One-on-One with Andrew Cook

[Natalie Severn]

Ah, when the screw turns so does the worm, and then the bud is infected, and no flower comes.
Cover your turned coats with the bleeding skins of slain whores and drink your punch, blood red at conference, and then clap your own slayer.
'We' are not amused.

Oh do come on.You have seen the photo of Mary Kelly"s slain remains a thousand times on this site and most of the time clapped your telescope to your blind eye--------.

Just so long as its not on a front cover? I call that an act of complicity.
What made you see red was Stewart"s ringing ------praises?

[Tom_Wescott]

If anyone you know would like to see stomachs turn, tell 'em to display Cook's book in your local bookstore.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tides, Tom, tides.
All my life I waited for a tide to turn, and all I see are puddles.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ah, when the screw turns so does the worm

Don't forget about the tables.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah, when the screw turns so does the worm, and then the bud is infected, and no flower comes.
Cover your turned coats with the bleeding skins of slain whores and drink your punch, blood red at conference, and then clap your own slayer.
'We' are not amused.

[Natalie Severn]

I remember only one 'Wolf' attacking Stewart, unless you count Pirate Jack, which most of us usually don't. Stewart did not endorse the book or work in any way, as you'll remember, but merely remarked upon the author's past work. He certainly did not deserve the reception he received and I'm surprised he continued to post on this thread as long as he did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fair enough,I can"t quarrel with that.I have read one of Cook"s books -it referenced Tumblety and I thought very effectively.Trouble is some sources were given and others not which made it a bit patchy and perhaps not built on solid enough foundations to make the assumptions it did----which bordered on claims.But interesting work.
Best

[Tom_Wescott]

I remember only one 'Wolf' attacking Stewart, unless you count Pirate Jack, which most of us usually don't. Stewart did not endorse the book or work in any way, as you'll remember, but merely remarked upon the author's past work. He certainly did not deserve the reception he received and I'm surprised he continued to post on this thread as long as he did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Yes - in fact, if the case is as strong as Paul Begg indicates, it's the kind of discovery that many Ripperologists would give their eye teeth for.

There do seem to be some indications that the work is flawed, but on the other hand it sounds as though it contains some useful material. The fairest course would be for people to wait until they've read it - or at least seen the documentary - before passing judgment. Though, to be fair, a lot of what Andrew Cook has said wasn't calculated to endear him to Ripperologists (e.g. "I'm not somebody who's obsessed by this subject - I'm not somebody who goes on message boards ..."!)

I also believe that the fact that writer and researcher par excellence, Stewart Evans ,opened up the discussion by endorsing the historian Andrew Cook"s new book, set a whole pack of wolves wanting to tear it to pieces.

[Chris]

i had no idea you had to be obsessed to post here...

You don't have to be - but it helps ...

[babybird67]

Though, to be fair, a lot of what Andrew Cook has said wasn't calculated to endear him to Ripperologists (e.g. "I'm not somebody who's obsessed by this subject - I'm not somebody who goes on message boards ..."!)

i had no idea you had to be obsessed to post here...

I had better get me coat....

[Tom_Wescott]

True, but the reality is that there's nothing really interesting being discussed on the Casebook at the moment, so we must due with what little drama is offered. Presently, this comes in the form of Mr. Cook.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

I hate to run against the grain here, but despite some of the general confusion, and my own personal disagreement on Cook’s position (Re: the Lone single killer was an invention of the press theory). If Cook has come up with a ‘receipy’ that links Best and Fredrick Best to the Dear Boss letter (as suggested by Begg) wouldn’t, ‘finally discovering the author of the Dear Boss letter’ be of some significance?

Yes - in fact, if the case is as strong as Paul Begg indicates, it's the kind of discovery that many Ripperologists would give their eye teeth for.

There do seem to be some indications that the work is flawed, but on the other hand it sounds as though it contains some useful material. The fairest course would be for people to wait until they've read it - or at least seen the documentary - before passing judgment. Though, to be fair, a lot of what Andrew Cook has said wasn't calculated to endear him to Ripperologists (e.g. "I'm not somebody who's obsessed by this subject - I'm not somebody who goes on message boards ..."!)

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

I agree with you, but given his thought processes and poor research as evidenced so far, I'd be amazed if he's come up with something new. But if he has, then he'll get his due kudos.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

I hate to run against the grain here, but despite some of the general confusion, and my own personal disagreement on Cook’s position (Re: the Lone single killer was an invention of the press theory). If Cook has come up with a ‘receipy’ that links Best and Fredrick Best to the Dear Boss letter (as suggested by Begg) wouldn’t, ‘finally discovering the author of the Dear Boss letter’ be of some significance?

I just wonder if we should be careful of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Caz,

Brilliantly put. I completely agree.

Philip,

I pity the poor full who suffers your wrath!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott