One-on-One with Andrew Cook

[anna]

Problem is Caz....throwing the idea around in a book,that will eventually end up in a bin...or on a charity shop shelf...is a lot different to serving up another crackpot idea to the general public,along with Corrie and Eastenders.You and I know it's just the continuation of fiction...but it does further damage to ourgoodselves,having just got over being trashed as weirdo's during Whitechapel...and that's beyond a joke.

Whether you care how we are viewed or not,it is unacceptable damage to a subject we discuss seriously.

We don't need this,and by a man who is supposed to have more than one brain cell.

[George Hutchinson]

Does anyone have contact details for Mr Cook they could PM me or, if Mr Cook is reading this himself, would he please do so?

There is a certain 'issue' (nothing to do with his theories) for which he owes me an explanation, and it better be good.

PHILIP

[robhouse]

I listened to the podcast, and really found nothing of value in anything Cook said, and in fact I found myself getting angry. I think his theory is pretty ridiculous, and I found him to come across as pompous to boot. I agree wholeheartedly with your post above Caz.

Rob H

[Cap'n Jack]

Yes indeed, the brave new world that many of us have tried to create in regard to this subject has been rudely dragged back into the gutters of commercial exploitation by Mr Cook and whoever advised him to pursue such a reckless course of action in featuring a mutilated and naked female corpse, with her inner core exposed, on the cover of his new book.
I would strongly advise all to avoid this rancid pile of innards... I of course mean what is between the covers.

[Tom_Wescott]

Caz,

Brilliantly put. I completely agree.

Philip,

I pity the poor full who suffers your wrath!

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]

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

[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]

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

[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....

[Chris]

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

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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.