|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts (Begg)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts (Begg)
Author: Michael Rogers
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:52 am |        | Though books on this subject abound, "fans" of this case can't get enough. For the last hundred years, criminologists and investigative journalists have scoured every conceivable document hoping to discover a missing piece of this murderous puzzle. Theories on the true identity of saucy Jack have ranged from him being the Duke of Clarence, to a British school teacher, to a Polish tailor. Begg's well detailed and footnoted account provides some new information and a few new photographs but also leaves out established material. He provides only brief coverage of the Ripper letters, that although probably not written by the killer are still interesting to read and part of the case. Begg rounds up the usual suspects but does not claim to know the killer's exact identity, he does, however, state that the evidence strongly suggests a named person. An extra plus is the neat capsulization of Martin Fido's recent theory that the killer was a Polish tailor named David Cohen. Now that murder stories are best sellers, try circulating this with McGinniss and Wambaugh. Well done.
Michael Rogers, "Library Journal" |
Author: Deirdre
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:52 am | | | Just finished Begg's book and noted one discrepancy. On page 158 when discussing the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly he stated that "The first thing he saw was too lumps of flesh on the bedside table. These were Mary Kelly's breasts." But the report from Dr. Bond available at this website states, "[T]he uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot. . . ." There's no source for the Bowyer remark so was it just a mistake or some possibility that the body parts had been moved around by the time Bond saw them? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:52 am | | | No, it's a mistake. Bond's report was 'discovered' late in 1987 when the manuscript was being completed. I tried to incorporate it as best I could, but this error slipped by. I was pursuing hard the Kosminski lead at the time, which also had only just emerged. Thanks for drawing the error to my attention. I'm hoping to update the "Uncensored Facts", so all corrections are welcome. |
Author: Rotter
Friday, 12 February 1999 - 12:59 am | | | This book is so good, so damned good, that I read with dismay the "A-Z" entry about some proofreading errors contained therein. Is there a chance of getting an errata sheet posted here? |
Author: Anonymous
Friday, 12 February 1999 - 02:03 am | | | A good book in its day, now, sadly, long out of date. |
Author: Rotter
Friday, 12 February 1999 - 02:32 am | | | Maybe in the sense that more research has turned up more facts. But that doesn't change the best point, that it is well balanced, so well written, with such precise and concise style, and so clearly thought out and logical. What has happened since the late 1980's that is truly important (not a rhetorical question, I'd like some opinions)? Please don't mention the "Maybrick" diary, it is covered very comprehensively elsewhere. |
Author: Robert
Friday, 12 February 1999 - 02:41 am | | Also in the sense that it contains errors, such as the one pointed out above. Also it is a book proposing a suspect, Kosminski, and not a strict reference work.
Much of import has happened since the late 1980's, many new facts have emerged, and a major genuine suspect, Tumblety. Possibly the most important work, covering much that is not in this book, is Sugden's. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 12 February 1999 - 03:21 pm | | My thanks to Rotter, whose views on this book are one's with which I completely agree. That might not come as a surprise, however. I am hopint to undertake a thorough revision of the book and as I write these very words I am daily waiting to hear a 'yes' or 'no' from Robson books.
It is perfectly true that the book is very out of date - we hadn't found Ostrog when the book was written and Kosminski was a new discovery. In general, however, I think the book is still a solid source-based account of who saw what, where and when. It is different from Phil Sugden's book because Phil allowed himself considerable speculation and theorising, which I did not, and sometimes drawing conclusions when perhaps the question should have been left open.This isn't meant to be a criticism of Phil's majestic tome, merely drawing the distinction between the two books and why I think the two are complimentary - mine is probably the better account of who saw and said what and when, while Phil's is the one to turn to if you want an undertsnading of the implications of what was seen and said and the questions surrounding them. |
Author: Rotter
Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 01:09 am | | | Great minds think alike. I agree completely about your Begg vs Sugden comments. Now get that new edition out and blow 'em all away! |
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 06:59 am | | I can't forget my introduction to the case five years ago, which came via Begg's The Uncensored Facts. I spend a good deal of time in the public library of the little suburb in which I live. One day while waiting in line to check out some books, I overheard the head librarian discussing her London vacation with another patron, and how she'd been intrigued by her "ripper walk" with Mr. Rumbelow. She then turned and remarked that I might find the case interesting myself, considering conversations we've had over the years. A few minutes later I emerged from the stack with a ripper novel and The Uncensored Facts. In the latter I found a British author writing in the thin style I'd so much admired in my teenage years but had neglected since, in the manner of such as Joseph Conrad and H.G. Welles. The subject matter more spoke for itself than was spoken about. It brought back what I'd forgotten was part of me, and so made possible a new focus for me. Thanks so much for writing, Mr. B.
David |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 13 February 1999 - 09:57 am | | | What can I possibly say! Except thank you. |
Author: Jim Sedgwick
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 05:33 am | | A great book. I know Mr. Begg will make the nessesay corrections in a new edition. The one fact pointed out that I liked the most and fact that I thought of for years, was that Mary Jane Kelly may not have been murdered in that Miller's Court room. It opens opens up a new mystery though. Who was the Miller's Court victim? What happened to Mary Jane Kelly? This girl is as much of a mystery as the Whitechapel Murderer Himself.
Thankyou Mr. Begg for pointing out that Miss Kelly may have escaped from Jack's clutches!!!
I have thought this for YEARS!!!! |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 12:10 pm | | | I wonder if Mr.Begg knows yet if the eagerly awaited revision has been accepted by his publisher? |
Author: S Fern
Thursday, 24 June 1999 - 04:21 pm | | The Myth of the Begg Book
In the first instance let it be said that in 1988, when it first appeared, this book ranked amongst the best to appear at that time. As such it formed a very good grounding of knowledge, and the story of the case. Now it is obviously out of date and carries several errors of fact.
Mr. Begg has displayed his ability to critique the work of others, but his own book has never really been critically looked at. This is an important omission as this book poses as a reference work, and many new to the subject avidly read it as such, and then start to build theories based on what they have read.
It must be categorically stated here that this book is not, and never was a reference work per se, and the title is wholly misleading. The book is full of the author's selectivity of 'facts' and of his own opinions and theorising. It draws heavily on the writings of Anderson and Swanson, and is totally biased towards them.
A whole chapter (Chapter Fourteen, pp 193-210) is devoted to pushing the author's own preferred theory that Kosminski was the 'Ripper' and that every word uttered by Anderson is sacrosanct. He also quotes, extensively, the theories of Martin Fido, whom, at that time, he had just met. It was fortunate for him that Fido subscribed to a similar thesis built around what Anderson had to say, but unfortunate that Fido could see that the only Kosminski (Aaron) they could find was obviously not the 'Ripper.'
And it is this bias of the author, this lack of scholarly objectivity, which at once makes this a dangerous and insidious literary work. For the uninformed hang on the author's every word that they are reading a totally factual account. And this is how the author attempts to portray his book, even, as we have seen on these boards, disparaging Sugden for using too much opinion and digression. Sugden's accuracy outweighs Begg's. No, this is just another book proposing another 'suspect' as 'Jack the Ripper.' That suspect being 'Kosminski.'
It is amazing how, for so many years, it has avoided being tagged with that label, and always seems to emerge as a 'reference work.' Part of the answer must lie in the extensive (and excellent) footnoting, the title, and the idea that it is a reference work is expounded by the author (and his colleagues in the A to Z.
Now these boards bear witness to much theorising by uninformed enthusiasts who have based their ideas on this book, and thus feel that they are on totally safe and solid 'ground.' Not so I am afraid.
Indeed, you cannot advance past the second paragraph of the Introduction (page 11) before the author's fixed ideas on the case emerge, together with his subjective thinking. He says:-
"At the end of 1987 new information came to light which seems to provide the answer to the mystery of Jack the Ripper's identity. Indeed, evidence that the police knew his identity has been in the public domain - and been pretty consistently ignored or misunderstood - since at least 1908!"
Startling stuff, and a statement that a responsible historian really should not be making if he is writing an objective and factual work.
On the very next page the author introduces us to his hero's inviolable belief that the identity of the 'Ripper' was "...an established fact." Indeed, so impressed is our author with this "definitely ascertained fact" that he sees fit to repeat it no less than three more times in the book - page 167 para 2, page 171 para 4, and page 201 para 2. That is just so that his readers do not miss the point and so they can get the idea fixed in their minds.
The author also states that in addition to establishing the facts he is going to correct the errors of others. A pity, then, that he goes on to make several errors, and assumptions, of his own to pass down in 'Ripper' lore as 'fact.' These include the 'fact' that Emma Smith died four days after the attack on her (page 32), that Anderson recommended the appointment of Swanson to head the inquiry (page 51), that 29 Hanbury Street was a building of 'largely wooden construction' (page 57) that Mrs Long and Darrell were two different persons (pp 59 and 61), that a photographer took photo's of Kelly's body "...through the window" (page 160) (he reduces Arnold to the rank of inspector on the same page), and that the files were closed in 1892 (page 167).
What is even more disturbing is the author's proclivity to advance ideas (or theories) by asking a seemingly innocuous question. This is surely out of place in a reference work. Examples are:-
Page 45, first para, suggestion ("...it is interesting to note...") of a connection between the man in Buck's Row, and Packer's customer, as they both used the term "old man."
Pages 121-123, the author 'primes' the witness Levy as being an alternative 'Anderson's witness' by suggesting he saw more than he admitted (the author later introduces an irrelevant 'Kosminski link' with Levy).
Page 156, the idea that Kelly may not have been the dead woman found in Miller's Court.
Page 158, para 3, that Barnett's identification of Kelly may have been a "...lie or a mistake,."
Pages 160-161, "Had Kelly found the key and neglected to tell Barnett? Did the killer have the key?"
Page 162, last para, had Kelly slept with a client?
Page 206, para 2, "This leads to a piece of pure speculation. I wonder if the police possessed other evidence against the suspect which the witness's testimony served to support or confirm. If so, what could this 'other' evidence have been?", and
para 3, "It must have been something of greater importance, such as the suspect having been seen with one of the victims shortly before her murder..."
Pages 206-207 (Re- Levy), "One explanation , of course, is that he knew or was known to Eddowes. On the other hand, perhaps he knew or was known to the man in Eddowes' company."!!!
This is followed by more "pure speculation" in an attempt (unsuccessful) to connect Martin Kosminski with Aaron Kosminski.
The extensive speculation on Kosminski in which the author becomes involved totally sets the seal on the fact that this book is no reference work, it is another exercise in projecting a theory around a favoured suspect.
So to sum up, as another 'Ripper' book it is very good, as a reference work it is a non-starter. So it would be nice to see an end to some of the theorists quoting some things they have found in this book as solid fact to support their own theories. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 25 June 1999 - 11:50 am | | | This really is a sad and desperate contribution in the current and baffling attempt by one or more people to malign and smear poor old Begg. Jealousy or something of the sort I suppose. However, thank you for pointing out my errors. I will be able to correct them in a future revision, thereby improve it and turn it into the reference book which many people think it is. |
Author: S Fern
Friday, 25 June 1999 - 01:58 pm | | You know the strange thing about Mr. Begg is that he always interprets criticism, constructive or otherwise, as 'personal abuse,'
This is again apparent here; I have re-read my critique and find that it contains only factual statements. Still, I am pleased that he has been able to glean something useful from it.
Steven |
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 26 June 1999 - 06:17 am | | The above Fern/Begg matter has inspired me to turn again to The Uncensored Facts. I am on my third copy of that volume, the first two having been reduced to shards of paper by the serine in my hands. Perhaps Mr. Sugden did more than Mr. Begg, but Mr. Begg did better in my view. There has never been a finer understanding or a more precise, logical presentation of the facts of the case than that of The Uncensored Facts. It stands up directly to Fern's criticism above; most of what he says decries the book for not being what he wants it to be, which means he hasn't been able to fathom what it is. Would he have Begg ignore the Martin Kosminski connection? How would this restriction of the factual material keep the reader on the straight and narrow? Perhaps the UF is better left for those among us with choosy enough tongues for tasting what we are to believe, and what not.
David |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 04:51 am | | Don't worry too much Paul. All the while they are talking about your books, nicely or otherwise, you can think yourself lucky. It's the sad old gits who keep getting overlooked and ignored who really need our sympathy ;-)
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
