One-on-One with Andrew Cook

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

Firstly may I applaud your efforts in making this poscast and the speed in which you put everything together.

I was however confused, having listened a couple of times by Andrew Cooks reply to ‘check out SYI and LFH’, as this would verify his position on the matter.

However as I understand his actual position is that Best was responsible for the ‘Dear Boss’ letter while neither of these books appear to support that claim, in fact the opposite.

Are you saying that you believe this was just genuine confusion on Cooks part?

Not that I guess you’re a spokesman for your guests position, but perhaps you can help.

Many thanks again for your sterling work

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I would like to commend Pirate Jack for his performance on this thread. Remarkably, his posts are thus far the most accurate and valuable. He is correct in that it is a total myth that Stride was killed by a different knife than Eddowes. There really is no way to know. Thomas Coram found a bloodstained knife in a neighboring street the next day that Phillips felt was not the murder weapon. It almost certainly bears no relation to the murder. Because Stride was not stabbed, but only cut, all we know is that a sharp knife was used. If Mr. Cook is putting forth the tired old myth that Stride was killed with a different weapon, based on the confusion over the Coram knife, then he really is not qualified to be publishing a book knocking far more educated authors.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

My understanding on the Stride knife confusion was that it was theorized that the knife did not necessarily have to be pointed, since there was only the slicing cut across the throat. In other words, there were no stabs. So the knife could have been either pointed or rounded, but there is no proof either way. So I do not see this as any evidence that a different knife (or a rounded end knife) was used.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

That's exactly right, Rob. But Dr. Phillips felt the killer would have significantly handicapped himself, so in all likelihood would not have used a rounded knife. This makes sense given that the knife used on Stride was sharp.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Hi Tom and Rob

Dr Phillips does state at the inquest that a rounded knife could have produced the incision.His objection to the chandlers knife been a possible type of murder weapon was due to it`s length.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sod the knives... I just want what the knives did to a human being taken off the cover of his book.

[Tom_Wescott]

Jon,

There's no reason to suppose the Coram knife was used on Stride. There's certainly no reason to think that a sharp knife with a rounded tip was used. The knife needn't have been short.

AP,

I hear you there. Unfortunately, because Cook is putting forth old myths as 'facts', they need to be addressed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Hi Tom

I don`t see it as the author putting forward old myths as facts but more as mixing the facts up. Cook`s error regarding "the knives" is as you say, he believes the Coroner at the Stride inquest stated that the knife that killed Stride was rounded, obviously misunderstanding Dr Phillips` comments on the Coram knife details.

I agree that the Chandlers knife with the rounded end could not have inflicted the wound to Stride........as Dr Phillips said, it was much too long

[Cap'n Jack]

'AP,

I hear you there. Unfortunately, because Cook is putting forth old myths as 'facts', they need to be addressed. '

To or from Hell, Tom?

[Tom_Wescott]

I don`t see it as the author putting forward old myths as facts but more as mixing the facts up. Cook`s error regarding "the knives" is as you say, he believes the Coroner at the Stride inquest stated that the knife that killed Stride was rounded, obviously misunderstanding Dr Phillips` comments on the Coram knife details.

It's the same thing, Jon. The myth that a different knife was used on Stride grew from the Coram incident. This has been address ad infinitum by myself and other writers in journals, books, and here on the boards. Evidently, Cook hasn't done much research. We're not talking about a new mistake here, we're talking about an old one that has been corrected and re-corrected many times. It's like saying Mary Kelly had a child living with her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

The really puzzling thing is that Paul Begg says that Andrew Cook "makes a reasonably good case" for the "Dear Boss" letter having been written by Frederick Best, but doesn't mention Best's admission to that effect (presumably meaning the 1966 Crime and Detection article). That would certainly be weird.

In the discussion on jtrforums.com, Paul Begg says that Andrew Cook "evidently knew nothing" about the 1966 article reporting that a journalist named Best claimed to have written Ripper letters. Even if he spent only 3 months on his book, and even given his laudable preference for primary sources, it would seem bizarre that he didn't know about something that was mentioned in Begg's chapter on the Dear Boss letter in "The Facts". Though I suppose in a sense that makes the article an independent confirmation of Cook's theory. Or vice versa.

But it is worrying that Elaine Quigley, who according to newspaper reports supported the authorship of Best, appears to be a graphologist rather than a document examiner.

[Natalie Severn]

This fella Cook has had one hell of a pasting one way and another
Rarely have I read such outrage and indignation about a book thats barely hit the press.I mean I know about Mary Kelly"s remains on the cover being tasteless and ghastly and possibly "pornographic" too , but its now moving onto the content within the book itself and already there"s a whiff of bad eggs and over ripe tomatoes getting ready to be thrown .Why so I wonder?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Nat

I guess it could be to do with the fact that in four weeks time a major documentary is going out on UK national TV, to inform the general public that Jack the Ripper never existed and was a creation of the press..

While as a point of exercise dismissing the victims is an interesting pass time, It is simply not possible to rule out MJK, Liz Stride or even Martha Tabram as FACT. Because we simply do not know for certain, there are interesting arguments in both directions. So when an author comes to a subject this complicated with a new theory its quite likely that people are going to look for errors and holes. Especially when said author starts criticizing other peoples work for perpetuating Myth’s.

I believe a deconstruction of the book is traditional in the world of Ripperology ..there are after all people who have been studying the FACTS, in detail, for decades.

However it is the contents of the documentary given what has been said about it to date, that has the real cause for concern. Andrew Cook is after all a respected historian who has at least had the guts to come out in public and stand up for his theory. He probably had little control over how that theory will be interpreted by a string of faceless TV exec’s.

My guess is that this story still has legs. It will run and run as they say in the press

Pirate

[caz]

Hi Pirate,

My guess is that in the months and years to come, Cook's brief tour round our dusty corridors and voluminous filing systems with his shiny new broom will become known as the straw that finally broke the back of what I would call Minimalist Ripperology.

One of the biggest mistakes is thinking that one will make fewer errors of fact and judgement, the more one seeks to keep it simple and reduce the ripper case to the barest bones possible.

Sweep away the serial mutilator, the double event, the GSG, all the letters, get the dog to run off with Kate's apron, and lastly give Mary the blame for doing her man wrong in the wrong place and time and bung her on the tin just for jolly... sorted.

We may as well all put our clocks back to 1887 while we are at it and stick our fingers in our ears.

Love,

Caz
X

[anna]

Jeff,
He may be a respected historian,but he's no ripperologist.They're two totally different things.

Surely,like Patti,it would have occurred to him that his theory was rubbish,or at least,could he not have asked someone what they thought,who KNEW about the subject...then he could have screwed the paper up,and put it in the bin,instead of bothering further with it.


If I remember correctly...it was the NAME that was thought to have been made up by a guy at the Central News Agency...not the whole bloomin idea being made up by a journalist.
And what about the small detail that five women have to get murdered and mutilated along the way? By three/five men...three who have to mutilate in the same way,one who bottles out at stage one,and one who thinks he can go one better than the rest???........all under the risk of being hung,if they mess up.These may be simple in everyday life terms...but they weren't stupid.

His idea fails,before it get's off the ground.