Feedback for Prisoner 4374

[Amanda]

Hi Tom,
No problem, and yes, I am familiar with Shirley Goulden's book. Although an interesting read, I must disagree that my book has a nearly identical description.

'Prisoner 4374' is Cream's biography & contains hard evidence (prison documents) that prove his whereabouts in 1888. It contains no speculation or general criminal profiling.

Of course I am familiar with Ripperologist, I was just baffled as to why Paul Begg might be reviewing my book.
Amanda

In addition Tom, I have just read your comments on the JtR forum which seem to imply that my book/concept is unoriginal.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but in my defence I would just like to make you aware that:
a) I started my research on Cream about 25 years ago
b) I have included many previously unpublished documents and appear to be the only person to have read (and possess copies of) Cream's entire prison file
c) I have written a true biographical account of Cream's life and do NOT claim to reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper

I hope that this clarifies the content of my book.
Amanda

[Tom_Wescott]

In addition Tom, I have just read your comments on the JtR forum which seem to imply that my book/concept is unoriginal.

I didn't comment on your book (I haven't read it), but I did comment on an e-mail you sent Howard where you state the book is told 'from the standpoint of Cream himself'. I asked Howard what that meant (he didn't know either) and pointed out there was a book a few years ago (as I've done here) about Cream and called a 'confession'. So I was asking a question and not making a comment on your material.

Your press release says there's a 'new slant' and goes on to say that the only witness who saw Jack the Ripper described a man 'in a top hat and a horseshoe time pin.' Is that something you actually said/wrote or is the reporter in error?

I mention that Begg might be reviewing your book for Ripperologist because all new Ripper books get reviewed in that journal and Begg reviews a fair amount of them. I can assure you that if he gives it a positive review I'll be purchasing your book and reading it with an open mind.

Would you like to tell us what your new slant on Cream is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Amanda]

I have a review from a friend of mine who I told to buy the book...all he wrote back to me was

" thanks alot schmuck....I was up all night reading that book.....I couldn't put it down....now I have to drink coffee all day to stay awake at work"

Sounds like Dan liked it Amanda

Steadmund Brand

Thanks Steadmund,

That's great! Could you ask Dan to leave a review on Amazon please.
Cheers,
Amanda

[Amanda]

I didn't comment on your book (I haven't read it), but I did comment on an e-mail you sent Howard where you state the book is told 'from the standpoint of Cream himself'. I asked Howard what that meant (he didn't know either) and pointed out there was a book a few years ago (as I've done here) about Cream and called a 'confession'. So I was asking a question and not making a comment on your material.

Your press release says there's a 'new slant' and goes on to say that the only witness who saw Jack the Ripper described a man 'in a top hat and a horseshoe time pin.' Is that something you actually said/wrote or is the reporter in error?

I mention that Begg might be reviewing your book for Ripperologist because all new Ripper books get reviewed in that journal and Begg reviews a fair amount of them. I can assure you that if he gives it a positive review I'll be purchasing your book and reading it with an open mind.

Would you like to tell us what your new slant on Cream is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,
Fair enough. The comment about the horseshoe tiepin was taken in the wrong context by a newspaper reporter but as you know I was referring to Hutchinson's witness statement.
I do hope that you will give my book a chance, as I believe it's quite different to most material written about Cream.
The new slant? Well the fact that it contains solid evidence speaks for itself.
Amanda

[pinkmoon]

I've lost count of the amount of ripper books I've read over the years some have been good some have been awfull this book though is fantastic and I urge anybody with an interest in the ripper to buy this book in fact buy it even if you have no interest in the ripper at all its a cracking read.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,
Fair enough. The comment about the horseshoe tiepin was taken in the wrong context by a newspaper reporter but as you know I was referring to Hutchinson's witness statement.

Actually, I didn't think of Hutch's man because I don't recall a top hat.

The new slant? Well the fact that it contains solid evidence speaks for itself.
Amanda

Solid evidence of what?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

Hi Tom, don't think it's fair to ask an author to give away the content of their book on here I can assure you it's very good and well worth a read.

[m_w_r]

Tom,

I don't know whether it's a UK-only thing, but there's a sort of free sample of the book available on Amazon (at least, amazon.co.uk). You can download that if you want to see what sort of book it is.

Regards,

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom, don't think it's fair to ask an author to give away the content of their book on here I can assure you it's very good and well worth a read.

I didn't ask Amanda to detail what her 'solid evidence' was (I've been asked to do that on numerous occasions for my book and do find it annoying), I merely asked what that solid evidence points to. That's in no way unfair. In fact, I find it a bit odd she's not willing to say. She seems to think there's still debate over Cream's guilt or that he's still considered a Ripper suspect. There's not and he's not. I only replied on this thread because Amanda was wondering why no one was reviewing or commenting (outside of you and Steadmund). Well, that's why.

I wish her the best of luck with the book and will add that anyone who reads this book and likes it should go post a positive review on Amazon because that's the best way you can help an author.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

I don't know whether it's a UK-only thing, but there's a sort of free sample of the book available on Amazon (at least, amazon.co.uk). You can download that if you want to see what sort of book it is.

Regards,

Mark

Thanks, Mark. We do have that but for some reason I never think of it. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Amanda]

I didn't ask Amanda to detail what her 'solid evidence' was (I've been asked to do that on numerous occasions for my book and do find it annoying), I merely asked what that solid evidence points to. That's in no way unfair. In fact, I find it a bit odd she's not willing to say. She seems to think there's still debate over Cream's guilt or that he's still considered a Ripper suspect. There's not and he's not. I only replied on this thread because Amanda was wondering why no one was reviewing or commenting (outside of you and Steadmund). Well, that's why.

I wish her the best of luck with the book and will add that anyone who reads this book and likes it should go post a positive review on Amazon because that's the best way you can help an author.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,
The solid evidence is of Cream's whereabouts in 1888. No matter anyone's opinion as to his guilt or innocence of the Ripper murders, nobody has been forthcoming with documents to prove it either way.
I am surprised that anyone would jump to conclusions about Cream not being a Ripper suspect without seeing proof to the contrary.

You only need to see the good reviews on Amazon to see that people are enjoying it. Most people who have bought it do not belong to this forum, that's why there are few comments on here about it. That in itself makes me proud, as I feel it is not only a Ripper-related book but also a damn good read for those who have no special interest in the case.
Amanda

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,
The solid evidence is of Cream's whereabouts in 1888. No matter anyone's opinion as to his guilt or innocence of the Ripper murders, nobody has been forthcoming with documents to prove it either way.
I am surprised that anyone would jump to conclusions about Cream not being a Ripper suspect without seeing proof to the contrary.

Rumbelow didn't do that in 1988?

You only need to see the good reviews on Amazon to see that people are enjoying it. Most people who have bought it do not belong to this forum, that's why there are few comments on here about it. That in itself makes me proud, as I feel it is not only a Ripper-related book but also a damn good read for those who have no special interest in the case.
Amanda

I see your book is being compared to one of the all-time Ripperological greats in one of the amazon.co.uk reviews:

Brian in Buffalo writes: 'Prisoner 4374 is one of two Ripper books this year ( The Bank Holiday Murders being the other by Tom Wescott) that are MUST READ books!!!'

That's pretty damn lofty praise, I must say, so you're on the right track.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[m_w_r]

Rumbelow didn't do that in 1988?

No - Rumbelow did it in 1975.

Regards,

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

No - Rumbelow did it in 1975.

Regards,

Mark

I'll see your 1975 and drop that back to '74.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[m_w_r]

I'll see your 1975 and drop that back to '74.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

In the 1975 hardback edition, Rumbelow showed that he knew the dates of Cream's incarceration. In the 1979 paperback edition, he mentioned Donald Bell's 1974 article in Criminologist, and went to greater lengths to show how the evidence contained in the British police files, American newspapers and so on indicated that Cream was indeed incarcerated in 1888. If you're suggesting that the date of Colin Wilson's introduction to the first edition ('July 1974') probably suggests that Rumbelow had completed his manuscript by that point, then yes, I'd probably go along with that.

I take it that Amanda has seen Cream's prison records, which, to be fair, do not appear in Rumbelow (or the NBT, for example, or in Angus McLaren's book). But I'm not sure whether it's fair to say that these records and only these records prove 'beyond doubt' where he was in 1888. The only thing which keeps Cream's candidacy burning is the daft idea that he either bribed his way out of prison or had a lookalike with whom he was working. Since there is no evidence to support either of these suggestions, this hardly supersedes the cogent, documentary facts that Rumbelow provided in 1979.

Besides which, if Cream did bribe his way out of prison, the last place I'd expect to find the proof would be in the papers of the prison itself. They were very unlikely to records bribes taken from homicidal prisoners in anything resembling a systematic manner, and so, whatever the prison papers say, they don't necessarily prove that Cream was there at all.

Regards,

Mark