Update on my book about Chapman

[The Good Michael]

One comment about the cover: I'd rather see the title in quotes than with a question mark at the end. Just my opinion.

Mike

[HelenaWojtczak]

How about this for a title:

"Wojtczak brings you Klosowski, not Kosminski: this is The Unpronouncables."

Totally BRILLIANT!

Love it!

Cheers, Mac!

Here is Paul Begg's title, which I have incorporated into my cover design

http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/chapman2.html

[Fleetwood Mac]

How about this for a title:

"Wojtczak brings you Klosowski, not Kosminski: this is The Unpronouncables."

[HelenaWojtczak]

Ye gods. That is the most awkward and unwieldy, not to mention nonsensical, title I've ever heard.

First of all, there is no "the face of Jack the Ripper". There are only artists with imaginations mocking up faces of what they think he looked like, which have no more basis in reality than me giving my dog a paintbrush and telling her to paint Jack. So the title is inaccurate and misleading in addition to being unwieldy.

Well, obviously, that is why I am not using it.

Paul Begg has invented a title for my book, and I am using that one.

Helena

[Ally]

Update: I have been given this suggestion as a title:

“The Man behind the Face of Jack the Ripper:
George Chapman unmasked”

Ye gods. That is the most awkward and unwieldy, not to mention nonsensical, title I've ever heard.

First of all, there is no "the face of Jack the Ripper". There are only artists with imaginations mocking up faces of what they think he looked like, which have no more basis in reality than me giving my dog a paintbrush and telling her to paint Jack. So the title is inaccurate and misleading in addition to being unwieldy.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Yes it's me again.

I'm wondering if you have any specific reason for thinking Chapman isn't the Ripper, as mentioned in this post.

Thanks for your prompt reply to my direct e-mail, by the way.

SW

Hi Simon

It's simply a case of everyone being "innocent until proven guilty".

Helena

[Simon Webb]

Yes it's me again.

I'm wondering if you have any specific reason for thinking Chapman isn't the Ripper, as mentioned in this post.

Thanks for your prompt reply to my direct e-mail, by the way.

SW

[HelenaWojtczak]

Update: I have been given this suggestion as a title:

“The Man behind the Face of Jack the Ripper:
George Chapman unmasked”

On the front cover, a photo of the e-fit produced by Scotland Yard and a photo of Chapman.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m534/helena1958/klosowski%20also%20Jack%20the%20ripper/efitRT.png

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m534/helena1958/klosowski%20also%20Jack%20the%20ripper/tussaud.jpg

[Rubyretro]

.....the Crimes of G.Chapman

I think that's a bit harsh...despite some of his bad behaviour, he still left us
The Holy grail and Life of Brian as a memorial.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I find it difficult to see how you can mention JtR in the title. Perhaps in a subtitle as I suggested earlier or in the blurb by all means, but not in the title.
...no offence intended,

Thank you Steve for your good wishes and interest.

It's not offensive, Steve, because I have said precisely the same thing on this very thread.

But it is equally true that to waste my only 'golden' opportunity to attract readers would be utterly stupid.

And, let's not forget, until the identity of JtR is finally proved, Chapman has as much chance as any other suspect of being the Ripper. He is currently voted 6th out of 22 suspects on this very message board, that is very high.

Just wanted also to reply to: "Your hard work deserves to be both recognised and remunerated". Don't get carried away by the myth that every published book makes a fortune. If I sold, say, 1,000 copies, after deducting all my expenses, I might make £4,000 'profit'. However, by then I'll have worked about 4,000 hours on the book, so my remuneration or "wage" will be something in the region of £1 an hour. The average self-published book sells 300 copies and most don't break even.

Yesterday I found a small gold mine of new material and today will be weaving it into the text as appropriate. The text now comprises 56,000 words and has 235 footnotes and three appendices! Phew!

[Steven Russell]

Helena,
Given that only about 3% of the book will be concerned with Chapman's alleged connection to the Ripper crimes, and given your obvious integrity, I find it difficult to see how you can mention JtR in the title. Perhaps in a subtitle as I suggested earlier or in the blurb by all means, but not in the title.

Your hard work deserves to be both recognised and remunerated but remember, anything you publish will last forever and you would not want your work, or your reputation, to be associated with misrepresentation.

Just my thoughts and no offence intended,
Steve.

PS The very best of luck with the book.

[HelenaWojtczak]

1...... was he or was he not, JTR2......Chapman, was he JTR ?3.....the Crimes of G.Chapman4.....the portrait of Evil.

Thanks for your input Malcolm..

"leave it to the reader to make his mind up."

You think there is going to be only one reader!

Yikes! I hope he is worth all this trouble!

[Malcolm X]

There is a recent 274-message thread about this here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5337

Do you have any ideas for my book title for me

1...... was he or was he not, JTR

2......Chapman, was he JTR ?

3.....the Crimes of G.Chapman

4.....the portrait of Evil

you need to leave the story of Chapman open ended.... argue for him as the Ripper, then mention his weak points etc and leave it to the reader to make his mind up.

dont loose heart etc, just make writing an interesting book your main Goal, nobody can name JTR, you're no diffferent from any other author.

[HelenaWojtczak]

his change in M.O is nothingthis is similar to Zodiac

There is a recent 274-message thread about this here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5337

Do you have any ideas for my book title for me

[Malcolm X]

Thanks for your message and your vote Mal!

There is nothing to rule him out being the Ripper, if it is possible to have such a radical change in M.O.

And you are right - he was definitely evil enough.

his change in M.O is nothing, it's the most sensible thing to do if the killer is hoping to remain undetected, in fact; it is the only way to kill his lovers!

i.e he cant kill them at home and then risk being seen dumping their bodies in crowded Whitechapel.

he can only brutally murder a lover that he occassionally visits (TORSO MURDERS), because Chapman probably wouldn't give a damn if he was seen away from home with an intended victim, simply because witness descriptions are so bad late at night, but his mistake would be to kill a lover with her friends knowing his name and where he lives.... most of this is fairly obvious.

what is important is, he cant stop killing women and for no reason at all, no need to kill them, and of all the top suspects, he's the only genuine Serial killer.

he almost did use a knife didn't he, but he was wise enough not to.....only out on the streets, if he is JTR that is .

out on the streets it doesn't matter if he's the Ripper, because it's much harder to get caught, but the problem is we have no more Ripper murders while he's back here.... this can be explained away, but it's very shaky.

the weakest with regards to Chapman are :-
1... no more Ripper murders
2... it's not the way that an intelligent semi-trained calculating surgeon would kill, he would poison or slit throats only, the mutilations probably wouldn't interest him, that's more anout semi- insanity or imbecilic interest
3....Chapman was maybe too Cowardly.

but the switch in M.O is nothing, this is similar to Zodiac