Update on my book about Chapman

[Roy Corduroy]

But when I decided to publish nationally, the title won't do.

I have a problem with the phrase Southwark Poisoner. It doesn't roll off the tongue easily. Try saying it three times.

Southwark Poisoner
Southwark Poisoner
Southwark Poisoner

I'm sure you'll think of something, Helena. Best of luck. I kinda like that "in the shadow of" thing. Its mysterious.

Roy

[HelenaWojtczak]

Roy - he was known as "the Southwark Poisoner" - like JtR, it was the name conjured up by the press and used at the time. He was also known as "the Borough Poisoner" but Southwark as a name is much more famous as an historical area (Shakespeare, Dickens, Marshalsea, Winchester Geese, etc) .

That doesn't mean I have to use it, of course! I am 100% open to hearing suggestions as to a better title!

[HelenaWojtczak]

I think it is best to stick to just one name/alias, my pick would be George Chapman.

About a JtR reference in the title or subtitle, well, puff is part of the trade!

What about "In The Shadows Of Jack The Ripper: George Chapman, Southwark Poisoner"?

What about something like "George Chapman: Southwark Serial Killer and Abberline's choice for Jack the Ripper"

Bloody long, though!

[bolo]

What about something like "George Chapman: Southwark Serial Killer and Abberline's choice for Jack the Ripper"

Bloody long, though!

Yes, that would be a bit too long...

Maybe you could use Abberline's famous quote in the title:

"You've got Jack the Ripper at last!" - The Lives and Deaths of George Chapman

(The plurals of "Lives" and "Deaths" is a reference to his aliases and the lifes he took as a serial poisoner).

I guess this would appeal to Ripperphiles and people new to the case as well.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Maybe you could use Abberline's famous quote in the title:

"You've got Jack the Ripper at last!" - The Lives and Deaths of George Chapman

Thanks for that idea Boris. Still very long. But it is extremely clever in that it get the words JtR in the title without claiming that (a) he was JtR or (b) that I am presenting a book full of weighing up whether he is or he isn't JtR.

Also, I don't think Abberline ever said that.

I will sleep on it!

Ripperphiles .... I prefer "Ripperati" as -phile means lover of.

Helena

[Steven Russell]

Hello, Helena.
I must disagree with Roy: Southwark Poisoner is not difficult to pronounce at all!

I think I see your problem. Your book will be a treatment of Chapman and will mention the JtR connection but not significantly (I think you said 5%). So to mention Jack in the title, while it would probably help sales, would be a bit dishonest - or at least misrepresent the content. Your reticence does you credit.

As to how to proceed, I'm sure I'm in the majority who would love a full-length book but it's you who have to do the work so follow your own instincts.

What about: "The Southwark Poisoner". Then, below his picture, in much smaller type, "Being an account of the serial wife-killer and Jack the Ripper suspect George Chapman"?

Good luck,
Steve.

[Robert]

The best I can come up with is, "George Chapman, Ripper Suspect : Was He Innocent?"

[Steven Russell]

The best I can come up with is, "George Chapman, Ripper Suspect : Was He Innocent?"

No disrespect, Robert, but no-one could seriously describe him as innocent.

[Robert]

You have a point there!

[The Grave Maurice]

"Jack" Chapman: Guilty, But Not of Everything.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Steven Russell

Your book will be a treatment of Chapman and will mention the JtR connection but not significantly (I think you said 5%). So to mention Jack in the title, while it would probably help sales, would be a bit dishonest - or at least misrepresent the content.

You have summed up my dilemma most succinctly, thank you.

Your reticence does you credit.


I am glad you recognise my integrity. I would never lie or withhold facts in any of my books merely to increase sales, nor when I discover something that I find disappointing. The truth is sacred to me and outweighs my personal feelings.

What about: "The Southwark Poisoner". Then, below his picture, in much smaller type, "Being an account of the serial wife-killer and Jack the Ripper suspect George Chapman"?


Honest, but far too long. But thanks for the suggestion, it all goes into the melting pot!

no-one could seriously describe him as innocent.


Thank you for pointing that out, Steven, here is my opinion on the matter: When I first learned about Chapman’s being a poisoner his crimes seemed tame and almost sanitary by comparison with the bloodthirsty viciousness of Jack the Ripper. My instant, naïve, even ignorant reaction, doubtless informed by the depiction of deaths by poisoning by Agatha Christie, Dorothy Leigh Sayers and their ilk, was that these were relatively peaceful deaths in which the victim simply fell asleep and didn’t wake up. Or, if the death was not completely painless, at least it was quick. If I were forced to choose between being murdered by Jack the Ripper or the Southwark Poisoner, the latter seemed infinitely preferable.

I was wrong on all counts.

Chapman was a monstrous and merciless sadist who put three innocent women through the unremitting torture of constant vomiting and diarrhoea until they died as virtual skeletons. C. J. S. Thompson described the killings as ‘A series of murders which for sheer heartlessness are almost unprecedented in the annals of crime’. And we must not underestimate the psychological and emotional damage he inflicted on those he did not kill. He was able to witness at close quarters the misery and anguish of parents, siblings and friends of his victims and the distress of the family doctors who could do nothing but stand by helplessly as their patients died in the most horrible way. He slow-tortured Mary Spink in front of her young son, leaving him motherless, then dumped him in the workhouse. He could without any conscience watch people endure the most horrific nightmare experience while continuing to poison his victims over and over again under their very noses! He sadistically inflicted this long, drawn-out torture on people that had never done him any harm and against whom he could have no possible grudge.

If I had to choose the manner of my own murder, I would prefer to be done in quickly and (relatively) painlessly by Jack the Ripper. Chapman was a thousand times crueller, yet Jack gets all the publicity and notoriety because he spilt blood and guts and was never caught.

[HelenaWojtczak]

"Jack" Chapman: Guilty, But Not of Everything.

I must confess that last night, after reading in sequence the most recent few postings on here, when I reached yours I spontaneously burst into laughter and repeated readings of your suggested title bring forth a similar response this morning. So I thank you for making me laugh.

While brilliantly witty, it's not a usable title, but I thank you for it because its brevity and pointedness will now influence the final choice.

This morning I am thinking, how about Not Jack The Ripper: George Chapman, the Southwark Poisoner. Would that not be such an intriguing title that the ripperati would just HAVE to buy it out of sheer curiosity? And it assuages my conscience because I am saying clearly and up front that he wasn't the Ripper, so readers will not be disappointed when I reach that conclusion.

BTW I am not saying he wasn't Jack the Ripper. He may well have been, nobody can say for sure, since Jack was never caught. In the final chapter I merely present unbiased evidence for and against his candidacy and other people's opinions (Abberline, Neil, Gordon, etc) and let people make up their own minds without me telling them what to think.

[Rubyretro]

[I]Not Jack The Ripper: George Chapman, the Southwark Poisoner[/

I].

I'm not sure because it gives away your conclusions before even starting, so it doesn't push you to read the book. It's very deflated.

Afterall, everyone else in the world -except the true killer- wasn't
Jack the Ripper

[HelenaWojtczak]

I].

I'm not sure because it gives away your conclusions before even starting, so it doesn't push you to read the book. It's very deflated.

Afterall, everyone else in the world -except the true killer- wasn't
Jack the Ripper

gives away your conclusions before even starting

Ah, but that assumes that my purpose in writing the book is purely to weigh him up as a Ripper suspect and that my conclusion aye or nay is the denoument of the book, its central focus and its sole reason for being published.

This is absolutely not the case!

I'd have been just as interested in writing the book if he had never been near Whitechapel in his life.

As I just explained below, Chapman's repulsiveness and notoriety does not rely on his being Jack the Ripper. He was a psychopathic serial murderer of innocent women in his own right.

Whether he was the Ripper or not is a mere intriguing sideline to the main story. It's also something I have no choice but to deal with in the final chapter because he is always included in ripperologists' list of suspects and he was indeed living in the right place at the right time. It takes up a mere 1,600 words of the 42,000.

The reason his Ripper connection is being considered for possible inclusion in the title is because it's an opportunity for me to gain readership for the book by making it clear that this is a biography of one of the chief suspects (voted 6th out of 22 on Casebook.org) and to gain publicity generally by utilising that connection.

To NOT make use of the Ripper's notoriety would mean stupidly missing out on a golden opportunity for publicity and sales.

People think Chapman's crimes "tame" compared with Jack's, but if they would only read the book they would discover that they were, in fact, as bad --- if not worse. But in order to make people want to read the book, I will have to mention Jack the Ripper.

Hopefully, once they have read it, I will have convinced them that Chapman was at least as evil as Jack, and probably more so.

Helena

[Tecs]

Helena,

Please do finish the book!

I've been away from the site for a few months, life getting in the way again! and so have missed a lot of the latest stuff including that you were doing a book.

I began a Chapman book over ten years ago, I think in 1999/2000 after being amazed that nobody would take him seriously as a suspect. Every book I read had a few pages on him describing how he lived at the heart of the district at the correct time, was trained (to some extent) in surgery, was a dead ringer for (some of) the eyewitness sightings, was a known murderer even if by a different method (a massive point that is too easily overlooked ie very very few people are murderers, if he wasn't Jack then there were two serial killers who just happened to live streets from each other), the connection with Godley, Abberline etc etc. But then the author would say, "but he's obviously not Jack the Ripper." I could never understand why as to me, that looks a whole lot better than, Kosminski, Druitt etc.

I thought that somebody must know something I don't and left it. But when I read Philip Sugden's book and read the chapter on Chapman where he points out that he is the best suspect by far, I felt relieved and thought "well, now somebody surely will do a book on him." But, nobody did and for a few more years I waited. Until, I decided "right! if nobody else will do it, I will!"

So I went out, like you and blasted 150 pages down quickly. I got all my research together (mostly public records stuff and previous books) and decided to do a book presenting the case for Chapman. I wasn't going to out and out say he was the Ripper, but at least say, "If he was the Ripper, then this is the case I would present."

But then two things happened. Firstly, I got bogged down! Just the sheer boredom of researching, cross referencing etc slowed me to a standstill.
And secondly, I got the internet and found, to my horror, that Michael Gordon had already published his books in America. Prior to having the internet I had only browsed the UK bookshelves and had never seen one of his books. When I read the books I decided that there really wasn't a great deal that I could add although there were still several points and hypotheses that I could have made.

So, I just drifted away from it. It's still all there on my laptop and that's probably where it will stay. (Everybody should have one unfinished book in their possession!)

So, please, go one step further. Don't drop it like I did. Keep going.

I'm sure there are many people who would want to read about Chapman in an unbiased, authoratative book.

Best wishes.