Jack the Ripper, The Facts

[Jenni Shelden]

well good.

Anyway, the facts...

[Jeff Leahy]

Anyone who would think badly of me for giving an honest opinion on a book that was sent to me specifically so that I would review it isn't worth worrying about. The people who assume that the review wasn't honest are definitely not worth worrying about.

We dont think badly of you for giving an honest opinion, its giving an opinion full of sweep statements and factual errors that we all object to..

[Dan Norder]

Please name even just one factual error in what I said about Begg's book. You won't find any, just things you have a different opinion on.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Dan I'm far to busy trying to resolve the factual errors you have created on another thread..

Beleive it or not I do also have a business to run...

I beleive I have already answered the factual errors Tom posted on Mrs Malcolms....

Besides you really should be taking the time to prepare your official casebook apology to Peter Bower

[Dan Norder]

Wow, you really are a piece of work, aren't you?

No wonder you're a fan of Begg's, you also can't tell the difference between your own unsupported opinions and facts and claim anyone who disagrees with you made a factual error.

[Tom_Wescott]

I beleive I have already answered the factual errors Tom posted on Mrs Malcolms....

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you have somehow corrected 'factual errors' that I made regarding Mrs. Malcolm?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[BillyE]

Getting back to the original post:

Dicksie Cribb, I think Paul Begg's "The Facts" is a great place to start learn about Jack the Ripper. Even after you become more advanced in the field it's a great reference book. Other books you should pick up once you finish mr. Begg's book is Donald Rumbalow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper", "Jack the Ripper: the Ultimate Sourcebook" by Stewart Evans and Kevin Skinner, and "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Phillip Sugden. All great info in them. Enjoy.

[Septic Blue]

... if a book is full of errors and has a pretty overwhelming obvious bias, it's not unreasonable to let other people know about it. In fact, it's pretty much a professional responsibility.

It has been stated on these boards, on numerous occasions, that "The Facts" contains more than its fair share of careless errors: It does !!!

Before I go any further, I should acknowledge that I am not qualified to be critical of the overall scope of Paul Begg's work. However, mistakes are mistakes; and they should be brought to people's attention.

I believe that many of the careless errors found in "The Facts" are simply the result of awkward and/or inadequate phraseology; and that the reader in these instances, should be able to easily discern the points, which Begg is attempting to make.

pg. 14: "St. Giles vanished under New Oxford Street in 1846-7, Saffron Hill under Farringdon Street, and some of the Whitechapel and Spitalfields rookeries vanished with the building of Commercial Street."

Why didn't Begg apply the same qualifier, "some of the … rookeries", to St. Giles and Saffron Hill that he so carefully chose for Whitechapel and Spitalfields ??? Neither St. Giles in the Fields, nor the Liberty of Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents and Ely Place "vanished".

Buckeridge Street, St. Giles in the Fields and its immediate surroundings; along with Field Lane, Saffron Hill / St. Andrew Holborn, City of London and its immediate surroundings did in fact, "vanish". But these were mere enclaves within the parish and extra-parochial area in question. Also, it is worth noting that many of the inhabitants of these notorious rookeries simply moved 'across the road'.

pg. 15: "The survey (Charles Booth's "Life and Labour of the People in London", 1889-1903), …, revealed that 35.7 per cent of East Londoners and 30.7 per cent of all Londoners were living in abject poverty."

There are varying degrees of poverty, which Charles Booth himself, was extremely careful to delineate. Begg's use of the word "abject", in this case, makes his assertion erroneous. If he had simply said "that 35.2 per cent (his "35.7" is incorrect) of East Londoners and 30.7 per cent of all Londoners were living in poverty.", then he would have been on the mark. Or, if he had said "that 12.4 per cent of East Londoners and 8.4 per cent of all Londoners were living in abject poverty.", then he would have been just as accurate.

Note: "Abject", in this case, should be applied to Booth's socio-economic classes "A" (lowest; vicious, semi-criminal) and "B" (very poor).

I hate sounding accusatory, but this mistake goes beyond awkward/inadequate phraseology, and into the realm of sensationalism. To Begg's credit, however, he did note that Booth had uncovered "areas of greater poverty than the East End": Most notably, Southwark.

pg. 31: "It was with her murder (Emma Smith's), however, that the police opened the Whitechapel Murders file, …"

Surely, this file was not opened until there were at least two unsolved cases, to be included therein !!!

pg. 42: "The night on which Mary Ann Nichols was to die, 30 August, there was a storm, …"

Awkward phraseology !!! We know what Begg meant in this case, but it still constitutes a mistake.

pg. 44: "That night, 31 August, one of the sons (Emma Green's) went to bed at 9 p.m., …"

Same as above, or perhaps a simple 'typo' !!!

pg. 49: "At 10 a.m. on Saturday, 1 September, Dr. Llewellyn and his assistant undertook a full postmortem examination."

Does Begg have difficulty keeping dates in order ??? Over the span of seven pages, he has effectively given his readers three distinctly different dates, spanning two calendar months, in describing the murder of Polly Nichols.

The list goes on …

Again; many of Begg's mistakes are born of awkward and/or inadequate phraseology, and as such are quite harmless: One exception being the above reference to "abject poverty", which is actually quite misleading.

There is one mistake in "The Facts", however, which has bothered me for quite some time:

pg. 168: "They turned back early instead of going hop picking, and reached London on the afternoon of Friday, 28 September. In London Kelly managed to earn 6d. Eddowes took 2d. and told Kelly to use the remaining 4d. to get a bed at Cooney's. Eddowes said that she would get a bed in the casual ward in Shoe Lane. In an interview given to the East London Observer, the superintendent of the casual ward said that Eddowes was well known there, but that this was the first occasion that she had stayed there for some time. Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country, but she said, ' "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." "Mind he doesn't murder you too," replied the superintendent jocularly. "Oh, no fear of that," was the remark made by Kate Eddowes as she left.' "

According to Kelly's inquest testimony, he and Eddowes returned to London on Thursday, 27 September, and spent that night together in the casual ward in "Shoe Lane" (City of London Union Casual Ward, Robin Hood Court, Shoe Lane, St. Andrew Holborn, City of London). Kelly also stated that Eddowes went alone to the casual ward in "Mile End" (Mile End Old Town Casual Ward, Bancroft Road, Mile End Old Town), on the evening of Friday, 28 September. Indeed, it was the casual ward in "Mile End" that was mentioned by the East London Observer, in its seemingly fabled account of an exchange between Eddowes and the casual ward superintendent.

This error has caused tremendous confusion. There have been countless references on these boards, to Eddowes's alleged exchange with the superintendent of the casual ward in "Shoe Lane"; entire threads have been entitled accordingly; and during one of the presentations in Wolverhampton, last October, the speaker and his two attendants who were each doing role-plays, made numerous references to the same. Those three in particular, should have referenced "The Sourcebook", instead of "The Facts".

Finally:

It would appear that the establishment of The Metropolitan Borough of Stepney in 1900, has provided a convenient explanation for one of the inconsistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

However, we must avoid the temptation to push square pegs into round holes, when attempting to rationalize the obvious shortcomings of the so-called Swanson Marginalia.

The Bottom Line: With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as "Stepney Workhouse".

Click on the quote-prompt (white arrow) and enjoy.

In this particular instance (pg. 378), Begg has blatantly attempted to push a twelve-inch square peg into a one-inch round hole, in an effort to justify one of the shortcomings of the so-called Swanson Marginalia. I do not presume to know that he has done this intentionally: Sometimes we subconsciously manipulate fact, in order to suit our own agendas. But either way, Begg has recklessly seized upon a seemingly convenient solution to the difficult question of "Stepney Workhouse", while showing little regard for 'the facts'.


Colin

[Septic Blue]

It would appear that the establishment of The Metropolitan Borough of Stepney in 1900, has provided a convenient explanation for one of the inconsistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

However, we must avoid the temptation to push square pegs into round holes, when attempting to rationalize the obvious shortcomings of the so-called Swanson Marginalia.

The Bottom Line: With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as “Stepney Workhouse”.

Click on the quote-prompt (white arrow) and enjoy.

In this particular instance (pg. 378), Begg has blatantly attempted to push a twelve-inch square peg into a one-inch round hole, in an effort to justify one of the shortcomings of the so-called Swanson Marginalia. I do not presume to know that he has done this intentionally: Sometimes we subconsciously manipulate fact, in order to suit our own agendas. But either way, Begg has recklessly seized upon a seemingly convenient solution to the difficult question of "Stepney Workhouse", while showing little regard for 'the facts'.

I should have made Begg's assertion readily available. My apologies !!!

pg. 378: "... the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."

"was": Begg's emphasis

Begg's omission of a qualifier such as "perhaps", along with his emphasis of the word "was", gives the distinct impression that he has concocted his assertion to suit his own agenda.


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

Colin
Begg mentioned Booth’s maps in passing, for example, as part of the growing evidence of the extreme poverty in which a large percentage of the population lived and ‘abject’ means a low state or condition, or extremely unpleasant and degrading (as the Shorter OED defines it), which basically sums up the condition in which the poor overall lived.

In light of this it’s a pity really that Colin then grossly exaggerates at the conclusion of his post.

On page 377-8 of The Facts That Begg says that Kosminski fits ‘almost all the criteria to be Swanson’s suspect’ and having discussed the criteria that he fits, Begg aIso refers to the criteria he did not fit:

‘However, Aaron Kosminski was not sent to Stepney Workhouse but to Mile End Old Town Workhouse; the murders did not cease with Aaron Kosminski’s committal; and he did not die soon after being committed to Colney Hatch. It should be observed, however, that the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse.’

Begg's meaning is surely very clear (indeed, in your own earlier post that you quote it would appear that you understood it quite well), which was that by 1910 Mile End Old Town was a part of Stepney and its workhouse therefore was in Stepney and Swanson might therefore have described the workhouse as being Stepney Workhouse.

What is important is that this was very clearly offered as an observation in the FACTS, not given as a statement of fact, and if a historian encounters problems with a document then it is perfectly legitimate for him to suggest explanations for them - indeed, trying to make sense of what the sources tell them is a fundamental part of the historians job, is it not? and that is what Begg clearly does.

surely it would have been wrong of Begg not to have mentioned what some might regard as a plausible explanation for what appears to be an inaccuracy in Swanson’s account. To describe this as an attempt ‘to push a twelve-inch square peg into a one-inch round hole’, or a conscious or unconscious manipulation of fact is a gross exageration – what is being manipulated Colin? – Its absurd and clearly a gross attempt to denigrate Paul Beggs work.

Do you beleive Begg is in the pay of Bobby Chalton or something?

[Stewart P Evans]

Congratulations

Colin
Begg mentioned Booth’s maps in passing, for example, as part of the growing evidence of the extreme poverty in which a large percentage of the population lived and ‘abject’ means a low state or condition, or extremely unpleasant and degrading (as the Shorter OED defines it), which basically sums up the condition in which the poor overall lived.
In light of this it’s a pity really that Colin then grossly exaggerates at the conclusion of his post.
On page 377-8 of The Facts That Begg says that Kosminski fits ‘almost all the criteria to be Swanson’s suspect’ and having discussed the criteria that he fits, Begg aIso refers to the criteria he did not fit:
‘However, Aaron Kosminski was not sent to Stepney Workhouse but to Mile End Old Town Workhouse; the murders did not cease with Aaron Kosminski’s committal; and he did not die soon after being committed to Colney Hatch. It should be observed, however, that the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse.’
Begg's meaning is surely very clear (indeed, in your own earlier post that you quote it would appear that you understood it quite well), which was that by 1910 Mile End Old Town was a part of Stepney and its workhouse therefore was in Stepney and Swanson might therefore have described the workhouse as being Stepney Workhouse.
What is important is that this was very clearly offered as an observation in the FACTS, not given as a statement of fact, and if a historian encounters problems with a document then it is perfectly legitimate for him to suggest explanations for them - indeed, trying to make sense of what the sources tell them is a fundamental part of the historians job, is it not? and that is what Begg clearly does.
surely it would have been wrong of Begg not to have mentioned what some might regard as a plausible explanation for what appears to be an inaccuracy in Swanson’s account. To describe this as an attempt ‘to push a twelve-inch square peg into a one-inch round hole’, or a conscious or unconscious manipulation of fact is a gross exageration – what is being manipulated Colin? – Its absurd and clearly a gross attempt to denigrate Paul Beggs work.
Do you beleive Begg is in the pay of Bobby Chalton or something?

Congratulations on the improvement in your prose Jeff, in parts you sound almost like Paul writing there.

[Scott Nelson]

Jeff got that verbiage from me, Stewart.

[Dan Norder]

Considering how Jeff normally writes -- his dyslexia as he calls it -- it's pretty strange when someone who normally can't string a single sentence together without four spelling errors and a verb that doesn't seem to fit with the rest suddenly starts presenting whole long paragraphs that are almost literate.

As long as we're doing a partial list of all the factual errors in Begg's book, don't forget that he claims straight out that the Seaside Home isn't just an ambiguous reference but a very specific police convalescent home (that didn't even exist at the time he claims the witness identification happened), misidentifies the location of one of the canonical murders in a photo caption, asserts that there is no dispute in the field about when the piece of apron was left in Goulston Street, portrays Chapman as being drunk despite the doctor's medical evidence to the contrary, and for some reason feels the need to tell his readers how the From Hell film ended while not even getting that right. And those were just ones I remember off the top of my head from previous threads on this. He had some aspect of the police hierarchy wrong, too, because I remember someone else being attacked for the error when he had just gotten it from Begg's book.

A list of Begg's opinions that are both out of the mainstream of Ripper scholarship and presented in the book as if they were undisputed facts would be an even longer list.

[Jeff Leahy]

‘The Facts’ shouldn’t contain speculation'

Lets just clarify this because some people seem to have a poor grasp on what history is: History is making sense of what the raw data tells us. Making sense of the raw data is what historians do. Speculating from a factual basis is perfectly acceptable.

And such speculation can be included in a book called ‘The Facts’.

Paul Begg gives us the facts and then speculates on what they mean...he gives both sides of a possible argument,,which is simply good journalism..and what you all end up with ids something interesting and readable..

..rather than a book called the DULL FACTS OF JACK THE RIPPER...so unless you wish to produce as book called Jack the Ripper the Dull facts..

I suggest you stop.. as Paul would say..... 'pettyfogging'

Jeff

[Dicksie Cribb]

Well, my eyes are crossed and my head hurts.

There was no way for me to have known the background of this board before I came here. All I knew was that it was mentioned in a book that I was enjoying. But now, while I read, all these voices are going back and forth in my mind.

So, I'm going to back away from this thread. - But not the book. As I said, I'm enjoying it too much. And I won't have you marring it any further.

I apologize for creating the opportunity for this discussion. I can see that it has all happened before and will happen again.

That's a real shame.