How much does accuracy matter to you?

[Cogidubnus]

Not quite off-topic yet....

I can't speak as an author, but as a publisher of bus timetables, I do know a good printer could, Until the mid 90s at least, make you or break you...

All the best

Dave

[Scott Nelson]

Well, I did recommend shortening it to Wojo. That's catchy.

[HelenaWojtczak]

This is why I self-publish. I'd hate my name to be misspelt in such huge black letters!

WOJTCZKA

Oh horror!

Actually, the printers, like the Juwes, are "the men who are not to blame" because nowadays they insist on books being sent to them as PDF files, so they no longer typset.

[Roy Corduroy]

Here is a terrible typo

In Spanish - 'Cause it's a mink coat, yes'

No, that's too bad because I like Richard Jones. Things happen in the shuffle between writer, publisher and printer.

Roy

[HelenaWojtczak]

Whoever tells the best story, gets the top prize.

RM Gordon told the best story, but nobody on here seems to rate him at all. They ignore him.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thankyou for the expose on Thurgood's work.
How many ordinary readers are going to know this?

Thank you Jon. Most readers, I imagine, will believe what is written in a book, especially one that claims to go beyond myth.

When I look back over all the true crime or biographical books I've read in my life, half of me feels angry that I (might have) wasted time and money reading made up nonsense and the other half feels ashamed at my naivety in not realising that many authors make things up pretty routinely.

Why can't these people just write what is there and refrain from adding 'sweeteners' to spice it up!!

I wish I knew. I have emailed Peter Thurgood twice asking him why he did, and he declines to reply. I also emailed Debra Gosling last month asking why her published version of Chapman's arrest differs so wildly from the sworn testimony of the officer who arrested him and she told me to get lost.

Looking closely at Thurgood, why say that the Radin child got iller under Chapman's care when Radin said he got better? What agenda is Thurgood trying to promote? It does not contribute to his being Jack the Ripper, and there is no need to try to prove he was a poisoner, as he was hanged for that already. I can't even see that it makes the story any more "exciting". Thurgood has left himself wide open to being caught out, seeing as Radin's testimony can be read on the oldbaileyonline site!

No, I don't find it acceptable. Some might think there is no harm done seeing as how he was a poisoner anyway, but that is not the point.

Yes in that case no harm done other than labelling Chapman someone who would physically harm a child when there is no evidence that he ever did.

However, when the subject is JtR or any other unsolved crime: readers will ponder the evidence presented in a book, using it to weigh up in their own minds whether it is evidence of the suspect's candidature. So in a way it's rather cruel of these fabricating authors to waste our time and brain power in this way. They are leading us up the garden path.

Perfect example: many authors state that Chapman "attacked his wife with a knife", or attempted to stab her, or "tried to behead her". This fact has been cited as evidence time and again on these boards by those who promote him as the Ripper. They know it's true because they read it in not just one book but maybe ten books, five magazine articles and seven websites. Seeing the same story from so many sources embeds its veracity in our minds. The only problem is, it isn't true. Abberline said it first, because he misread something, and his hallowed words have been taken as gospel and his mistaken belief retold time and again by author after author... I wonder how many notches Chapman's candidacy will drop once those who favour him find out it's not true?

BTW, in Lord Carson's biography the author (Marjoribanks) casually stated, pretty much as a throwaway line, that Chapman had "beheaded his wife". No citation, no evidence, no details, just that!

Thank you Jon for your kind words. I'm not claiming my book will be perfect by any means but I can guarantee that I will do my very best and I promise not invent anything. As far as the section on his JtR candidacy goes, I will present, sift and weigh up the evidence and then leave it to readers to make up their minds. The important thing, to me, is that I strip away the myths so that readers can base their support of Chapman as JtR on factual evidence, not myth.

It's currently 121,000 words and 250 pages (size 156 x 234) not including illustrations, which will add another ten pages (at least).

Helena

[Scott Nelson]

This subject is all about storytelling. Whoever tells the best story, gets the top prize. Everyone with half an ounce of intelligence knows that most authors make up stuff as they go along, anyway. Thank goodness, I'm not an author, or I'd be a big fat liar.

[Wickerman]

Hi Helena.
Thankyou for the expose on Thurgood's work.
How many ordinary readers are going to know this?

I was wondering to what extent casebookers feel that it's OK to "pep up" someone's testimony in this way? Not even saying that this is what HE thinks really happened, but presenting his version as factual. The little details (what he called himself, whether the child got better or worse) are pretty immaterial, does that make it worse, because the fabrication is of no consequence, or does it mean it's OK to make things up if they have no real bearing on the story?

What's your opinion?

Helena

Why can't these people just write what is there and refrain from adding 'sweeteners' to spice it up!!

No, I don't find it acceptable. Some might think there is no harm done seeing as how he was a poisoner anyway, but that is not the point.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Helena.

This is my aim. I am writing about Chapman primarily as a serial poisoner. He's one of the few multiple-killers of that era who has no book or film of his life. That he was suspected of being Jack is an interesting sideline to his story.

This is another necessary contribution, regardless where it leads. And I say that from the perspective of those who may still think Klosowski was the Ripper. Rob House put some necessary colour to the Kosminski character, until that Aaron Kosminski was little more than a name to many enthusiasts.
Likewise with Severin Klosowski, we sorely need a good, accurate and thorough treatment of this interesting individual.
Thankyou for taking the initiative.

Re: R. Michael Gordon's 'circular argument'?

I don't think you quite understood my point about Gordon's self-referencing argument.

I did, yes. I was not responding to that specifically, what I should have said was more along the lines that, many dismiss Klosowski as the Ripper because modern researchers do not easily accept a butcher can turn to poisoning.
I don't remember much of what I've read about Klosowski but I've never given him serious consideration, but not because he was a poisoner.
I don't consider that in itself a valid reason.

And yet Chapman twice killed a girlfriend who was living with him, using identical methods, and raised no suspicion whatever. The doctors concerned gave out death certificates no problem and the bodies were buried without post mortem or inquest. He killed in different areas of London, so the families, friends, neighbours, customers, nurses and doctors were different in both cases.

I can see your book being a 'must read', even for Ripper enthusiasts. Even if only to rule him out on legitimate grounds and also set him apart as a stand-alone villain.

Regards, Jon S.

[HelenaWojtczak]

What we have been debating is the intentional deception which some authors resort to, and these deceptions are so resoundingly obvious in 'suspect' books.

But are not restricted to suspect-driven books. Here's a good example:

Peter Thurgood’s 2011 biography Inspector Frederick George Abberline and Jack the Ripper: The Reality behind the Myth (an ironic title, as you will see) contains this paragraph:

Shortly after arriving in London, Klosowski introduced himself to a Polish barber [i.e. Radin], as a hairdresser and qualified doctor, using the alias Ludwig Zagowski. [When his son was ill] Klosowski pretended to care for him. This arrangement didn’t last long however when the Pole found out that his son was actually getting worse under Klosowski’s supposed care. Klosowski was undaunted by this rejection, and soon found himself another job…

The problem is, Thurgood’s version contradicts the sworn testimony of Ethel Radin herself. She stated that the assistant called himself Kłosowski and said he had been a doctor’s assistant. She did not say that her son grew worse under his care nor did she mention the reason Kłosowski left their employ. (By the way, no other source or witness tallies with Thurgood's version.)

I was wondering to what extent casebookers feel that it's OK to "pep up" someone's testimony in this way? Not even saying that this is what HE thinks really happened, but presenting his version as factual. The little details (what he called himself, whether the child got better or worse) are pretty immaterial, does that make it worse, because the fabrication is of no consequence, or does it mean it's OK to make things up if they have no real bearing on the story?

What's your opinion?

Helena

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick. Actually, many of those books you named have LOT of errors in them. But I believe the authors had the right objective starting out, as opposed to a Frank Sperling or Tony Williams.

All researchers overlook something, or make small errors. That is not a category to vote on. What we have been debating is the intentional deception which some authors resort to, and these deceptions are so resoundingly obvious in 'suspect' books.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Don't congratulate me, I pulled it off the family bookshelf when I was 10 or so. I had no idea what it even was about.

When I bought McCormick's, The Identity of Jack the Ripper, I was about 15/16, and had no clue what it was about. I bought it for my father, he never did read it. The book sat around for a couple of years before I read it.
Once I did read it I made it my goal to get to the library and order/read every Ripper book published up to that point (early 70's), and I did.
So like you, I had no clue what this "Jack the Ripper" was until I open that first book.

Regards, Jon S.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Severin Klosowski was one of MacNaghten's three suspects?? (I didn't read any further than that as there didn't seem to be a lot of point).

And yet it is a well respected book, and no reviewer has cared to mention the blooper.

Can't access that one!

I clicked the link and it opened instantly so do try again.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m534/helena1958/MISCELLANEOUS%20SHARING%20STUFF/kosminksi.jpg

Helena

[Bridewell]

Here is an example of inaccuracy that really matters:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...40enlarged.jpg

Severin Klosowski was one of MacNaghten's three suspects?? (I didn't read any further than that as there didn't seem to be a lot of point).

Here is a terrible typo that evaded both editor and proof reader at a major publisher:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../kosminksi.jpg

Can't access that one!

Regards, Bridewell.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Here is an example of inaccuracy that really matters:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m534/helena1958/MISCELLANEOUS%20SHARING%20STUFF/jonescasebook40enlarged.jpg

Here is a terrible typo that evaded both editor and proof reader at a major publisher:

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m534/helena1958/MISCELLANEOUS%20SHARING%20STUFF/kosminksi.jpg

Anyone spot the errors?

They are from Richard Jones's Jack the Ripper: The Casebook .

Helena