Jack the Ripper: CSI Whitechapel

[Supe]

John,

Sorry folks, these aren't reviews of the book.

Is it possible for you to ask them to remove the inappropriate reviews?

Don.

[PhiltheBear]

John,

Sorry folks, these aren't reviews of the book.

Is it possible for you to ask them to remove the inappropriate reviews?

Don.

Yes, you can email them and they will remove reviews that are in any way wrong (as opposed to being a different viewpoint). I complained about 'puff' reviews on a book that appeared before it had been published - and they took them down.

[Cogidubnus]

It's not something I generally do, but I'm shamelessly "bumping" this thread, because the book it describes is SO good...the quality of the illustrations alone make it worth the money...

It has to be the best general introduction to the case, ever...

Thanks Paul/John

All the best

Dave

[Jenni Shelden]

I have to say, this book is gorgeous!!!! It is brilliance in book formation.
I love, love, love the illustrations, the text is magnificent too. We are still drooling over our copy

that is all

Jenni

[John Bennett]

Thanks Jenni - and thanks to everyone who has given positive comments about the book. We're certainly pleased with it!

JB

[EddieX]

Likewise I look forward to getting my hands on a copy. Btw I am not put off by CSI title.

[moonbegger]

Fantastic job by all involved , it could have done with an artist view inside room 13 and maybe the Ten bells , but all in all , its a great informative and atmospheric book .. Was great timing for me as they were just putting it out at Foyles ( Tottenham Ct Rd ) as i happened to be in the shop , i was not even aware of its publication .

Brilliant

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[The Grave Maurice]

For some reason, the book won't be available in Canada until November 6, but I've got copies on order. (Another good Christmas present idea.)

[John Bennett]

Sorry folks, these aren't reviews of the book. Rather naughtily, Amazon have put up a few reviews of Paul's 'The Facts', and they were there before this book even came out.

JB

I am pleased to say that the first proper review has appeared on Amazon. It's a blinder and thanks to Cogidubnus for it!

Waterstone's site also has a good review too.

[DennisB]

can't wait to get it....

Respectfully,

Dennis

[Lechmere]

I think ‘Jack the Ripper CSI: Whitechapel’ is the most impressive general purpose ‘Ripper’ book on the market. There is a good chance it will popularise (if that is an appropriate word to use) the genre and inform a new generation of ‘Ripperologists’.

However, that makes my criticism of it of all the more urgent, significant, telling – I’m not sure what word is best.
I think it is guilty of a form of institutional suspect bias, in common with the otherwise excellent TV documentary ‘Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story’, which was produced by the same stable of ‘Ripperologists’.
The danger is that this bias will misrepresent certain aspects of the case and create new facts.

I have a particular interest in the murder of Polly Nichols and make no secret that my favoured suspect is none other than Charles Lechmere, in the guise of Charles Cross.

My initial critique is to see what can be made of this passage (on pages 56-58):

“At approximately 3.40 a.m. on 31 August 1888, Charles Cross was walking from Brady Street along the north side of Buck’s Row on his way to work and in the pre-dawn gloom he saw something against the gates of Brown’s stable yard, which he first took to be a bundled tarpaulin. Thinking it could be something of use to him, he crossed the narrow street, but as he did so he realised that it was the body of a woman.”

This is obviously follows Charles Lechmere’s Inquest testimony regarding his own movements, which was reported at the time in the following manner...

The Daily Telegraph:
“About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman.”

The Times:
“Witness walked along Buck's-row, and saw something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin. He then saw it was a woman.”

The Star:
“He crossed Bradley-street into Buck's-row. He was alone. He saw something lying in front of the gateway - it looked in the distance like tarpaulin. When he got nearer he found it was a woman.”

You will hopefully note that there is nothing in the contemporary records about Charles Lechmere thinking of scavenging the tarpaulin for future use. This is a common theme in Ripper books. That Charles Lechmere thought the tarpaulin might be useful to him somehow. Obviously it wasn’t actually a tarpaulin, it was Polly Nichols’s body.

Yet Charles Lechmere, by making that simple statement - that he initially thought her body was a tarpaulin - had the effect of creating the impression that there he was minding his own business walking down the street when...
‘...I see’s a tarpaulin sir, but bowl me over guv’nor, stone the bleedin’ crows, if it when I got a bit closer I saw that I weren’t no tarpaulin but was actually a woman – who may be alive or may be dead, or dead drunk your worship. Yes sir, the first I knew of her was when I saw her lying there and even then how was I to know it was a woman? I thought it was a tarpaulin, your honour I did.
(After all I hadn’t killed her moments before, honest).’

By ‘Jack the Ripper CSI: Whitechapel’ adding to Charles Lechmere’s simple statement – that he thought Polly’s body was a tarpaulin, and wanted to scavenge it - the writers effectively declare him innocent of the crime.

Here we see Charles Lechmere’s manipulative skill still having effect, with him leading his audience to imagine that this innocent carman actually only went over for a closer look as he wanted to scavenge the tarpaulin. Even though he said no such thing.

In my opinion Charles Lechmere mentioned that he thought Polly Nichols’s body was a tarpaulin as an extra bit of descriptive scene setting detail that distanced himself from the crime. If he had just killed her, he would not have thought her body was a tarpaulin, would he?
That is obviously my interpretation, but be that as it may, there is no indication that he wished to scavenge the supposed tarpaulin, and the inclusion of this non-fact in the book is misleading.
As I indicated, this is by no means the first time this misrepresentation has appeared in print.

Despite this, I do sincerely recommend this book which is otherwise excellent – particularly the illustrations – and recreations (of which more later).

[John Bennett]

Hi Lechmere

Thanks for your kind words about the book. But I must address one thing:

Fair enough, I would concede that the description of Cross/Lechmere thinking he could scavenge the 'tarpaulin' was not mentioned in contemporary reports and therefore could go.

However, your post makes it appear that because we mention it, then we are somehow guilty of a bias that reinforces his 'innocent bystander' credentials and thus excludes him from suspect status.

I'm sure Paul would agree, there was no room for satisfying individual needs viz a viz suspects in this book.

I find it strange. A Ripper book that has no publisher pressure to name a suspect is a rare commodity these days and thankfully we were given carte blanche to produce a themed account (focusing on the crime scenes) of the case with no pressure to be biased in any way towards any solution. In that respect I believe we were successful.

And yet we have an accusation of bias. Seems like ya can't win.

John

[Lechmere]

John
Thank you for your gracious reply.

I slightly facetiously referred to the bias as ‘institutional suspect bias’, meaning that it was unconscious, and influenced by the way ‘Ripperology’ has traditionally treated events within the subject.
Hence, the way Cross ‘discovers’ Polly Nichols often starts with him wanting to scavenge the tarpaulin. This unmerited elaboration of his story gives tacit acceptance of his version of events and effectively exonerates him from even approaching suspect status.

I certainly wouldn’t expect your book to mention Charles Lechmere as a potential suspect. For starters the case against him has not been coherently put forward anywhere. The case has been somewhat disjointedly discussed on several threads on this forum and there have been a couple of earlier dissertations, but that is it.

The case against Charles Lechmere is very heavily based around the Nichols crime scene, so anything that alters that will likely have impact on the potential suspect status of Charles Lechmere.
I would suggest that because Charles Lechmere is commonly disregarded as a potential suspect, aspects of the Nichols crime scene tend to be misrepresented and less attention tends to be paid to the detail this crime than the others.
As a further example, on the TV documentary ‘Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story’, Robert Paul was depicted as walking a couple of feet behind Charles Lechmere (in the guise of Charles Cross), rather than the two Carmen noticing each other at about 40 yards distance.

But I have another error relating to the Bucks Row crime scene that featured in almost exactly the same way in both the documentary and the book.

[Monty]

Cross is in the book as a witness, as he is in all books where the discovery of Nichols body is recorded.

To state the Tarpaulin story is 'eleborated' is not entirely correct in my opinion, and to claim that quoting it is 'tacit acceptence' suggests a bias by the authors which is unfair and unsupported.

The story is often quoted in many news reports, articles and books. Cross actually said saw 'something' lying across the road rather than someone, an indication that the tarpulin story is viable.

Anyway, to state Whtiechapel CSI is subconciously biased is ungrounded in my opinion.

Monty

[John Bennett]

As a further example, on the TV documentary ‘Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story’, Robert Paul was depicted as walking a couple of feet behind Charles Lechmere (in the guise of Charles Cross), rather than the two Carmen noticing each other at about 40 yards distance.

But I have another error relating to the Bucks Row crime scene that featured in almost exactly the same way in both the documentary and the book.

Just for the record, as both documentary and book have Paul and I's name on them, it must be stressed that the two outcomes are quite different:

The book - with Jake's artworks - are our work and pretty much our work alone. The documentary, without going into too much detail, was written by Paul and I, but with the further involvement/influence of TV company execs, producers, directors, directors of photography and script editor, any one of which can make an alteration here, a snip there etc.

But we should keep this thread germane to the book...

JB