Feedback for Prisoner 4374

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi John,

Actually, I think George Bernard Shaw had something to say about that - although, of course, he wasn't aiming for 'objectivity'. Surely reviews are by their very nature subjective?

I think the question Tom was asking was whether Amanda's book tells us something about Cream's whereabouts in 1888 that other books (like Don Rumbelow's) don't. As far as I can tell - and, yes, I did buy it - the answer is 'No'.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, someone will have to help me out. I'm not getting it.

Regards,

Mark

Thanks, Mark. That's precisely my question. I asked it repeatedly and received only the vaguest possible answers from Amanda with the added suggestion that my questions were 'comments' and now 'reviews'. That's absurd, as I've made quite clear that I haven't read it and was only attempting to determine if it was something I should purchase or not. Contrary to what some think I do not purchase every Ripper-related book that comes down the pike (not even close).

It sounds to me like Amanda's written a cracking book for anyone interested in the poisoner Neil Cream and a good answer to anyone swayed by Goulden's 'I Am Jack' (which proclaims Cream the Ripper). That's certainly an achievement, particularly since she's using contemporary documentation not previously made available. However, since it's being marketed as a Ripper book with possible clues to the Ripper's true identity, the truth of this angle needed to be gotten out into the light and I believe it has been.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[m_w_r]

...it seems quite bizarre to me that anyone would consider themselves competent to give an objective review about a book they haven't even read!

Hi John,

Actually, I think George Bernard Shaw had something to say about that - although, of course, he wasn't aiming for 'objectivity'. Surely reviews are by their very nature subjective?

I think the question Tom was asking was whether Amanda's book tells us something about Cream's whereabouts in 1888 that other books (like Don Rumbelow's) don't. As far as I can tell - and, yes, I did buy it - the answer is 'No'.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, someone will have to help me out. I'm not getting it.

Regards,

Mark

[pinkmoon]

My hardback version has just arrived I'm very impressed with the artwork and the photos are excellent Mr cream looks a right nasty piece of work!

[John G]

Hi Amanda,

I've yet to purchase the book as I currently have several books unread! However, I intend to do so, especially after the excellent reviews it has received. I also agree with your comments: it seems quite bizarre to me that anyone would consider themselves competent to give an objective review about a book they haven't even read!

[Amanda]

Rest my case.

Guys,

Have I once claimed 'Case Closed'? No, I have not.

You ask, have I seen Cream's prison files. The answer to that is yes. They are 181 pages and I have a copy of every single page.
Rumbelow did not show any of those documents in his book, therefore I presume that he did not see those records. I apologise if I am wrong, but I was told by the Archives Dept at Joliet that nobody had ever requested the whole file before. There is a letter from Daniel Cream, written to petition for his brother's release, which has previously been published but that does nothing to prove Cream's whereabouts.

'Prisoner 4374' is Cream's biography, not a book about whether Cream was Jack the Ripper. I just happen to confirm whether he was in prison or not in 1888.

Finally, before criticising my hard work, which includes many years of research, please have the decency to read the book.
Amanda

[Tom_Wescott]

You used the words "solid evidence" and then declare "nobody has been forthcoming with documents to prove it either way."

Yet somehow you're surprised people might jump to conclusions?

I haven't read the book but this sounds a bit like you want it both ways.

Hi Gnote. I believe that her comment about people jumping to conclusions was not about her book, but about Cream's candidacy (or lack thereof) for the mantle of Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[gnote]

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 used the words "solid evidence" and then declare "nobody has been forthcoming with documents to prove it either way."

Yet somehow you're surprised people might jump to conclusions?

I haven't read the book but this sounds a bit like you want it both ways.

[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

[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]

Rumbelow didn't do that in 1988?

No - Rumbelow did it in 1975.

Regards,

Mark

[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

[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,

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

[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

[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