A New Ripper Book

[Jeff Leahy]

Blimmey Blimmey are you listening world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Casebook has its first agreement

Pirate

PS unless little miss, quietly, Ally, knows different

What you say, man from Del Monte?

[Cap'n Jack]

It's not a historical document, Chris, it's a photo that has been stolen from police files, and then used in the public domain to gain profit by commercial organisations.

[Natalie Severn]

Its also a barbaric picture of a dead woman.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

You're quite right. Oft times, the most offensive photo in a Ripper book is the author's photo. While I understand that not everyone can be a beefcake like Howard Brown, or a babe like Ally, publishers should use better discretion when deciding which author is allowed to spill his grill on the book jackets.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,
You're quite right. Oft times, the most offensive photo in a Ripper book is the author's photo. While I understand that not everyone can be a beefcake like Howard Brown, or a babe like Ally, publishers should use better discretion when deciding which author is allowed to spill his grill on the book jackets.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yo, I'd be careful there, I said he looked like Clint Eastwood, not Woody Allen. But you made me smile.

But it is interesting that on the whole posters seem to have for once moved to a middle ground on this issue.

These photo's, in particular the Kelly scene and mortuary photo's should be seen in CONTEXT.

For once I am happy to say I've listened to debate/argument and changed my view a little, so casebook and jtrforums, make a difference. Thanks.

Good Night all

Pirate

[Chris]

Its also a barbaric picture of a dead woman.

Well, certainly it's a picture of a woman who has been murdered in a barbaric manner. That's why people think it shouldn't be on the cover of a book, where it can be seen by children and others who may not be prepared for it or wish to see it.

But if the suggestion is that it should be made illegal to publish such an image, or even to possess a copy of such an image, then that's ridiculous. If anyone does support such a line, then the very first thing they should do is boycott Casebook, because the easiest place for people to get hold of copies of this image is right here on this website.

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html

Agreed but this image is also carried in CONTEXT of what it is...

Wording clearly telling the viewer what they are looking AT.

Surely that is where agreement has occured today?

Pirate

[caz]

Surely that is where agreement has occured today?

Pirate

I'm so thoroughly disagreeable that I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you there.
And don't call me Surely!!

Yours very disagreeably,

A. Misery-Gutz
Muttering-on-the-Whole

[caz]

Seriously though, Pirate, Caz agrees with you about context.

But isn't the operative word here 'intent'? In other words, what is intended by putting a certain image on a book cover, as opposed to including it with the rest of the WM case evidence in all the usual places of reference?

If it is directly relevant to the theory being proposed inside the book, because it is the image that best illustrates or supports that theory, then an argument could be made for that being the intent.

But if the most reasonable conclusion is that the image was selected mainly - or even partly - with the intent of selling more books to the thrill-seeking end of the market (ie to people who would not give it a second glance with any other cover), then maybe a law should be brought in, if there's not one already, to throw the book at anyone that vile.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

I think, Caz, that is where the revised 'Obscene Publications Act' might be useful, as it is largely formulated to prevent folks from making commercial gain from indecent or obscene images.
For my money this image is indecent and obscene when presented on the front cover of a book designed for commercial gain.

[caz]

I think, Caz, that is where the revised 'Obscene Publications Act' might be useful, as it is largely formulated to prevent folks from making commercial gain from indecent or obscene images.
For my money this image is indecent and obscene when presented on the front cover of a book designed for commercial gain.

Hi Cap'n,

While I appreciate that any book cover must be allowed its own unique role in the marketing of the book itself, I think any reasonable person would presume, until they see strong evidence to the contrary, that whoever went for this cover design did so, hoping that a book that might otherwise only appeal to the usual rip lit collectors would fly off the shelves as a direct result.

Using a particularly sensational and eye-catching cover to enhance the commercial appeal of a true crime book is one thing (and I'm very broad-minded as a rule, believing in general that even little people can't have too much real information about the real world we chose to bring them into and inflict upon them). But using a real woman's real mutilated corpse to try to give a book its commercial appeal, beyond the dusty corridors where tiny numbers of people* live and breathe this stuff anyway, would just be so wrong on every possible level.

[*And we already know who will get the blame ]

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

and I'm very broad-minded as a rule, believing in general that even little people can't have too much real information about the real world we chose to bring them into and inflict upon them

I agree. Midgets are woefully underinformed about the evils of the world. With the exception of Bridget, that is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[jmenges]

I spoke to Andrew Cook this afternoon for about 15 minutes. He caught me on my cell phone but I was at that time very preoccupied and scrambling for a pen and paper to jot down his thoughts on this matter. Although I am now aware of where he is coming from and why the photo was used as the cover, to do his words justice I must arrange another call from my home when I am ready to take proper notes that he has agreed I may relay to the readers of this message board. This follow-up call will happen very soon, in a matter of days.

So, stay tuned.

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

You mention the possibility of and podcast? Any chance this might happen?

Just curious

Pirate

[jmenges]

Hi Jeff,

No podcast has been booked with Mr. Cook.

I can tell you that he and the publisher agreed on the cover, he believes that the cover of the book is appropriate given the content of the book (which none of us have read yet), that the photo on the cover reflects the realities of these murders and he had no intention for it to offend. In fact, Cook states that this cover (taken in conjunction with the content of the book) is a statement against offensiveness. Like Chris on the other thread, what Andrew Cook finds more offensive is the exploitation of the crimes in order to pin them on a particular innocent suspect, also the sale of board games, hundreds of people going on Ripper Walks etc..

He does not believe any of the murder victims are victims of a "Jack the Ripper" and so the use of any one of the victims photographs would have fallen into the same category of not-victims of the Ripper. He stresses strongly that we must read the book in order to understand his choice of MJK for the cover.

Lastly, for now, I'll inform you all that Andrew Cook donates 100% of the proceeds of his books to various charities, so he is not personally profiting from the sale of this book.

JM