George Chapman Seweryn Klosowski

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena,

I just noticed the book was available on Kindle and snapped it up. I very much look forward to reading it as everyone has said such wonderful things about it. Belated congratulations!

Cheers Barnaby

Remember, if you want the 100+ images, the paperback version is still available.

Helena

[bolo]

Hi Helena,

I'm a bit late as well but want to congratulate you for your excellent work, I'm glad you pushed through. Your attention to detail, the amount of meticulous research that undoubtedly went into the book and your stringent argumentation make it a smashing read. The Good Ship Ripperology can be proud to have you on board.

Best wishes,

Boris

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena,

want to congratulate you for your excellent work ...Best wishes,Boris

Gosh Boris thank you for your kind words. I honestly never expected such unmitigated praise. I was rather nervous, in fact, of putting my work "out there" in the world of Ripperology but I need not have worried, for everyone has seen some merit in the work.

If you'd like to put a short review on Amazon, it would let non-members know what you think of the book, too.

Many thanks once again,

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Sorry to those who were unable to buy a copy of Jack the Ripper At Last. There was a slight delay in acquiring the fourth batch of books printed.

I now have plenty here in my office, and post out daily so orders now will get to you (in the UK) by Xmas.

Please use the link below to "Buy It Now".

Thanks!

[Dane_F]

Having just finished reading this book I thought it would be good to give my thoughts on it for any others interested in the book.

First, Helena did an amazing job researching everything. The work was throughly done and listed in such a way that made it easy to check anything if the desire to do so was needed.

To me the most enjoyable part of the book was the first 50/60% which told the entire story of Chapman's actual crimes and everything surrounding his life. So many people are wrapped up in the JTR aspect that they might overlook the amazing story of the horrible crimes Chapman committed.

This part is so well researched and laid out that it's hard to argue anything that Helena puts to page in them.

The latter half of the book deals with answering why Chapman wasn't JTR and really felt like it could have been answered in 20-30 pages with the 15 claims by those who champion Chapman as JTR. That part very easily laid to rest almost all of them and was a solid nail in the coffin. Most of the rest of the reading in this section was Helena taking to task specific claims made by other authors. I could have done without much of this since I didn't see the place for it in a book that is basically THE autobiography on Chapman. Some of the details in this section are a rehashing of previous points made throughout the book as well.

The Wolff suspect introduction to end the book also felt VERY out of place for a suspect book on Chapman. I can only assume that if Helena writes another book it will be on Wolff and this was her way of setting it up using this one.

Overall I thought it was a solid read, one that clearly had a lot of research and effort put into it. I could have done without so much of the thumbing the nose at other authors and more of just letting the facts speak for themselves, however, it's also possible that without direct quotes and retorts the myths and lies surrounding Chapman would just continue and this book would be overlooked.

At its core, this is anything but a JTR book. It is, however, a great George Chapman book.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Having just finished reading this book I thought it would be good to give my thoughts on it for any others interested in the book....

...Helena taking to task specific claims made by other authors. I could have done without much of this...

I can only assume that if Helena writes another book it will be on Wolff and this was her way of setting it up using this one....

Thanks very much for all the positive comments on my book. I'm really grateful for all feedback, good and bad.

Just want to reply to two points. Firstly, pointing out other authors' myth-spreading, lies and mistakes was an absolutely crucial part of the book. Without these myths, lies and errors, Chapman would never have held such a high position in the suspects list. And why should these people not be named and shamed? They are a disgrace to history, a disgrace to Ripperology and a disgrace to honest non fiction writing. If more people did more naming and shaming, maybe people would be a bit more careful about what they publish. Maybe it's knowing that nobody is ever going to publicly pull them up that encourages them to spread lies, rumours and myths.

It is also true to say that my book is not only the story of Chapman, but the story of how myths and lies are made and spread. It acts as a warning to all readers of all Ripper books to be sceptical of everything you read.

Secondly, everything I was able to find out about Levisohn is in my Chapman book. I honestly don't think there is anything more that can be discovered, (unless his descendants can be traced and know anything). So, no, it is not and has never been my intention to write a book about him.

The reason that I went into the Levisohn story as I did is to show that he is as good a suspect as Chapman, and to raise the question "why has he never been put forward as a suspect?"

Thanks again

Helena

[Batman]

What one needs to point out though is that these critisms also extend to some of those who in the contemporary translated documents, gave witness testimony, wrote contemporary news articles and featured Chapman in books.

So in order to accept Helena's hypothesis we will actually reject that Lucy was attacked, believe witnesses lied under oath and journalists made up stories. Not to mention that the said historical mistranslated document originals don't exist, just the translations.

Helena does well to do away with some myths that appear in some places elsewhere, but many of the counter arguments require we make additional assumptions such as rejecting a lot of contemporary material... An awful lot actually, to the point of historical revisionism if we are saying these sources are dishonest and misleading.

[caz]

The reason that I went into the Levisohn story as I did is to show that he is as good a suspect as Chapman, and to raise the question "why has he never been put forward as a suspect?"

Hi Helena,

Perhaps you answered your own question here. If Chapman should never have become a suspect in the first place (whenever that was, and whoever first suggested him), then why should Levisohn be put forward?

Love,

Caz
X

[Dane_F]

Thanks very much for all the positive comments on my book. I'm really grateful for all feedback, good and bad.

Just want to reply to two points. Firstly, pointing out other authors' myth-spreading, lies and mistakes was an absolutely crucial part of the book. Without these myths, lies and errors, Chapman would never have held such a high position in the suspects list. And why should these people not be named and shamed? They are a disgrace to history, a disgrace to Ripperology and a disgrace to honest non fiction writing. If more people did more naming and shaming, maybe people would be a bit more careful about what they publish. Maybe it's knowing that nobody is ever going to publicly pull them up that encourages them to spread lies, rumours and myths.

It is also true to say that my book is not only the story of Chapman, but the story of how myths and lies are made and spread. It acts as a warning to all readers of all Ripper books to be sceptical of everything you read.

Secondly, everything I was able to find out about Levisohn is in my Chapman book. I honestly don't think there is anything more that can be discovered, (unless his descendants can be traced and know anything). So, no, it is not and has never been my intention to write a book about him.

The reason that I went into the Levisohn story as I did is to show that he is as good a suspect as Chapman, and to raise the question "why has he never been put forward as a suspect?"

Thanks again

Helena

Thanks for responding Helena. I completely understand your standpoint on the naming and shaming. To me the book just read like a biography on Chapman and so I felt it could stand alone as THE definitive book on him. You do well in the first half naming what myths are out there and answering them with evidence there that the specific naming of stuff later in the book stood out to me.

I suppose the Levisohn stuff just felt completely random in what I view as a biography on Chapman.

I do want to express yet again that these criticisms aside I still found the book very enjoyable and was throughly enthralled by the story of Chapman.

[HelenaWojtczak]

So in order to accept Helena's hypothesis we will actually reject that Lucy was attacked, believe witnesses lied under oath and journalists made up stories.

Helena does well to do away with some myths that appear in some places elsewhere, but many of the counter arguments require we make additional assumptions such as rejecting a lot of contemporary material... An awful lot actually, to the point of historical revisionism if we are saying these sources are dishonest and misleading.

That's not true. As many reviewers have pointed out, my book is meticulously fair and removes myths, it doesn't create them.

I do go into this in great detail in the book, but for now, I have to say, it's not me that said witnesses lied under oath, it was Peter Thurgood. He quotes words from Mrs Radin, Miss Rayner and Annie Chapman that do not appear in their court testimony.

Where is your proof that "Lucy was attacked"? Where is the source of this, that you think I am contradicting? Not one court witness under oath said she was. Her own sister and brother gave evidence and didn't say anything about any cruelty or violence inflicted on Lucy. Lucy herself did not give evidence, so what are you basing that on? That lots of books and websites say so? Hmmm...

The only witness whose testimony is very obviously dodgy is that of Wolf Levisohn, an old, sick man nearing death, whose testimony is contradicted by other court witnesses. Therefore, as I said, we have to be extremely sceptical about everything he says. Not because he was a liar but because he was, clearly, confused about names and dates.

And the only primary sources I reject are the press reports that say things that we know for a fact are not correct, for example that he was a Jew, that he was born in Warsaw, and so on. That isn't historical revisionism, that is pointing out reporters' errors, which were as frequent then as they are today.

Just because something was written a long time ago, Batman, doesn't mean it's 100% true and correct.

Best wishes

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

I suppose the Levisohn stuff just felt completely random in what I view as a biography on Chapman.

Thank you for your kind words, Dane.

The reason I felt a few paragraphs about Levisohn were acceptable in this book is that he gave court evidence against Chapman - moreover, evidence that has been vaunted and highlighted, used and abused and twisted and relied upon far too much, and so I didn't really feel that it was 'random' at all.

Hope that clarifies matters

All the best

Helena