Trevor Marriot - "The Real Truth"

[PaulB]

Thanks Paul. Trevor's first book was the third JtR book that I purchased, essentially because I was looking for a newly released work and I noticed it on the shelves at my local supermarket. The first was Jack the Ripper: The Facts (2004), by an author I'm sure you're well acquainted with! It's immensely detailed and remains my favourite book on the subject. I still refer to it from time to time.

My second purchase was Phillip Sugden's book, another excellent, detailed read. However, I did discover an error during a Casebook thread some time ago: He stated that Dr Phillips didn't believe Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same person, however, the newspaper reference he cites makes it clear that it was actually Stride and Eddowes who Dr Phillips believed had different perpetrators. Proving that even respected historians are not infallible!

Everyone makes mistakes and today the mistakes are easier than ever to make. There are so many people with specialist knowledge of narrow aspects of the case just waiting to pounce on the tiniest error, and there seems to be a growing tendency for some people to present errors in a very personal way.
Cheers
Paul

[John G]

At the time of the murders E.K. Larkins bothered anyone he thought would listen with his theory that the murders had been committed by one or more Portuguese seamen. Searches were also done of vessels in London docks. So, no, the theory was not original or novel. Whether or not Trevor thought it was is something I don't recall establishing. He doesn't appear to be very widely read on the subject of the Ripper, so my guess is that he thought it was.

Thanks Paul. Trevor's first book was the third JtR book that I purchased, essentially because I was looking for a newly released work and I noticed it on the shelves at my local supermarket. The first was Jack the Ripper: The Facts (2004), by an author I'm sure you're well acquainted with! It's immensely detailed and remains my favourite book on the subject. I still refer to it from time to time.

My second purchase was Phillip Sugden's book, another excellent, detailed read. However, I did discover an error during a Casebook thread some time ago: He stated that Dr Phillips didn't believe Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same person, however, the newspaper reference he cites makes it clear that it was actually Stride and Eddowes who Dr Phillips believed had different perpetrators. Proving that even respected historians are not infallible!

[PaulB]

Thanks for the reply Paul, much appreciated.

In Trevor's first book, The 21st Century Investigation, which I purchased back in 2005, the penultimate chapter considers the possibility that JtR was a merchant seaman, and involves research into merchant vessels that docked in London during the time of the murders. Just out of interest, do you think this represented a genuinely novel approach to the mystery?

At the time of the murders E.K. Larkins bothered anyone he thought would listen with his theory that the murders had been committed by one or more Portuguese seamen. Searches were also done of vessels in London docks. So, no, the theory was not original or novel. Whether or not Trevor thought it was is something I don't recall establishing. He doesn't appear to be very widely read on the subject of the Ripper, so my guess is that he thought it was.

[John G]

John

There is nothing new I can see. Indeed the chapter in the new book looks to be a straight reprint, of course I may have missed an odd change but nothing mind blowing.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I'll be giving it a miss then, particularly as the only part of The Secret Police Files that was of interest to me was the section on medical experts. Moreover, I haven't started Tom's book yet, which I'm very much looking forward to.

[John G]

Not that I noticed, John.

Thanks for the reply Paul, much appreciated.

In Trevor's first book, The 21st Century Investigation, which I purchased back in 2005, the penultimate chapter considers the possibility that JtR was a merchant seaman, and involves research into merchant vessels that docked in London during the time of the murders. Just out of interest, do you think this represented a genuinely novel approach to the mystery?

[Elamarna]

Okay thanks Steve. Much appreciated.

John

There is nothing new I can see. Indeed the chapter in the new book looks to be a straight reprint, of course I may have missed an odd change but nothing mind blowing.

Steve

[PaulB]

Hi Steve,

Regarding Dr Biggs, is there additional material in the new book?

Not that I noticed, John.

[PaulB]

On a final note, before I take my leave. As you are doing a grand job in promoting my books I notice you have failed to mention my two Victorian crime novels, or is it the case that you cannot find anything bad to say about them ?

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/prey-time/

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/sherlock-holmes-final-chapter/

and I will sure to let you know when the pirate book is out for you to buy !

That's it is it? You throw your toys from your pram because I suggest your book is tantamount to a rip-off, I reply with a short but detailed critique of your work, and you have absolutely no answer. You really do have utter contempt for your subjects and, sadly, your readers.

As you'd have known if you bothered to read Ripper publications, I read both your novels and reviewed them when they were published and I didn't have to look hard at all to find things bad to say about them. But I admire anyone who can write fiction, even very bad fiction, so whilst your factual books show themselves to be an attempt to turn a quick buck without you investing any real time and effort in researching or writing them, I really looked hard for good things to say about your fiction. I don't recall whether I did or not.

Bye Trevor, I wish you well on the dance floor.

[John G]

I would need to read both again to be sure, but my feeling is probably not.

He covers bleeding times and the torsos pretty sure those were in the first book.

Will get back to you .

Steve

Okay thanks Steve. Much appreciated.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Regarding Dr Biggs, is there additional material in the new book?

I would need to read both again to be sure, but my feeling is probably not.

He covers bleeding times and the torsos pretty sure those were in the first book.

Will get back to you .

Steve

[Elamarna]

I missed this comment, Steve. That's a very succint way of saying things. I wish I'd said it.

Thank you Paul.
With regards to the secret files I will go and see. Still a shame such were lost.

As for Trevors claim we are giving him free publicity, I seriously doubt that the users of this forum are his intended victims.



Steve

[John G]

Having just finished my first read of this publication I would say that once again the outstanding points are the medical opinions of the professionals consulted, which were discussed at great length only a few months ago.
I find these most enlightening when taken without the intepretation of the author.
The comments by Dr Biggs on bleeding should really be studied by those wishing to use bleed times to point to time of death and potential suspects.
These are not contrary views to those expressed by another expert Mr Payne-James, rather they give a fuller picture and should be read and used together.

The other area of real interest and a very deep shame is Trevors again repeated account of his attempt to open Police Files, it seems he was really on a hiding to nothing on this case and should be applauded for his efforts; such a shame that the police were allowed to seemingly distroy these invaluable records.

However the above was for the most part covered in the previous book and an updated edition would have been a better option than a whole new book, given this is kindle such updates can be automatically added to those who already have the book.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Regarding Dr Biggs, is there additional material in the new book?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Unfortunately you don't answer or even attempt to answer my statement about your book. The best you can do, without any evidence to support what you say, is to assert that 'The new pages in my book are more than a few, and contrary to what you say are of real significant consequence…”' You don’t actually specify how many pages are new, or state what proportion of your book is new, or how the new pages are significant, or what anything you say in those pages has consequences. You simply say I’m wrong and that you’re right.

The new pages consist of a few paragraphs here and there and some cosmetic changes. The biggest additions concern whether or not Mary Kelly’s heart was missing and a section looking at some of the 100 suspects (you said there were 200 in the previous edition of the book). The former has been discussed on these vary boards and been hotly disputed and the latter is old hat. Neither of these additions is significant.

On the ‘About the Author’ page you wrote: ‘The content of this book covers the second and final part of my long and protracted investigation into the Whitechapel murders. For continuity purposes and in order to highlight the results of significant new lines of enquiry it has been necessary to use a significant amount of original material from my previous book “Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files” first published in 2013’

You indicate that the book is the second part of your investigation. You acknowledge that you have used a significant amount of material from The Secret Police Files, but say that this is for continuity and to highlight significant new lines of inquiry. In fact the book does not contain a significant amount of material from The Secret Police Files, it contains ALL the material in The Secret Police Files. The inclusion of this material has no bearing whatsoever on continuity or highlighting new material. I may also add that your list of previous publications does not include Jack the Ripper: A 21st Century Investigation.

What you have done is give The Secret Police Files a new title and a new jacket, and on the 'About the Author' page you imply that it is a new book containing material from The Secret Police Files for continuity and highlighting purposes. This isn't true. What you imply isn't true. The intent appears to be to mislead punters into buying the same book twice.

Regarding your forthcoming pirates book, I mean it when I say that I hope it is better than your Myths and Mysteries: The Real Truth. The cover of that book claims that ‘Following long and lengthy investigations Trevor Marriott reveals the real truth behind some of the myths and mysteries that have continued to intrigue and fascinate people for decades.’ In the forward you make a claim about myths and mysteries that you acknowledge being very similar to that which you make about Jack the Ripper, namely ‘that yet again the public has been misled…’

So, let me make this clear: you state that the public has been misled and that you have undertaken ‘long and lengthy investigations’ and will reveal the truth. In fact, there is no evidence in the book that you undertook ‘long and lengthy investigations’ or any investigations beyond Googling some relevant sites from which you lifted your information. Sometimes you altered the wording, sometimes you didn’t. For example, you wrote‘After the major tsunami in 2004, pictures of the Fiji mermaid resurfaced and were used to spread the hoax even further as people claimed it was something that was found washed up on the shores after the tsunami left." On the web you will find, "After the major tsunami in 2004, the pictures of the Fiji mermaid resurfaced and were used to spread the hoax even further as people claimed it was something that washed up on the shores after the tsunami left." (http://weird.answers.com/animals/tru...maid-sightings) In your chapter on UFOs you listed a number of Nazis brought into the United States as part of Operation Paperclip. From "Arthur Rudolph" to "as its first priority" is a verbatim lift from the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4443934.stm) In other chapters you display a remarkable ignorance of your subject. For example, you write that ‘no satisfactory explanation of Spontaeous Human Combustion has ever been given or proven. It is still an unsolved mystery.’ But satisfactory explanations have been given, see Joe Nickell (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/not-so...n_combustion/). I do not claim that Nickell is correct, but his explanations and those of other rational investigators at least deserved discussion and refutation. There are lots and lots of examples.

Now, you claim to have undertaken ‘long and lengthy investigations’ and were therefore able to present the true facts, but there is no evidence of any protracted research or any in-depth reading and definitely no evidence of original research. You simply went to and pinched your material from various websites, often using it verbatim.

Setting aside the moral issues resulting from claiming that a book is based on ‘long and lengthy investigations’ when you have done nothing more than trawl the web, the foregoing perhaps provides an insight into you working practices. Your first book has been shown to be plagiarized, your third book makes claims that appear to be untrue and once again has lifted its information from other sources without acknowledgement. There are precious few reasons why anyone who knows your work and what appear to be your working practices and your grandiose claims would think your Ripper books are more solidly researched or seriously intended than anything else you have written.

Some and sadly too few readers might check out your books for themselves and compare them against what I have written, they will then be able to judge whether my words are 'biased ramblings' or not. You, of course, can point out where I am wrong, sticking to facts – real facts – not your usual tirade of stupid abuse.

On a final note, before I take my leave. As you are doing a grand job in promoting my books I notice you have failed to mention my two Victorian crime novels, or is it the case that you cannot find anything bad to say about them ?

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/prey-time/

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/sherlock-holmes-final-chapter/

and I will sure to let you know when the pirate book is out for you to buy !

[PaulB]

Trevor


Of course by your very presence on the boards you are partaking. I assume you mean you are no longer posting or prepared to defend the claims you make with those who have the knowledge to question those claims.
The fact that you inform us that you have decided not to partake in peer discussion says more about the research and the fear of holding it up to debate than anyone else could possibly say or write.
The public of course can only decide if a product is worth purchasing if an honest apprasail is given.

Steve

I missed this comment, Steve. That's a very succint way of saying things. I wish I'd said it.

[PaulB]

Having just finished my first read of this publication I would say that once again the outstanding points are the medical opinions of the professionals consulted, which were discussed at great length only a few months ago.
I find these most enlightening when taken without the intepretation of the author.
The comments by Dr Biggs on bleeding should really be studied by those wishing to use bleed times to point to time of death and potential suspects.
These are not contrary views to those expressed by another expert Mr Payne-James, rather they give a fuller picture and should be read and used together.

The other area of real interest and a very deep shame is Trevors again repeated account of his attempt to open Police Files, it seems he was really on a hiding to nothing on this case and should be applauded for his efforts; such a shame that the police were allowed to seemingly distroy these invaluable records.

However the above was for the most part covered in the previous book and an updated edition would have been a better option than a whole new book, given this is kindle such updates can be automatically added to those who already have the book.


Steve

Hi Steve,
I’m glad you mentioned Dr. Biggs, whose comments are one of and probably the only reason for buying the book, as I think I said in my review of The Secret Police Files when it was published. Trevor’s account of his struggles to obtain public access to the Special Branch files may prove of interest to anyone in the future who might one day want Trevor’s side of events. It should perhaps be read in conjunction with the official documents. It’s arguable that a different approach to the one Trevor took could have resulted in a different decision. I think the reports of the hearings, particularly the final appeal, are all available online. As far as I am aware, as I said, Trevor’s account in The Real Truth all appears in The Secret Police Files, nothing added,nothing taken away. I agree with your final paragraph, but Trevor’s behaviour is made worse by what appears to be his efforts to deceive his readers into giving the impression that The Real Truth is a new book.