Update on my book about Chapman

[Tecs]

"The unsolved murders of George Chapman"


Er, surely if you are naming the murderer then the murders are not 'unsolved'?



No, just being pedantic and technical. He was found guilty of the poisonings so in law he is 100% guilty of that (even if he wasn't, if you know what I mean..)

So the JTR murders, if he was JTR, would be the murders he committed that were unsolved. So would be the unsolved murders of GC. Wouldn't they?

Let's not get too pedantic just yet, plenty of time for that!

I'm looking forward every minute to your email!

Thanks,

I'm off out now and will be busy for next couple of days, but first opportunity, I'll send an in depth email.

Looking forward to it as well.

Regards,

[HelenaWojtczak]

[QUOTE=Tecs;187480]

the aim is to be sensational and make loads of money isn't it?

I believe that was Mr Gordon's aim. My aim is to produce something that is painstakingly correct, factually true, academically excellent, and interesting to read. I do not expect to make much if anything, and that is not my motivation as I have plenty enough to live on already.

he was a serious suspect discussed by serious police officers

Indeed, that is half my justification for mentioning it in the title.

"The unsolved murders of George Chapman"


Er, surely if you are naming the murderer then the murders are not 'unsolved'?

the Borough Poisoning website which probably doesn't exist anyway!


Sadly (for me) that is true.

I'm looking forward every minute to your email!

[Tecs]

I'm afraid I was going to go down the Ripper route as opposed to book on Chapman route and call it

"You've got Jack the Ripper at last!"

Or similar.

I know it may be a misquote or said at a different time but the aim is to be sensational and make loads of money isn't it?

Oh, it's not....... Bugger!

On subject of a title, I don't see a problem in referincing JTR in a Chapman book title, he was a serious suspect discussed by serious police officers so it's not crazy to mention it.

If you don't want to, then I suppose something alluding to more such as "The dark secrets of George Chapman" or "The unsolved murders of George Chapman" could suffice but I think a reference to JTR is fine after all, he's being discussed on a JTR website not the Borough Poisoning website which probably doesn't exist anyway!

Regards,


Regards,

[HelenaWojtczak]

I'll probably send you a personal email or message if that's okay and we can discuss?

And, happy to confirm, I'm not Todd, Dodd or any other variation!

Indeed, that is why I supplied my email address.

Well then, there was a third person writing a book that never got published. How utterly intriguing.

Now, can you help me with this thread by suggesting a title for my book? What were you going to call yours?

[Tecs]

Thank you!

I'll probably send you a personal email or message if that's okay and we can discuss?

And, happy to confirm, I'm not Todd, Dodd or any other variation!

As I live in Liverpool, I'll check in and see what Ken is up to. Were there any reports locally of a large toothed, mad haired octogenarian waving a tickling stick at the Hastings library?

Regards,

[HelenaWojtczak]

I began a Chapman book over ten years ago, I think in 1999/2000

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.

It's still all there on my laptop and that's probably where it will stay.

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

Wow what a great message to receive! I have taken account of it ALL but just want to respond to the points you made in the quoted text above.

There is a note in the local studies library that says someone (I think the name was Dodd or Todd, or something similar) was writing a book on Chapman and had written in for help, and this was passed to the dreadful Debra Gosling --- was that you?

So, you got to where I am now, bogged down! You know more than anyone what I am going through right now!

Lastly, you absolutely must send me your document. I am intrigued that some other poor sod has been down the same road that I find myself feeling a bit stranded on. If you wish, I would be happy to send you (and only you) my first draft as it stands today, just so you can keep tabs on whether I use any of your material. If I do find out anything new from your m/s, I will be more than happy to acknowledge it/you in the book. My email is hastings.press@gmail.com

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.

[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

[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]

"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.

[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.

[The Grave Maurice]

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

[Robert]

You have a point there!

[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]

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