A New Ripper Book

[Chris]

A. P.

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.

As for H. M. Customs, of course they have jurisdiction only over items that are imported into the U.K. I'm sure they will be mightily puzzled by your letter, considering that Andrew Cook's publishers are based in Gloucestershire!

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris, I don't know anything about Andrew Cook, I've never read anything written by him, or her; I've certainly never met him, or her, and I couldn't tell you whether he had a beard or a funny hat, or wore stockings.
I just don't like his choice of cover.
And no, I wouldn't seek a total ban on this image at all, but would follow Her Majesty's Customs lead that as such it should form part of a serious documentary investigation when it is distributed in the public domain, and that question is best left to them.

[m_w_r]

Hey dont shoot the messenger..you asked what the big discovery was and I'm speculating on (lets say rumour) that this is where this documentary goes...hand writing analysis? (we love that)

I do not know for sure...I'm speculating..

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

[Jeff Leahy]

HI Caz
General comment: language about sex/pornography/masturbation etc is completely and utterly inappropriate in a case of this kind. I see absolutely no connection, indeed it is rather a worry that some people can.

Almost every seven seconds apparently But then were off topic again

Pirate

[babybird67]

HI Caz

What I meant was that if this particularly strong photo was chosen specifically to hit the casual W.H.Smith browser between the eyes with the promise of an equally strong lesson about the causes of such bodily destruction (which could go some way towards justifying its use on the cover, if the lesson inside is instructive and doesn't dump the reader back in the dark ages) then it will be better if everyone concerned just comes out and says so, and doesn't take the line that it can't hurt because anyone not already familiar with the image won’t recognise it as a mutilated female corpse anyway, especially by the time it's covered with a lot of words.

hmmmm....i dont see how we can ascertain the justification of the choice of cover until we have read the contents, or perhaps spoken to Mr Cook, or had his rationale for the cover relayed to us by JM. I doubt very much it was chosen for the bizarre intention which Cap'n Jack seems intent on claiming, which seems to be some weird perverted type of titilation, which i really do not comprehend.

Now i know we innocents of the female fairer sex aren't really supposed to either know about, or enjoy, pornography , but I've looked at a little bit, purely for research purposes of course, and not a single bit of it has taken the image of a flesh-stripped murder victim of over a hundred years old...maybe i just haven't been looking at the right magazines!

In short, you don't choose a photo like that one for your book cover 'unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly' unless you are a complete twit, nor 'to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding' unless you are four and twenty twits rolled into one.

There's that terminology again. What on earth has the MJK photograph got to do with carnal lusts and appetites? And why specifically only male carnal lusts and appetites...don't females have any? Are females allowed to view said photograph with it being a given that they are not possibly capable of doing so with some kind of inappropriate sexual desire?

Maybe this discussion should be expunged of the inappropriate terminology such as titilation, masturbation, pornography etc...or maybe it can be pointed out to teenagers so that we could have the pleasure of confusing them a little...well, if "this" is pornography, what's that stuff i have under my bed?

So assuming it's a choice you would only arrive at in good faith, for reasons you believe in, what would be the point of toning it down to a level where the wider market it is aimed at has no clue what is being aimed at them or why? That's what I was getting at.

I don't think i mentioned any deliberate toning down. I just mentioned that as per every other published work, the cover isn't solely a photograph, but will be overlaid with things like title, author, maybe a couple of bitesize review-type comments. That's not toning down something due to public demand...it's just a fact that books need to have the information on the outside as to author, publisher, title etc.

Your final paragraph, just for the record, doesn’t refer to any comment I have posted.

It was merely extending the metaphor of parents misguidedly smacking their children, to include parents misguidedly censoring their children's access to something.

tc Caz


General comment: language about sex/pornography/masturbation etc is completely and utterly inappropriate in a case of this kind. I see absolutely no connection, indeed it is rather a worry that some people can.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey dont shoot the messenger..you asked what the big discovery was and I'm speculating on (lets say rumour) that this is where this documentary goes...hand writing analysis? (we love that)

I do not know for sure...I'm speculating..

Pirate

Come on Jonathon spill the beans

PS in an earlier post I repeated the A to Z entry on Best. Detail Post 236.

[Tom_Wescott]

First, he'd have to prove that Best existed, that his Best did in fact work for the Star at the time, and that Best wrote the Dear Boss letter. That's a heavy order. At best (pardon the pun) he may have proved that there was a reporter named Best. I would love to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

At present, what we have is speculation based on the press release.

However if you read those releases they seem to imply that Andrew Cook has proved a guy called Best, did write the Dear Boss letter..

So if proved this would be NEW, if not completely unexpected..

What do you think AP..could he have proof?

Pirate

[Chris]

A. P.

But if those regulations prohibited Andrew Cook's book, they would also prohibit many of the other Ripper books on the market, and even copies of the Casebook DVD edition.

The longer you go on like this, the more it looks as though you're engaged in a personal vendetta against Andrew Cook, rather than expressing genuine concern about the use of the Kelly photograph.

[Tom_Wescott]

Has it yet been determined if Andrew Cook's book contains a single original thought, idea, observation, or piece of evidence? So far I haven't seen any.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Although the US postal laws on obscene material are in a state of some flux at the moment, the basic rule on such still applies, that they will not carry or distribute material that they consider 'obscene, lewd or lascivious', so I shall be writing to the US postmaster general to alert him to the fact that Amazon may well be distributing this image through his service.
In addition to that I was interested to find the following law in regard to images distributed through the UK postal system which show:

'scenes of actual violence or
mutilation shown in an exploitative
context where they are not part of a
legitimate documentary. For example
a compilation of newsreel footage
concentrating solely on scenes of
violence or mutilation.'

So I shall also be writing to the post office directorship, and Her Majesty's Customs to alert them to this graphic image showing a severe degree of mutilation.

[Gideon Fell]

The judge and jury, my dear bird, are the police, from whom the image was stolen from in the first place.
I think that theft should be discussed before we dissect a dissected murder victim.
This image should never have come into the public domain.

Theft; a serious charge indeed. Who is the thief?

[ChrisGeorge]

Its possible some stories are simply miss quoting what they have borrowed from other stories.

Sounds just like the press reporting back then in 1888.

Chris

[caz]

Hi Jeff,

Two very different positions indeed.

One is a non-starter; t'other a highly speculative non-story, as far as I can see.

And still we have Mary screaming from the rooftops that hers is one story in the whole horrible history of the world that no newspaper could have artificially inflated. Had the photo appeared in the Star at the time, Mary would have done a cracking inflating job for them.

And still she works for her supper...

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

Without seeing the actually press release whether Andrew Cooks theory is going to claim all the victims were by different people or only three were committed by one person, is hard to work out. They are very different positions.

Its possible some stories are simply miss quoting what they have borrowed from other stories. Or the original release might just have been deliberately vague.

I'm hoping Jonathon will be able to clarify the situation fairly soon.

Pirate