10 Weeks in Whitechapel Audio Series

[The Cenci]

I don't actually have to explain anything 'Helena'.

No more responses from me. I'm not playing.

A shame as I would have liked to have read your book had I known about it (and I'm an amateur Ripperologist still working my way through the numerous works) but that seems unlikely now.

I'm sorry if you think I've done this to propagate lies. I didn't. I wrote my own understanding of the case and have never said it was gospel. In fact, I even state that there will be errors as I'm very new. No one is discrediting your work and anyone who is a serious student of Chapman - and my audience were not - will have already have read your book.

[HelenaWojtczak]

So calling me "******* crazy" isn't slander, then? (PS I think you mean libel).

Do you call all the male historians "******* crazy" when they want the true facts and not lies to be podcasted?

[John G]

I was waiting for that accusation from you. You're f*ucking crazy. Go away.

JM

This is just the sort of post we like to see on Casebook: Adult, detailed, well-reasoned, free of petty personal insults.

Oh, wait a minute.. .I seem to be accidentally responding to the wrong post! My apologies.

[jmenges]

I've reported your post directed at me to Admin. I won't be slandered. So hopefully we won't have to be explaining much else to you before too long.

JM

[HelenaWojtczak]

I was waiting for that accusation from you. You're f*ucking crazy. Go away.

JM

That's "f*ucking crazy BSc (Hons) FRHistS" actually Jon.
.
.
.
.
.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I'm not appalled that someone hasn't read my book, "Cenci".

I'm appalled that anyone would broadcast a load of myths and lies and nonsense, after a diligent and meticulous historian, an elected Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, no less, has spent three years painstakingly dispelling those myths and lies.

Surely, if you can't be bothered to discover the true facts about a suspect, it's better not to do the podcast at all than to spread a load of lies, myths and mistakes.

If you think it's a good thing to broadcast a load of lies and myths, you can explain why here.

[jmenges]

Jon, your response shows clearly you have zero respect for me or my book.

No wonder the podcast went out without any reference to my work, if it was being overseen by someone bearing a personal sexist prejudice.

I was waiting for that accusation from you. You're f*ucking crazy. Go away.

JM

[The Cenci]

This is extraordinary.

I haven't read your book. I apologise. To be appalled at that is astonishing.

I wrote the blog for a general overview rather than for Ripperologists which was just as well as I didn't know any until recently.

Thank you for your criticism and comments. How about we make this deal? You don't read me and I won't read you.

[HelenaWojtczak]

The point of a podcast is to present to listeners the facts about a suspect. If you are just going to broadcast unscholarly, untrue, out-of-date myths then you are giving people the wrong information. It makes the whole exercise utterly pointless. People don't listen in order to hear stuff that is untrue, a load of myths and lies etc. And that is why it matters. In academic work, history work, truth matters; diligence matters; correctness matters. You can't just say "any old thing" any more and get away with it.

==================

Jon, your final response shows clearly you have zero respect for me or my book.

No wonder the podcast went out without any reference to my work, if it was being overseen by someone bearing a personal sexist prejudice.

[jmenges]

Again, it's an audio production of Karl's blog which he had finished writing and publishing online prior to doing the narration for the Rippercast series. I would not have asked him to go back and read a few more books and then re-write any portions of it. You believe it's a "disgrace" and you're entitled to you opinion, as you loudly express this same opinion time and again when anything written about George Chapman after the publication of your book contains any errors, even down to an incorrect spelling of his name in Ripperologist Magazine.
Karl didn't read your book. Period. I'm through discussing it.

JM

[HelenaWojtczak]

Dear all

I think it is a disgrace to create a podcast about a suspect without reading the most up to date research, especially if that research has been praised to the skies by famous Ripperologists, as my book has.

Jon, you say "I believe he has said that his main sources were Sugden, Begg, Evans and Rumbelow." It may interest you to know that Begg and Evans (and Fido and Skinner) approached me by email and asked me to correct their info on Chapman in their own books, for the new editions! So, even they recognise me as the world expert on him.

As for my book not being widely available, it's on Amazon, it's available via my website, the link to which is on every one of my posts, under my name! Plenty of copies were sold to people in the USA. One could have been borrowed.

Jon you say you are responsible for the content, and yet you have read my book, so I am puzzled that the podcast went out with so many glaring errors. (I am particularly appalled by his victims all being referred to as his "wives" when he wasn't married to any of them.)

If it was too much trouble to check my book before making the podcast, I am a very easy person to contact, via here, JTRF, Facebook, my website, etc, and you could have run the script past me prior to broadcast and I would have corrected it for you, free of charge.

As for the Polish pronunciation, I could have guided the narrator on that, too!

I don't mind people disagreeing with what I wrote in my book (so long as they can bring evidence to show where they are correct and I am wrong.) I welcome my research being challenged; I like discussion and debate and would welcome corrections and new information.

What I find extremely (and undeservedly) insulting is to have people completely ignore my book, just as though it had never been written. I put three years of my life into it, found out more about him than anyone else has in the last 125 years, and for this I deserve the respect of acknowledging that my research exists.

[Sam Flynn]

It wasn’t just a dumbing down of the Chapman story – it propagated myths and lies and fabrications that have been comprehensively debunked in Helena’s book. Five years ago Karl could have got away with it, but since Helena’s book was published in 2013 there is absolutely no excuse for anyone – not even a newbie – to get the basic, rudimentary facts of Chapman’s life wrong.

Hello Dag

I fully agree with you about Helena's superb book, but I'd just like to say that I've tried, in a small way, to debunk a few Kłosowski myths myself, since the mid-2000s on Casebook and JTRForums, and in the flesh (or voice) on a Rippercast with R Michael Gordon, and at the London Ripperconf in 2010.

[jmenges]

So far I have only listened to two or three episodes of the ‘10 Weeks in Whitechapel’ audio series. It’s an entertaining attempt to do something different in the field, and on the whole I think the blend of theatre, amateur dramatics and Ripper studies works very well.

At the same time, I agree entirely with Helena. I listened to the George Chapman suspect episode, and it made cringe throughout. It wasn’t just a dumbing down of the Chapman story – it propagated myths and lies and fabrications that have been comprehensively debunked in Helena’s book. Five years ago Karl could have got away with it, but since Helena’s book was published in 2013 there is absolutely no excuse for anyone – not even a newbie – to get the basic, rudimentary facts of Chapman’s life wrong.

Thank for the compliment, dag, It's appreciated.

A newbie could very well get some facts wrong about George Chapman if, like I said, they based their essays on what they've read in the most popular Ripper titles, and even here on Casebook. I wouldn't know if a whole slew of "newbies" purchased and read Helena's excellent book, but I will say from personal experience that R. Michael Gordon's books are more commonly available to the general public. Gordon's books are even found in most libraries here in the Midwestern US. I guess we should be thankful that Karl didn't get his hands on one of those but instead spelled out, albeit without the aid of Helena's book, why he has serious doubts that Chapman was Jack the Ripper.

All the best,

JM

[dag]

So far I have only listened to two or three episodes of the ‘10 Weeks in Whitechapel’ audio series. It’s an entertaining attempt to do something different in the field, and on the whole I think the blend of theatre, amateur dramatics and Ripper studies works very well.

At the same time, I agree entirely with Helena. I listened to the George Chapman suspect episode, and it made cringe throughout. It wasn’t just a dumbing down of the Chapman story – it propagated myths and lies and fabrications that have been comprehensively debunked in Helena’s book. Five years ago Karl could have got away with it, but since Helena’s book was published in 2013 there is absolutely no excuse for anyone – not even a newbie – to get the basic, rudimentary facts of Chapman’s life wrong.

In the wrap up-episode, Karl mentions how he was reluctant to utter the name of George Chapman’s son – Władysław Kłosowski – during his narration because he didn’t know how to pronounce it. Why not approach a native Polish speaker and ask them how you pronounce it? They’ll appreciate your interest in the language and your efforts to get things right.

[jmenges]

So to whom should I be directing my complaint?

Best wishes

Helena

I am the person responsible for all of the content released by Rippercast.
So your complaint has been received.

JM