Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Trial of George Chapman(1930), by H.L... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » General Discussion » Trial of George Chapman(1930), by H.L. Adam « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Malcolm
Police Constable
Username: Johnm

Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I finally tracked down this book (it arrived today) and although I do believe it will be a worthwhile addition, I am very disappointed with the pages about JTR, for the entry in the A-Z pertaining to this book (which was the initial source of inspiration to search for this book) I've found to be not only inaccurate, but disturbingly misleading. To quote the A-Z: "Acquaintance of Dr Robert Anderson, Sir Charles Warren and Sir Melville Macnaghten...He also remarked in the introduction to 'The Trial of George Chapman' that Anderson, Macnaghten and Major Henry Smith had all assured him that the Ripper's identity was known to the police." Actually, it seems (unless I'm missing something) like something completely different; To quote from page 50 of Adam's book: "As everyone knows, who this mysterious criminal was has never been cleared up. Several prominent officials have from time to time asserted that they had established his identity. The late Sir Melville Macnaghten, the late Sir Robert Anderson, Sir Henry Smith, and many others of less importance have assured us regarding this...These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them, are unsatisfactory. It is quite certain that nobody ever did know for certain who Jack-the-Ripper was." Adam goes on to apparently suggest that a good case existed for Chapman being our man. This is just another frustrating example of how difficult it is to trust even our most sacred secondary sources...I can't believe that such a blatant misrepresentation could have found its way into such a revered book as the A-Z.}
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 163
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 12:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I can't find my copy of A-Z at the moment, but it seems that Adam says just what A-Z indicates he says, namely that McNaughten, Anderson, and Smith told him the Ripper's identity was known. What A-Z apparently (from your quote) does not disclose is that Adam didn't believe them!

Andy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Malcolm
Police Constable
Username: Johnm

Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 8:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

OK, maybe I've overreacted a bit...but I am disappointed with the A-Z's inaccuracy. (I've leaned very heavily on BFS's book from very early on and surely will continue to;) But one of my points in the above post was to show that by Adam using the word "us", (or my interpretation of this) would seem to imply that M, A and S did not directly relate their views to Adam...and this would change the weight of his statements entirely...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 166
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 12:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John,

I'm really not disagreeing with you, but offering a caution. Adam's use of "us" may be what we used to call the "epistolary plural" or the "plural of authorship." In former days it was considered to informal for an author to refer to himself as "I." He would therefore resort to referring to himself as "the author" or as "we (us)." OTOH, this may be Adam's way of distancing himself from the information received from M, A, and S (as you suggest). I would agree with you that A-Z puts its own slant on the passage from Adam.

Andy

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.