How much does accuracy matter to you?

[HelenaWojtczak]

I am for accuracy 100%. Which is unattainable, of course... so full of holes it wouldn't even make a sieve...mixing up Annie Chapman with Martha Tabram and much in between. Sheer laziness!

Dear C4, I could quote you a hundred instances of that sort of lazy, sloppy inaccuracy in writings about Chapman. And I am not exaggerating!

But I am really glad that you care for accuracy. Although, now I look at that word again, maybe I should have used a different word for this thread. It's not so much a lack of accuracy that gets my goat, but fabrication, which is quite different.

Yes, as you suggest, 100% accuracy IS unattainable, but an author makes a conscious choice to fabricate something and present it as fact.

I guess I was wondering how much people cared about that.

I bought Honeycombe's book on the Black Museum lately and, having read the inaccurate account of Chapman's life, I would not bother to read any of the other chapters because I would not trust his words. If I read true crime I expect truth, not a juicy story.

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

One recent example, Uncle Jack. Apparently a genuine physician, Dr. John Williams, thrust into the Whitechapel murder case as a 'suspect', with absolutely nothing close to a trace of evidence to support the suggestion.

That seems to be the level of analysis today, pick a name, and look for any circumstances that can be used to leverage this 'unknown' into the fray.

These kind of authors are more concerned with getting their own name out there than providing a well researched and sound theory.

It seems obvious that people are grabbing at new names to "thrust" into the mystery because the others have already been the subject of books. I don't mind this, so long as they stick to the facts and never fabricate or withhold in order to make their "square peg" fit into a "round hole".

In my case as an author, I feel that my (small) reputation as a writer of women's history will be damaged rather than enhanced by my book on Chapman, so definitely not prompted by ego. A BBC TV producer phoned me yesterday inviting me to appear on a three-part documentary on the history of Britain's railways (because I am the country's expert on female railway workers) and when he asked what project I am currently working on I declined to tell him, because spreading yourself thinly across multiple genres diminishes any area in which you can be considered an expert.

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Often it is those same 'fantastic' theories which introduced us to the case. Whether it be the 'Diary', the Royal Conspiracy, or in my case, McCormick's Pedachenko, all those years ago.

In my case three things brought Jack the Ripper under my radar. In the early 90s I read a few Ripper books in my boyfriend's library, then in 1996 I studied Charles Booth's Social Survey of London for the final year of my degree. The last year I was reminded (by a Youtube video) that one of the major suspects lived for 18 months in Hastings (where I live) and was Polish.

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

we do need books which provide backgound on many of the central characters throughout this case.

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. Those who promote him as Jack cite certain evidence to support their assertions. Unfortunately 90% of the evidence they bring is the result of mistranslations, exaggerations or fabrications which are repeated again and again by everyone who writes anything about him. My task, and believe me it is a difficult one, is to scrutinise every piece of evidence and after removing those that are the result of mistranslations, exaggerations or fabrications, see if we have anything left as evidence that he was JtR.

I firmly believe that in the majority of cases when someone promotes a suspect they tend to lose objectivity.

Yes, and I can understand why. They get zealous and evangelical and that always suffocates objectivity.

Agreed, but tell me, how do you feel about a 23 year old being promoted as Jack the Ripper?

If you mean Chapman, he was 22 (even worse!) I don't think his age is the biggest problem.

I've never seen the "butcher-turned-poisoner" as an insurmountable problem.

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

The circumstances are different between killing a stranger on the street and killing your wife. Clearly butchering your wife is going to place the finger of suspicion firmly at your own doorstep.

You'd think so. 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.

He didn't get caught because he killed the third; he got caught because he took really stupid and unecessary risks with the third. Had he taken his third victim to live five miles away and called a different doctor from the one who'd treated his second girlfriend, he would have got away with it many more times.

Regards,

Helena

[curious4]

inaccuracies

Hello Beowulf,

Yes, off topic but fun, thank you. I am for accuracy 100%. Which is unattainable, of course, but should be aimed at to get the best possible result. Something a recent Swedish tv program ignored - so full of holes it wouldn't even make a sieve, from stating that the victims had their throats cut standing up, to mixing up Annie Chapman with Martha Tabram and much in between. Sheer laziness!

Cheers,
C4

[Barnaby]

Errata
Barnaby
What about Ripper fiction? Is it imperative that fictionalized accounts have the basic facts correct?

IMHO, no. In fiction you can write absolutely anything you like. You have no responsibility to the truth whatever.

Obviously, I respect the fact that fiction is fiction, but personally I think that fictionalized accounts that stay within the boundaries of known facts are much more compelling than those that are completely made up. When I'm reading Ripper fiction and see obvious factual inaccuracies I tend to get distracted.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Errata,

Your parents had a cool bookshelf. My mom, on the other hand, read a lot of Louis Lamour!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Beowulf]

Very clever Beowulf.

Btw, I want to say thank you for these 'thumbs up's, got a kick out of that

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Congratulations, you're the only person to have purchased their first Ripper book without wanting to know who he was.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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. My parents didn't monitor what we read, until of course I started asking my ob/gyn dad some odd questions about removing uterii. But despite my reading level far outstripping my ability to cope with what I read, I still think it was a better choice than one of the 30 Judy Blume novels I could have chosen.

But yeah, I totally thought the ghost of my grandfather, Jack the Ripper and a T-rex loitered outside my window. Completely unprepared for that level of truth.

[Wickerman]

What makes you so certain they were the work of someone known colloquially as Jack the Ripper?

I'm not, Simon.
Because we cannot possibly know how many murders this JtR was responsible for, then by defacto neither can we truely claim how many were the work of one man, ie; Jack the Ripper. It works both ways.

What we can say without reservation is that more than one hand was at work throughout the Whitechapel murders.

My view, if it has any relevance is, that Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes fell to the same hand, and very likely, but not obviously, Mary Kelly.

So long as the killer never claimed the monica "Jack the Ripper" then it wasn't him who was responsible, right?
Does it matter what the press called him?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Wick,

You now seem to be talking about a certain sub-genre of suspect books - the crank ones -

Tom, the thread deals with the issue of accuracy, which includes all authors, and no doubt some Casebook posters.

as opposed to ones like Rob House's or Evans & Gainey or Skinner & Howell - where they investigated a legit suspect and, although clearly swayed towards their own suspect, produced books that in no way have led the majority of us to conclude they were 'irrational' or their works 'deplorable'.

Which I covered by saying:

I am glad to say though, that in the few rare cases where this has occured the resulting book is in an altogether different league to the run-of-the-mill 'suspect' rubbish.
Don't get me wrong, we do need books which provide backgound on many of the central characters throughout this case. Foremost in my mind in this regard is Kozminski and Tumblety, but these books are not representative of how most 'suspects' are selected and promoted. I think we all know the type I am talking about.

I think this is a case of what Bridewell was talking about.

That may be applicable to judging the viability of a suspect. I am really more concerned with the methodology of creating this suspect in the first place.

When I think of 'suspect books', the good ones like House and E&G come to my mind first, whereas your mind sees that absolute worst, such as Uncle Jack or Trenouth first.

Accuracy is not normally an issue with the works by House, E&G, Fido, Sugden, Howells & Skinner, etc. The thread is debating 'accuracy' so I raise the worse sources of inaccuracy, doesn't that make some sense?

But I think if we were to have a book-specific discussion, you and I would probably have few disagreements.

I think so.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Errata,

Congratulations, you're the only person to have purchased their first Ripper book without wanting to know who he was.

Wick,

You now seem to be talking about a certain sub-genre of suspect books - the crank ones - as opposed to ones like Rob House's or Evans & Gainey or Skinner & Howell - where they investigated a legit suspect and, although clearly swayed towards their own suspect, produced books that in no way have led the majority of us to conclude they were 'irrational' or their works 'deplorable'. Even some books with stupid theories, like 'The Ripper Code' have interesting and even viable information or ideas in them.

I think this is a case of what Bridewell was talking about. Some see an idea from the worst scenario, some from the best. When I think of 'suspect books', the good ones like House and E&G come to my mind first, whereas your mind sees that absolute worst, such as Uncle Jack or Trenouth first. But I think if we were to have a book-specific discussion, you and I would probably have few disagreements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick. I just find something ironic,

Yes Tom, it is ironic. Often it is those same 'fantastic' theories which introduced us to the case. Whether it be the 'Diary', the Royal Conspiracy, or in my case, McCormick's Pedachenko, all those years ago.

We get in for the wrong reasons, but we learn, at least that is the hope. And our knowledge base expands so we can see the falsity of those types of suspect theories.
I guess we could say, it is those who have failed to learn who are the ones responsible for continuing to promote that deplorable level of 'suspect' analysis.
One recent example, Uncle Jack. Apparently a genuine physician, Dr. John Williams, thrust into the Whitechapel murder case as a 'suspect', with absolutely nothing close to a trace of evidence to support the suggestion.
That seems to be the level of analysis today, pick a name, and look for any circumstances that can be used to leverage this 'unknown' into the fray.
These kind of authors are more concerned with getting their own name out there than providing a well researched and sound theory.

Now, if what you mean to say is that some of the theories you've read are irrational, or that all the Ripper theories are biased to one degree or another, I don't think anybody could disagree with you.

I don't think anyone is, Tom

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"A Rose, by any other name . . . The Whitechapel murders certainly existed, and someone was to blame."

Agreed.

What makes you so certain they were the work of someone known colloquially as Jack the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

Edward D Wood Jr

Hello Robert. And how shall we figure out who's responsible? "By going down and finding out."

Cheers.
LC