10 Weeks in Whitechapel Audio Series

[Steadmund Brand]

Amazing job Jonathan...and to everyone involved in the series.. my hats off

Steadmund Brand

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll doff the deerstalker too.

Well done guys. Great stuff.

Regards
Herlock

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

With such an All-Star Cast this can't miss!

Cheers

Chris

[HelenaWojtczak]

Week 8: You've Got Jack the Ripper At Last- The Contemporary Suspects
June 24th, 2017

Can anyone explain why all the myths that I carefully and diligently debunked and corrected in my book four years ago, are repeated in this episode?

Why did the narrator not first read my book -- the ONLY book on Chapman -- before broadcasting a summary of his life and murders?

Why did all the other people listed in association with this episode not point out to the narrator that he was regurgitating all the old myths that my book has exposed and corrected? Among them are people who have lavished praise upon my 'meticulous' (their word) research and my debunking of so many myths.

What was the point of my spending three whole years painstakingly separating the myths from the truths about Chapman, if programmes like this are just going to promote the same old lies and myths?

Exasperated and bewildered,

Helena

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Helen

Why did all the other people listed in association with this episode not point out to the narrator that he was regurgitating all the old myths that my book has exposed and corrected? Among them are people who have lavished praise upon my 'meticulous' (their word) research and my debunking of so many myths.

The people listed in association with this episode are the same as those listed in association with every other episode; it's a general "intro" used throughout the series, and few, if any, of those mentioned in the intro participated in all of the episodes.

I just provided one of the voices. I neither had, nor expected, any "editorial" input, did not have any contact with the narrator, and had no idea as to what the structure of content of each episode would be. My contribution was to be the voice of Sir Robert Anderson, an Oscar-worthy performance which was used in an earlier episode. I didn't hear that episode until after it was released, and I certainly didn't get to hear any of the others.

I daresay the same was true for most of the contributors.

Hope that clarifies matters.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Cheers Gareth. Sorry to sound a bit cross. It wasn't made clear that the people listed have no editorial input. So to whom should I be directing my complaint?

Best wishes

Helena

[jmenges]

Hi Helena,

This audio series was based on a blog of the same name and the script was performed directly from it. Karl Coppack, the author/narrator, quite simply hadn't read your book, nor did he read every single book ever written about each and every suspect he mentions before he began writing the series. I believe he has said that his main sources were Sugden, Begg, Evans and Rumbelow. As he confesses in the introduction, he is not a Ripperologist and apologizes for any errors that appear in the text.

Thank you for listening!

JM

[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

[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 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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.