A New Ripper Book

[Chris]

Jeff

My post referred only to what A. P. had said.

I've seen nothing to suggest anyone else is pursuing any kind of hidden agenda here. I certainly wasn't suggesting you were, because on the whole you have been arguing against A. P.'s wilder suggestions that the image should be banned, or that its possession is illegal, or that access to the image should be restricted to "accredited researchers".

[anna]

Jeff made light of what for me,and now babybird..is a VERY IMPORTANT point about the Kelly images....language about sex/pornography/masturbation etc is utterly inappropriate in a case of this kind,they may have been prostitutes in life,but they were simply murder victims in death,and that includes the Kelly photo's.So,I also see no connection-as babybird said,and I underline.
********IT IS RATHER A WORRY THAT SOME CAN**********
I would go even further than that...
IF YOU CAN SEE ANY SEXUAL REFERENCE IN THE KELLY PHOTO'S,THEN YOU ARE A VERY TWISTED INDIVIDUAL.

AP,I happen to RESPECT these images as of someone who I am grateful to view.........IN ANY FORM..........she is not distasteful......and in branding the image as such,YOU are branding Kelly with the same tag.

That makes me feel like this.....

ANNA.

[Jeff Leahy]

I didn't actually mention Stewart in my post, so it's interesting that you mention that possibility. And unless you have some private source of information about A. P.'s motivation, you are not in a position to say what "it certainly is NOT", are you?

The fact that you didn't mention Stewarts name is irrelevant. Your description hardly leaves room for anyone else.

So lets make this clear: Stewart is a respected authority on JtR. TV Documentaries require the use of 'Experts' and talking head interviews in there production. They invariably pay very small fees and the contributor has little, if any, control over what questions they are asked or how that material is edited or put together, or even in what context.

If Stewart has said something along the lines of 'Its possible that MJK was not a ripper victim' then that would be factually correct. And given his reputation it is unlikely that Mr Evans would steer to far from the facts and into the realms of speculation in an interview. That said, he must have had some idea what Andrew Cooks program was about when he agreed to take part, even if he did not know the precise details.

Stewart clearly would hate any defense made of his position, made by the Pirate on casebook. However I wish to make it absolutely clear that I in no way or have at any point , made any criticism about his involvement in this program. I haven’t seen his contribution but I would imagine that it would be to his usual meticulous and informed standards.

Disagreeing with someone’s views on Ripperology (which I do to some extent with every poster on casebook including AP) is not the same thing as making a personal criticism about someone and I wish to disassociate myself from any such personal speculation completely....

Your use of the phrase 'element' was suggesting that more than one person has a personal axe to grind. I have no axe to grind against Stewart, in fact the exact opposite, I’m a big fan of his research and books. My interest is and has only ever been in the identity of JtR. Obviously I believe there was a serial killer. I believe MJK was victim.

Trust that has cleared up any miss understanding

Pirate

[Archaic]

Thinking Out Loud

I sincerely wish that Mr. Andrew Cook would agree to participate in this debate of ours. I would welcome his thoughts on all this. But I doubt he will join in, as I fear that by now we must resemble - at least to him - something along the lines of a disembodied on-line lynch mob. PLEASE NOTE: I say this only because it must be rather disconcerting to have 30 Pages of Forum Posts directed towards oneself or one's product! Yet at the same time I feel CERTAIN that is not the true mind-set or intention of those who have participated in this discussion! We are not trying to gang-up on anyone, we are all just trying to make sense of this quite profound human issue.

I also believe Mr. Cook is a sincere student of History, whose wish is to increase our understanding of the Past, and that he simply did not foresee such turmoil arising from the use of a particular photograph on the cover of his book... which is not to say that I do not object to its use in this particular manner and context, because I do. But I still want to believe that his true intention was- and is - otherwise. If he would consent to share his personal thoughts with us, I'm sure we are mature enough to appreciate his participation and receive his opinions openly and respectfully.

>> Perhaps if we all continue this open discourse in good faith, sincerity, and patience, we may ALL eventually arrive at a point of agreement... Maybe we could even come up with some MUTUALLY AGREED-UPON GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROPRIATE USE OF SENSITIVE IMAGES.

As I see it, the principal issues we are grappling with involve the following COMPONENTS:

CONTEXT (Is the use of a sensitive image gratuitous, or is it relevant, sincere, and purposeful?)

INTENTION (Both of Image 'User' AND of Image 'Viewer')

SENSITIVITY (We are all human beings... what if it were YOUR loved one? What if it were mine? - Isn't it?)

RESPONSIBILITY (What might the Injudicious Use of such sensitive imagery lead to, encourage, or imply?)

HISTORICAL VALUE (Does THIS Image, in THIS Context, truly advance our knowledge of the Past, and does it Contribute in some genuine way to guide us towards deeper Understanding and a better shared Future?)

RESPECT (A fundamental Human Right, and one which I personally don't believe ceases at the moment of Death... So are we all obligated to defend those human beings that were abused and powerless in Life and are now utterly defenseless in Death? *Or does Human Respect have a sort of 'Natural Shelf Life' that somehow EXPIRES with USAGE over TIME??)


>> 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.

Thanks for listening. -Archaic (the Peacenik)

[Chris]

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.

I didn't actually mention Stewart in my post, so it's interesting that you mention that possibility. And unless you have some private source of information about A. P.'s motivation, you are not in a position to say what "it certainly is NOT", are you?

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[Chris]

AP was never upset at other Ripper books that contained this photo, nor was he upset at the Casebook analysis of the photo. I assume he's upset because the MK photo is here and only here prominently displayed on a book's cover.

If you have a lot of time to waste, you'll see A. P. Wolf has made all sorts of strange statements about this over the last couple of weeks. Among other things, he has claimed the photograph was, legally speaking, extreme pornography, implying anyone in the UK who even possessed a copy would be liable to a prison sentence. Then there was the saga of his audience with "the legal representative of the Duke of Normandy", in an attempt to ban the image throughout "Her Majesty's Realms and Colonies", related over on jtrforums.com. He's also claimed that back in 1995 he "labelled all users of the image as purveyors of pornography", though that turned out not to be the case.

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" - and finally he said that the purpose of Cook's denial that Jack the Ripper existed was really to support Tumblety's candidacy (I still haven't entirely got my head around that one).

That's what makes me suspect that there's a strong element here of old familar axes being ground.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm afraid you're wasting your time in these attempts to get the book banned.

I think your making an assumption that getting the book banned is the main aim of the exersize?

Perhaps drawing attension to the miss use of the image, per-say, is actually the intention. To which, to some extentent, the captain has already been successful.

Pirate

PS put us out of our misery Jonathon

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
The Daily Mail article you posted a link to (about six and a half hours ago, in post 286) explicitly states that Cook has used handwriting analysis to link Best and the letter. I for one would be astonished if the tied-in documentary did not reflect this.

So you're not really speculating, unless you didn't read the content of the links you posted.

Of course the outcomes of the analysis bear further scrutiny when more details are known.
Regards, Mark

Clearly I have read the links i posted. I also have more background information (however I do not wish to divulge my sources).

That said no one to my knowledge has read Andrew Cooks book. A fairly sophisticated press campaign is taking, has taken, place. I have not seen the exact wording of the press release. Clearly your above statement would appear correct, given what is currently in the public domain...ie reports about said press release....

I clearly am speculating, as I am working from gossip and second hand information.

That said, no smoke without fire

All the best

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, none of that explains why you are singling out Andrew Cook's book, and ignoring all the other publications that include a copy of this photograph.

AP was never upset at other Ripper books that contained this photo, nor was he upset at the Casebook analysis of the photo. I assume he's upset because the MK photo is here and only here prominently displayed on a book's cover.

Let's consider that cover from a perspective other than how offensive it is. What the hell was Cook thinking as an author? And look at how 'Jack the Ripper' appears in that gaudy print. The cheapest self-published Ripper book (I'm talking to you, DeLocksley) looks better than this. Why go to all the trouble of writing a book - especially when you're already an author with a good reputation - and ruining it with the world's worst cover?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris
I never waste my time, as you will see.
The book is not yet published or printed.
Do you think it will be?

Thank you Cystal.

The inclusion of this image within a book is not equivalent to the display of this image as a cover illustration.

In the first instance, the viewer is complicit, since they have chosen to view.

In the second, they are not: at least nothing like to the same extent.

That's the distinction.

This is cheap sensationalism: nothing more or less.

[m_w_r]

Not Chris if the book is printed in Poland.

It's not conclusive, but both the History Press and the Sutton Press seem to have used a printer in Sparkford, Somerset, in the past. Still, for the Amberley imprint, I suppose Gdansk or Warsaw remain outside possibilities.

Regards,

Mark

[Chris]

Not Chris if the book is printed in Poland.

If you look at the document you quoted, you'll see that even in that case, owing to EU treaty obligations, items can only be prohibited if they can't be legally marketed within the UK. And then of course you come back to the fact that books containing this photograph have been marketed in the UK for nearly 40 years. I'm afraid you're wasting your time in these attempts to get the book banned.

[Cap'n Jack]

Not Chris if the book is printed in Poland.