One-on-One with Andrew Cook

Cap'n Jack · 05-17-2009, 08:51 PM

Well, the best bit of the podcast was where you could hear the police sirens as they rushed to arrest him.
He refers to Sir Robert Anderson as 'nakedly trying to exploit this story to sell his book...'
Perhaps forgetting that he is the one who has a naked and brutalised woman on the cover of his book.
Even better is where he reports that the unreported murders of 1888-1891 skew our true understanding of this series of murders.
I'd like to ask him where he found reports of unreported murders?
Even, even better, Andrew Cook's sole defence of his despicable cover is that:
'It says what it does on the tin.'
And there was little old me thinking that 'it does what it says on the tin'.
I need a whisky.

Jeff Leahy · 05-17-2009, 08:39 PM

I�m sorry Jonathon but I�ve never heard so much waffle and question avoidance in all my life.

The defense for the cover seems based on what it isn�t rather than what it is. Am I the only person confused by Andrew Cooks blistering attack on Ripperologist for using mortuary images on a front cover? The apparent reason being they used it for the wrong reason while he has used the image of MJK for the right reason.

He launches another attack on an author who published his books fifty years ago. And speaks as though nothing has happened in �Ripper� research the last twenty years.

He totally failed to answer Paul Begg�s question and patronized the audience by suggesting we read �Scotland Yard Investigates�. I was left puzzling whether he actually new who Harry Dam was?

I�m still non-the wiser whether Andrew Cook is saying none of the Ripper victims were killed by Jack the Ripper (serial killer known as) or if some were killed be the same person? His reply about Nichols Chapman and Eddowes seemed deliberately evasive, given that the TV documentary is clearly going to speculate that JtR was an invention of the press�

As Mr Cook admits himself he was commissioned by the TV company to write a book that already had a theory and it appears�prove that theory in three months?

Isn�t this precisely the sort of author, and I quote: �Small army of peddling phony and fabricated theories� that he claims to be against?

Why isn�t Cutbush a legitimate suspect? I don�t believe anyone has categorically dismissed him. Cutbush was a paranoid Schizophrenic locked in broadmore and surely a better suspect than many..the only point on which we seemed to agree is that BS killed Stride.

In short Andrew Cook not only appears to be bringing nothing new to the table but exploiting the work of other authors. And while his attack on Anderson seems touch upon more current and important areas of Ripper debate I cant believe that while giving credence to communications written in private in other instances that he simply managed to ignore �The Swanson Marginalia�

Perhaps there was no mention of it in the books he managed to read in three months.

Complete hypocrisy and drivel.

Pirate

(PS not you obviously Jonathon, many thanks for another great show. You actually got me to throw my copy of the A to Z at the computer screen�

Chris · 05-17-2009, 06:23 PM

Thanks for posting details of the interview.

So, apparently, he is agnostic about whether Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same hand, feels that the murders of Chapman and Nichols were the most similar, but considers the circumstances of Eddowes's murder to be different from those of the other two murders.

Two things surprised me. First that he wrote the book in about 3 months (I think some of the publicity referred to a year's research). And second - if I understood correctly - that although the main focus of his book is the fabrication of the Ripper story, including the "Dear Boss" letter, by Star journalists, he doesn't discuss the allegation that Harry Dam was responsible for the letter.

And the TV documentary is scheduled for broadcast in the UK on Tuesday 9 June at 8 p.m.

One-on-One with Andrew Cook

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment: