Any have a copy of Foul Deeds in Islington by John J Eddleston (2010)

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena

All I know of Eddleston's treatment of Chapman is what I read in his encyclopaedia...and I'm afraid I know far too little of Chapman to critique it in any way...which is another reason I'm eagerly awaiting your book...

The Eddleston encyclopaedia, as a whole though, is pretty readable, and often gives a refreshingly different "take" compared to the standard narratives...I always enjoy dipping into it...that may just be me of course...

But thereagain I'd be bound to be biased in favour of an author who's settled in West Sussex, (where I've settled), near to Brighton, (where I was born and raised), wouldn't I? What do you reckon Helena, Lancing, Steyning, Henfield, Ditchling perhaps?

All the best

Dave

PS It'd be interesting to get hold of a copy of "Murderous Sussex" to see if there are any startling ommissions in there too...perhaps if my already overladen "to read" list permits sometime...

Awww thanks Dave for saying you are going to read my book. I need some incentive to keep me plodding on, day after day...

How do you know Eddleston lives in Sussex? I was born in Southlands Hospital in Shoreham by Sea and grew up in Brighton till I was seven, and thence lived in London for 22 years. As you know I now live in St Leonards-on-Sea.

Let me enlighten you about Eddleston...

Chapman murdered (with poison bought in Hastings) one woman in Finsbury and two in Southwark: one in Union Street, Southwark, the other in Borough High Street, Southwark. His third victim's inquest was carried out by the Southwark coroner at Southwark coroner's court. The case was known as the Southwark Mystery and he was dubbed the Southwark Poisoner.

He was arrested at his pub in Southwark by Southwark police and taken to Southwark police station. His case was extensively covered by the Southwark newspapers. He made 16 appearances at Southwark police court.

In 2010 Eddleston published his book Foul Deeds in Islington. I can forgive him for including Mary, the Finsbury victim, but not the others, Bessie and Maud. Simply by changing the addresses Union Street, Southwark and Borough High Street, Southwark to Union Street, Islington and High Street, Islington, and omitting all other references to Southwark, he included all three of Chapman's murders.

There is no chance whatever that Eddleston did not know that Chapman murdered Bessie and Maud in Southwark. He cites only one reference and that is a bundle of papers in the NA that includes depositions at Southwark police and coroner's courts.

Besides, a quick glance at Wikipedia or Casebook or, well, any of hundreds of sources could have told him the two women were killed in Southwark.

What do you make of that?

Regards

Helena

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Helena

How do you know Eddleston lives in Sussex? I was born in Southlands Hospital in Shoreham by Sea and grew up in Brighton till I was seven, and thence lived in London for 22 years. As you know I now live in St Leonards-on-Sea.

West Sussex? It's acknowledged in his JtR encyclopaedia as his place of residence...though he was a Lancashire lad by birth...Brighton? PM me sometime and we'll talk streets and schools if you like...

There is no chance whatever that Eddleston did not know that Chapman murdered Bessie and Maud in Southwark. He cites only one reference and that is a bundle of papers in the NA that includes depositions at Southwark police and coroner's courts.

Besides, a quick glance at Wikipedia or Casebook or, well, any of hundreds of sources could have told him the two women were killed in Southwark.

Well at best it's misunderstanding or maybe artistic licence - neither of which ought, in my opinion at least, to have no place in something purporting to be an account of historical fact...

To show I don't altogether disagree with you, let me remind you of my PS which reads:

It'd be interesting to get hold of a copy of "Murderous Sussex" to see if there are any startling ommissions in there too...perhaps if my already overladen "to read" list permits sometime...

Bearing in mind the inclusion of "Non-Islington", and exclusion of "Islington" per your postings, do please read the Amazon write-up on "Murderous Sussex" and tell me what you think?

There's at least one Brighton murderer, and a possible (sensational) Eastbourne murderer missing in the publishers spiel...

Which is why I thought it might be worth (eventually) buying the book to confirm that's actually the case in the book itself...

None of which should detract from my complimentary comments re his JtR Encyclopaedia...for which I maintain a great respect...

All the best

Dave

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena


Well at best it's misunderstanding or maybe artistic licence - neither of which ought, in my opinion at least, to have no place in something purporting to be an account of historical fact...

To show I don't altogether disagree with you, let me remind you of my PS which reads:

Bearing in mind the inclusion of "Non-Islington", and exclusion of "Islington" per your postings, do please read the Amazon write-up on "Murderous Sussex" and tell me what you think?

There's at least one Brighton murderer, and a possible (sensational) Eastbourne murderer missing

None of which should detract from my complimentary comments re his JtR Encyclopaedia...for which I maintain a great respect...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave

Eddleston made the same mistake in 2003 in The Encyclopaedia of Executions. Blake, p68, claiming that Chapman's pub The Crown was in Islington High Street. He also stated in the same book that Chapman's son died in the USA, when two minutes on Ancestry or Freebmd shows that he died in London.

But sure you see that there is a HUGE difference between omitting to include a murder (one might not have come under the author's radar, after all) and deliberately changing facts so that one can include murders that did not happen in the area covered by the book. If one is going to choose a particular town or London borough (which amounts to the same thing) then one has to keep to it.

E.g I wrote a book called "Notable Sussex Women". There were some very interesting women who lived a mile over the border in Hampshire and Kent, but tough luck - I could not, would not include them once the title was set at Sussex women.

Eddleston has built up a reputation for his encyclopaedia. Why has he risked losing his good name over this? It's just not worth it. I've written to his publishers about this, and they have declined to give an explanation. They gave him my email address, but he won't contact me.

The trouble is, now I know he's gone so wrong in his Islington book, I find myself unable to trust the information in any of his books. Authors must show themselves to be trustworthy and have integrity.

Regards

Helena

PS "PM me sometime and we'll talk streets and schools if you like..." I left there aged seven!

[HelenaWojtczak]

"please read the Amazon write-up on "Murderous Sussex" and tell me what you think?"


It says:

"It includes absorbing real life accounts of nearly every reported murder that took place in Sussex during the twentieth century."

"Nearly". Not "all". Therefore it's honest. Not purporting to be comprehensive.

But I'd distrust everything in there unless I did my own research. And if I am having to do that, why buy the book?

Regards

Helena

[Cogidubnus]

Yeah but I want to know what he made of BOTH the Brighton trunk murders...and for good measure John Bodkin Adams...

[Beowulf]

Hi Helena

You've got me bang to rights there and no mistake.

Last Tuesday I woke up completely blind in one eye and was sent to Moorfields Eye Hospital near Old Street for an operation to correct a detached retina which may or may not have been successful.

I'll be going back for a check up in a few days and will see what remains of Bartholemew Square.

Well, off the subject but I hope you will be alright!

[Stephen Thomas]

Well, off the subject but I hope you will be alright!

Many thanks for your kind wishes from the other side of the ocean.

Happily my eyesight seems to be slowly returning.

Back to the thread, it would be quite nice to know why Mr Eddlestone believes Chapman ever stepped foot in Islington.

And thanks again

[HelenaWojtczak]

Back to the thread, it would be quite nice to know why Mr Eddlestone believes Chapman ever stepped foot in Islington.

Have you any ideas what I can do other than writing to the publisher, which I have done, and trying to contact the author, which I have done, only to find that he refuses to make contact with me?

I feel it is very wrong that people can just write whatever they like and there is no comeback, that they never have to justify their actions, not to readers or their publishers.

I have several other examples of this, and none of the culprits have ever been made to explain themselves to anyone.

Helena