A New Ripper Book

[Jeff Leahy]

What I may know, or not know, of the TV documentary is my business and not yours.

But are you aware that the documentary has been filmed and edited? And that the information it contains coincides with the book?

[Stewart P Evans]

Again

But are you aware that the documentary has been filmed and edited? And that the information it contains coincides with the book?

Again, what I may know, or not know, of the TV documentary is my business, not yours.

You seem to know more than I do -

a. I do not know what stage the TV production is at.

b. I do not know what information the book contains.

c. I would presume that the book, if it is based on the TV documentary, would, logically, coincide to some degree or other.

[Jeff Leahy]

But someone contributing to that program would have to know what Andrew Cooks theory was?

[Stewart P Evans]

Illogical

But someone contributing to that program would have to know what Andrew Cooks theory was?

What you are saying is both cryptic and illogical.

[jmenges]

Andrew Cook told me that he was involved in filming late last month. Is this what you are on about, Jeff? If so, could you PM me please? He and I have been exchanging the occasional email since last summer.

Thanks,

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

A
c. I would presume that the book, if it is based on the TV documentary, would, logically, coincide to some degree or other.

Yes, a logical conclusion.

Cryptic? Given what you stated at the beginning of the thread, I was simply curious if you were a contributor on the program?

As far as I’m aware Andrew’s theory is no secret. I was simply making a general point that some people have suggested that the name ‘Jack the Ripper’ may have been around before the press published the name. I gave some details, which I thought might be relevant to that discussion.

Clearly the exact wording of Mr Cook’s book is known to neither of us, but as you recommended the book, I thought it a general discussion relating to the fourth coming documentary and his theories…in general.

As always I have to put up with abusive personal attacks and snide comments.

Yours Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

God, I’m now being gummed by casebooks number one half-wit Tom Wescott.

Thanks for that, PJ. After reading your posts I was afraid I'd fallen to a distant second place.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Clearly the exact wording of Mr Cook’s book is known to neither of us, but as you recommended the book, I thought it a general discussion relating to the fourth coming documentary and his theories…in general.

Hi Jeff

As Stewart indicated when he began the thread, he was recommending the book based on what he knew of the scholarship that Andrew Cook put into his book on the Duke of Clarence, and anticipating Mr. Cook's book on the Whitechapel murders would be a similar solid work research-wise.

Chris

[Stewart P Evans]

Theory

As far as I’m aware Andrew’s theory is no secret...
Clearly the exact wording of Mr Cook’s book is known to neither of us, but as you recommended the book, I thought it a general discussion relating to the fourth coming documentary and his theories…in general.
Yours Pirate

What is Andrew's theory then? Also the same re- '...his theories in general.'

"An original and responsible look at a case which has been hackneyed by so many authors...ends by posing a controversial question: was 'Jack the Ripper' merely a press invention?"

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Chris

Actually Stewart said this:

I have been very impressed with Andrew's research skills and I am sure that this new book will actually approach the case in a fresh manner and will include new information with an interesting new perspective. It should be out in a month or two and will complement a new Channel 5 documentary due to be aired in May.

As he clearly mentions a connection between the documentary and the fourth coming book in this paragraph I thought it a fair question to ask if Stewart was involved in the program.

Especially as he has been, and continues to be, elusive about the point.

Re: "An original and responsible look at a case which has been hackneyed by so many authors...ends by posing a controversial question: was 'Jack the Ripper' merely a press invention?"

It’s an interesting question. However it could also be reversed and argued that: it was Jack the Ripper that gave birth to the modern English press.

Pirate

Re: "Thanks for that, PJ. After reading your posts I was afraid I'd fallen to a distant second place".

When it comes to claims of being a half-wit, I can see I must get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on you Tom, congratulations you are indeed number one.

[Jeff Leahy]

PS.

And on a serious note: we don’t know that ‘Jack the Ripper’ was a press invention. Only that the records show the name Jack the Ripper coming into records at the time approx 27th September to 4th October.

If JtR was referred to as Leather Apron before this time, then our Parrish Priest seems to have picked up on the name ‘Jack the Ripper’ very quickly.

It is of course impossible to prove oral history, but that is not to say that the name, Jack the Ripper wasn’t in common parlance before the letters…clearly those journalists would have been on the street picking up what was said by the natives.

As a matter of interest does anyone know the first headline that included the name:

Jack the Ripper?

Pirate

PS Can we please avoid personal abuse? I’m happy to fight my corner but it is simply tiresome when trying to have a sensible conversation.

[Stewart P Evans]

Impressed

Hi Chris
Actually Stewart said this:
I have been very impressed with Andrew's research skills and I am sure that this new book will actually approach the case in a fresh manner and will include new information with an interesting new perspective. It should be out in a month or two and will complement a new Channel 5 documentary due to be aired in May.
As he clearly mentions a connection between the documentary and the fourth coming book in this paragraph I thought it a fair question to ask if Stewart was involved in the program.
Especially as he has been, and continues to be, elusive about the point.

I happen to own several of Andrew's books and I am impressed with his research. His previous books, e.g. Clarence, Rasputin, Riley Ace of Spies have been linked with TV documentaries.

Have you asked me if I had any involvement in the documentary? I don't recall that you did. So in what way have I been 'elusive'? I usually answer anyone who asks a question with total honesty - that is if I don't mind that particular person asking, otherwise I might not answer.

However, readers will see that 'Pirate Jack's' involvement in this thread was negative from the start, with the comment "Looks like we are in for another documentary that avoids the central issues of the case."

And he wonders why he gets negative responses.

[Stewart P Evans]

The New Journalism

...
Re: "An original and responsible look at a case which has been hackneyed by so many authors...ends by posing a controversial question: was 'Jack the Ripper' merely a press invention?"
It’s an interesting question. However it could also be reversed and argued that: it was Jack the Ripper that gave birth to the modern English press.
Pirate
...

As Andrew's book is taking a close look at the press involvement in the Ripper story he will probably answer the question in some detail. The 'new journalism' emerged before the Ripper murders.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Stewart

Thanks for your reply.

So I will ask you as directly as possible:

Are you involved with or featured in the new documentary?

Pirate

[Chris]

When it comes to claims of being a half-wit, I can see I must get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on you Tom, congratulations you are indeed number one.

PS Can we please avoid personal abuse? I’m happy to fight my corner but it is simply tiresome when trying to have a sensible conversation.

Hmmm...