How much does accuracy matter to you?

[Beowulf]

Very clever Beowulf.

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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 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.