A New Ripper Book

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

Of course, as you've pointed out 3 times recently, I'm notorious on these boards for my support of Tumblety as the Ripper. I'm very outspoken about that, whereas AP is more understated in his support of Cutbush. So you got me there. You are far more astute than many give you credit for. You really follow these boards carefully.

Then the Captain is simply the most logical choice. Besides I don't ever remember the Captain lickin' *ss to the Norder.

Why would he when he has you, Teneal? By the way, the Norder remarks are soooo yesterday. I doubt AP appreciates you recycling his material from 2006. Anyway, before Admin comes back with another terse warning...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

I just hope everyone noticed that Pirate Jack prefers the logic and reasoning of AP Wolf over myself. It is my hope that this will further establish my credibility as a reasonable and logical person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

True, But then if we equate the captains favoured suspect as Cutbush and Wescott's favoured suspect as Tumbelty.....

Then the Captain is simply the most logical choice. Besides I don't ever remember the Captain lickin' *ss to the Norder.

Pirate

PS Besides where as the captain is at least genuinely funny and witty....you are about as funny as 'Ludwig' from Black Adder 2.

[Cap'n Jack]

Nice post, Tom, what you gonna do next?
Nuke all the children under five in Iran?

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Sorry, but I'm not buying the idea of you throwing away a full bottle of booze, not even if it's at my head. You'll have to try better next time. And my point was simple...your support generally comes only from the fringes of Ripperology...the misfits or lonely newbies. If you're cool with that, then great, but then you shouldn't pretend to take the subject at all seriously. I for one would find little value pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, what's this all about?

'I just hope everyone noticed that Pirate Jack prefers the logic and reasoning of AP Wolf over myself. It is my hope that this will further establish my credibility as a reasonable and logical person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott'

When I speak, it is never with logic or reason, it is from my heart, and pram... get in the way of either and you get a bottle chucked at you, and it won't be one you can put in the microwave and warm, it will be glass and 100% proof.

Thanks Nats.
Thanks Pirate.

[Tom_Wescott]

I just hope everyone noticed that Pirate Jack prefers the logic and reasoning of AP Wolf over myself. It is my hope that this will further establish my credibility as a reasonable and logical person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, well the Pirate remembers that when everyone else ‘Huffed and Puffed’ over Patsie using the caption ‘Case Closed’, that AP was a lone voice of reason in the Pirates defense…and Pirates have long memories.

He also 'don’t' require advice in Ripper politics from Tom Wescott.

I have given my commitment not to use these images unless in context ( I cant and wont speak for anyone else). And I will continue to listen to AP’s advice because he has earned his ‘spurs’.

I may not agree with everything AP says, why should I. But he has had the guts to raise a valid argument and make people think and reevaluate their positions on what is clearly an important moral issue.

I believe it is called ‘making a difference’. But morality is down to the individual not organized groups or regulations. While I wish Archiac well, I hold little hope of an agreed consensus, especially among Ripperologists.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Chris are you trying to suggest that this is a back handed attack on Stewart Evans? because it certainly is NOT, at least as far as I am concerned or as far as i can see.

Pirate

Well Pirate, never under estimate Ap,who I love dearly but not wisely.

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh, and by the way, Archaic, a most marvelous post and idea.
You enjoy my full support in this.

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh please boys and girls don't try and obscure my noble motive here by ascribing devious purpose to my simple message that the use of this image is incendiary and seriously tacky.
Oh yes I'll take a pop at anyone, regardless of their status or impact in this weird and fractured world we inhabit, but you see it was Stewart Evans who started this thread with a glowing, nay almost nuclear, reference to Cook's new book, and that was after he had studied the cover on the Amazon site. His silence in regard to the cover image is, I think, telling.
But that doesn't mean to say I attempt to discredit the man for no good reason whatsoever, I merely question his good judgement in faithfully promoting the work whilst clad in the image we see.
Part of the problem I have with this image is that I believe constant exposure to it deadens our normal receptors and responses to situations of horror, shock and mutilation... some posters here do exhibit symptons of such prolonged exposure to such an image, attempting to qualify or quantify the image as normal, simply because they now think it is so.
I believe almost all writers in this field develop similar problems with an image like this one, and begin to see it as a normal situation for such images to be published on book covers and the like. The lack of response from these writers is, I also believe, very telling, and does them no credit or good.
Same old story really, when you expect someone to stand up and be counted they are too busy on the studio couch.

[Archaic]

Why a Community Consensus on 'Guidelines' might be helpful

But we already have a consensus, which is that this photograph should not be used on the cover of a book. If anyone thinks otherwise, please speak up.

Hi, Stephen. I agree that we have a good deal of consensus in this instance. In my post (#314) I was brainstorming and trying to identify & clarify the essential components of all our feelings and opinions regarding the appropriate use of sensitive images ... More for future reference when a new decision has to be as to why, where, and how to use such an image...That's the 'Consensus' I was referring to.

I'm not referring to some kind of censorship imposed from without; mature discussion & agreement just seems so much easier than having a knock-down-drag-out fight every time! I think we are all decent people who agree on the fundamental issues... and I believe Mr. Cook is too, and wouldn't have deliberately chosen to spark this degree of controversy.

As certain essential issues and concerns were raised repeatedly in this thread, by identifying & grouping them we might be able to agree upon basic guidelines which could be helpful to all of us in the future... so we don't go around inadvertently offending one another.

-Best regards, Archaic

[Tom_Wescott]

More to the point, he's made statements like this - "one must also question the seasoned writers in this field who have advised and worked with Cook on the production of this new volume" - and this - "this 'new' author has been given every encouragement and praise, by the 'old' establishment authors, who appear in his TV documentaries and the like, and have voiced no opinion about the use of this tarnished and harmful image" -

In the very beginning, when AP was loosely commenting that author's shouldn't use victim's photos on their book covers, I thought he MIGHT be setting up for a backhanded attack on Stewart, who used Coles' photo on 'Letters From Hell' (albeit tastefully). This is why I wrote a post differentiating between Stewart's book and Cooks, while not accusing AP of any ulterior motive at that time. Thank you for bring this to my attention, Chris, because I had missed it. Sad to say I was correct about AP's motives.

Chris are you trying to suggest that this is a back handed attack on Stewart Evans? because it certainly is NOT, at least as far as I am concerned or as far as i can see

You might not be aware of this, Pirate, but most of what AP posts in controversial debates turns out to be backhanded attacks (and sometimes blatant attacks) on Stewart or some other writer he feels has made an accomplishment. I'm not saying that AP is wrong in admonishing Cook for his cover, as I believe we all feel the same way. But AP is quite adept at building a big net and stretching blame until it snaps and slaps him back in his face.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[anna]

My apologies Jeff ....I never meant to imply that you didn't take it seriously,merely that the point had been passed,whereas,it is a major contributor to the fact of who is actually making these suppositions.

The last thing we need,after Whitechapel implied that we are a bunch of weirdo's who view porn................is AP cementing that view.

I think he's a twit.

[Jeff Leahy]

Anna I have never taken this subject lightly. That’s just the way I post. My position is clear; I thought that there should be NO censorship…

Given what AP has posted I have changed that position and believe that the autopsy photos should only be used in context and with explanation. I have given assurances that that is the only way I personally will use these images in future. I intend to use them.

As a front cover I think it simply bad design and the use of the wording ‘Case Closed’ unforgivable bad form.

My personal feeling is that Andrew Cook has deliberately set out to be controversial on the matter in order to create publicity

It would appear that Chris and I have simply miss-understood each other, again, with regards to the comment about, ‘elements with axes to grind’

I have no axe to grind and believe Stephen is correct that on the whole there is agreement on the core issue here.

Pirate

[Stephen Thomas]

>> Please note that this format I have presented is merely a very rough draft; I'm simply brainstorming and thinking out loud. I'm just trying to suggest a way by which we could ALL arrive at a Sincere, Practical, Reasoned, and Respectful CONSENSUS.

But we already have a consensus, which is that this photograph should not be used on the cover of a book. If anyone thinks otherwise, please speak up.