all the lies and myths that were, and are still being, published about Chapman, and I keep being told that the vast majority of readers don't give a fig about historical accuracy, they just want to read a good, thrilling, racy, sensationalistic story, and so I am really wasting my time and effort in correcting all the nonsense I found to be written about Chapman because nobody gives a damn about the truth.

And it was being told that "readers don't care" for the umpteenth time a coupla days ago that prompted this thread. I did not intend it to become a thread about my book, but as Chris brought it up, I am responding.

And by the way, no I am not claiming to be perfect, but I won't publish anything unless I have checked it to the very best of my ability.

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello all,

I would think Ripper-writing should be a journey where the final destination is determined to some degree by the clues uncovered while doing the writing and researching. Starting the book with a final premise has proven to be less than satisfying for me personally.

Mike - I am so glad you said this because I see my work as "an exploration of" whether Chapman could be the Ripper, once his story is stripped of all the myths (especially the ones about where he lived in 1888 and whether he tried to kill his wife with a knife).

I did not start with the premise that he is the Ripper, nor that he isn't. My conclusion is entirely determined by what I uncovered during research.

Helena

[Michael W Richards]

Mike - I am so glad you said this because I see my work as "an exploration of" whether Chapman could be the Ripper, once his story is stripped of all the myths (especially the ones about where he lived in 1888 and whether he tried to kill his wife with a knife).

I did not start with the premise that he is the Ripper, nor that he isn't. My conclusion is entirely determined by what I uncovered during research.

Helena

You have my thanks for that Helena, and despite the fact that after years of study I cannot see my way clear to even accept a Canonical Group premise I'd still be pleased to read your book.

My personal guess is that there are a few separate stories within that same group, one or more murders with political links. Something like the areas desperate climate, the juxtaposition of the political turmoil and circumstances including The Parnell Commission coupled with a serial killer ....all together under one umbrella.

But I applaud your methodology.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Hunter]

I've spent months moaning to whoever will listen about how appalled I am at all the lies and myths that were, and are still being, published about Chapman, and I keep being told that the vast majority of readers don't give a fig about historical accuracy, they just want to read a good, thrilling, racy, sensationalist story, and so I am really wasting my time and effort in correcting all the nonsense I found to be written about Chapman because nobody gives a damn about the truth.

Helena,

You are not alone in sensing the frustration when it comes to dealing with a subject such as this from time to time. The vast majority of everything written about 'Jack the Ripper' has been either agenda driven or suspect based. But given the 'nature of the beast' itself, it is only natural. This saga is strewn with minefields because it is incomplete and rather complicated... and thus, ripe for the picking by sensationalist opportunists who know that the best way to sell copy is to offer a 'solution' to the puzzle. Its the way it has been since the murders were committed and has been fueled by the natural human proclivity to find that solution.

Much is changing in this field and it is, for the most part, good changes. The rapid access to information and the exchange of ideas the internet has provided has enabled researchers to assimilate information at a much more accelerated pace. Publication of material is now scrutinized by a far more diverse and informed group of people than has ever existed before. This does not mean that the central reasons for most people's interest has changed; it is an unsolved mystery. But challenges are presented and the demand for material backed by primary resource references are becoming the norm.

In the end, each of us has to determine our own motivation for our interest and whether it is rewarding, personally, to pursue it. For me, because of my background, it has been the historical context and the search to know and understand the people involved, more than trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. That's just me. For most others, it is the mystery itself... and that's fine. There would be very few people who would even know about the events that took place at that time if it had not passed into the realm of legend... even with all of the myths and misconceptions that naturally go along with such distinction.

If your work is a labor of love; of clearing away the layers of varnish; to right a wrong... or simply to offer some clarity where little has existed before, then you will feel gratified for your endeavor... And despite what you may believe now, it will get noticed by people who do have an objective interest. You were never going to reach those who don't anyway. What has fueled you're frustration has also fueled your passion. It doesn't matter if the catalyst was negative or positive; it is the the end result in your own mind that matters. Carry on and don't worry about it.