A New Ripper Book

[Tom_Wescott]

You're a far more gifted writer than most Ripper authors, AP. I've had to work hard to get as mediocre as I am. However, I would MUCH rather read a book from a great researcher who happens to not be a great writer, than be enchanted by prose with no factual foundation or logical interpretation...like Cornwell, for instance. Great writer, bad researcher and thinker.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Couldn't agree more, Tom, just imagine Thomas Hardy let loose on the subject.
However I talk of influence here, and not talent.

[Stephen Thomas]

Great writer, bad researcher and thinker.

AP is a bad researcher and thinker?

Who are you to to say that?

[ChrisGeorge]

AP is a bad researcher and thinker?

Who are you to to say that?

Isn't Tom talking about Patricia Cornwell? Look at the context:

. . . I would MUCH rather read a book from a great researcher who happens to not be a great writer, than be enchanted by prose with no factual foundation or logical interpretation...like Cornwell, for instance. Great writer, bad researcher and thinker.

Chris

[jmenges]

The reader is treated to drama by association: for instance, an entire chapter is spent discussing the Ripper case, but Melville’s actual involvement in that case is unclear, since no one is absolutely certain of Jack the Ripper’s real identity. All we really know is that some people were brutally murdered in London and that Melville was a policeman at the time.

Although I personally like Andrew Cook, and he has been very forth coming with his opinions and research into Wm. Melville, I was disappointed to discover that the connection he makes to Wm. Melville's involvement in the hunt for JtR, a New Zealand radio broadcast supposedly given by his son years later, did not take place. Yet Mr. Cook chose to rely on information passed down through the Melville family and present it as fact while knowing, but not stating in print, that there is no documenting evidence.

I posted info concerning Cook's claim of this NZ radio show made in his book MI5 and my subsequent research on the matter here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1876

edit- 2 images in the above link seem to have vanished. They were pages from the Radio Record that contained the same exact schedule as reprinted in the Wellington newspaper shown. I can re-upload them if there is demand.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi JM,

Demand, demand.

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

Simon,

I bumped the original thread with the pages from the Radio Record.

JM

[Cap'n Jack]

One also has to consider that the man ignored direct historical evidence that the connection to a 'Royal Conspiracy' to the Whitechapel Murders had a firm foundation in the 1930's, rather than later, as he claimed, with his cosy and cool buddies.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP is a bad researcher and thinker?

Who are you to to say that?

I am Tom Wescott, but I didn't say that. Stephen Thomas said that. As Chris pointed out, I said Patricia Cornwell is a great writer, but a bad researcher and thinker. I personally like AP's book on the case overall, although I think a new book on Cutbush is sorely needed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Does Richard Jones new book have some stuff on Cutbush? I know he is interested in him as a suspect and did some research on the recent released broadmore records?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

The Trouble

I thought this review of a previous volume by Cook highlights the cosy and cool world these Rips inhabitat.
Make no mistake, Cook is no virgin on the Ripper scene, and appears to have been schooled and tutored by a certain element into believing - at that time - that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper... now I wonder what other Rip authors held that same view at that same time?
Could it just possibly be the very same two Rips who are appearing in Cook's film, and bigging up his new volume?

The trouble is AP, you are too adept at adding two and two together and making one hundred.

I have met Andrew Cook only very recently and have had no previous contact with him whatsoever. I have never read his Melville book and, indeed, only purchased a copy very recently after meeting him. And I still have not read it, so I am not aware of its Ripper content. I did not know, nor did I have any contact with, Andrew Cook prior to being recently approached about his current work. And you can add to that the fact that Don Rumbelow does not even know the man and certainly has not had anything to do with his researches.

So who are you suggesting has 'schooled and tutored' him? I do hope that you are not making one of your nasty insinuations that I have done such a thing (but, of course, you are). Anyone who knows me knows that I do not 'school and tutor' anyone as regards a suspect and only speak of Tumblety if I am asked. I have more respect for the intelligence of other Ripper aficionados than you apparently have.

Your erroneous, and usually derogatory, insinuations and innuendos are one of your most unattractive traits and, I can only assume, are indicative of how your mind works. As for any 'cosy and cool world' inhabited by 'Rips', I am sure that exists in your muddled head only. I am in a position to prove all that I have written here so I suggest that you be careful in what you say.

[Stewart P Evans]

And...

...
Could it just possibly be the very same two Rips who are appearing in Cook's film, and bigging up his new volume?

And I suggest that you leave Don Rumbelow out of your nasty, green tinged, commentaries. He has nothing to with any board discussions anywhere and has not said anything about Andrew Cook and his work.

I started this thread as I thought that others would be interested and Andrew Cook is not, to my knowledge, even aware of it. I have seen examples of his research and they have impressed me. You have hi-jacked it for your own petty machinations and attacks.

With this I am bowing out of this perverted charade.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah SPE, you musn't always take this so personally, it is merely the nature of the beast to be combatative, anarchistic, suspicious, relentless and emotionless.
As you know I am always very careful in what I say, and your character and reputation remain unblemished by my musings on this 'new' book.
The only green I see is on the other side of the hill, and it is greener.
I involved myself in this thread because I felt that Cook and his new book would be placed in an untenable situation if the 17th September 1888 letter is shown to be genuine... which I believe will happen in the very near future.
An amusing old situation, a book claiming that Jack the Ripper was nowt but the invention of the London press; and then a letter signed by Jack the Ripper a long time before the press ever got hold of him.
I love it.

[Ally]

One also has to consider that the man ignored direct historical evidence that the connection to a 'Royal Conspiracy' to the Whitechapel Murders had a firm foundation in the 1930's, rather than later, as he claimed, with his cosy and cool buddies.

I am not sure what I find more ironic, AP actually commenting on the research skills in someone else work considering his own refusal to prop up his stories with any actual historical evidence, or the fact that he actually believes he has a leg to stand on any more in criticizing others research. On another thread he actually had the gall to write something along the lines of "it's all in the details and authors rise and fall on them".

Glass houses. Stones. Etc.

[Cap'n Jack]

Indeed, Ally, what with ironic being me middle name and all.
It is in me nature to throw stones whenever I see a glass house, and of course my greatest accomplishment was the complete and utter destruction of the Crystal Palace.
The Cutbush family have not spoken to me since, for they were showing roses there at the time.
It was a good year for the roses.