A New Ripper Book

[Jeff Leahy]

Stop it Mike. I already used up my quota by eight O'clock this morning

So its 'strictly' work from now on...no stop it.

[Robert]

It's the ones who think about sex every six seconds while they're making love that I feel sorry for.

[Scott Nelson]

Anyone care to comment on Cook's claim that the journalist "Best" actually existed -- known as "Frederick Best", employed by the Star?

I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but could Best actually have written the first Jack the Ripper letter?

[babybird67]

hmmmmm

that explains all the undone shelving...obviously much more occupied with a different kind of screwing!

[Robert]

Well in 1891 there was a Frederick Best, journalist and author, age 33, living with his wife at 111 Stamford St, Lambeth. Perhaps ominously he shared the premises with an actor and a comedian.

[Jeff Leahy]

Can I just make a quick re-cap here so any newer posters know what this discussion is about? Please feel free to correct or add anything. But as I see it:

Andrew Cook has a new book coming out, its not been published yet and to my knowledge no one has read it. Although it is generally known that Andrew has discussed theories that are probably relevant to the book.

Channel Five has a new Ripper related program being screened shortly based on this book. I have it on fairly good authority that the program is set to make the claim that “Jack the Ripper’ was an invention of the press.

While this seems a fairly unremarkable claim if the program is only saying the name JtR is a press invention, which it almost certainly was, given that Swanson claims the CID new the identity of the writer. (Although I’ve already pointed out this can only be surmised as its also possible the name JtR was on the streets and in common use before the Dear Boss letter).

It might, however, be slightly more controversial if it claims that the women were not murdered by the same serial killer. Ie Jack the Ripper didn’t exist.

Personally I’ve never heard a compulsive argument that a serial killer wasn’t at work and we should be cautious of commenting on a program as yet unscreened (perhaps it should have a separate thread from the book?)

But I guess any prior information anyone has about Book and TV program is of interest.

Pirate

[Robert]

Well, the idea that Stride wasn't part of the series is quite a common one, and removing Kelly has its supporters too. If he goes further and assigns Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes each their own murderer then he's breaking new ground. Such a scenario would only appear rational if a case could be made for a conspiracy or gang.

[Rob Clack]

I wonder if Andrew Cook has read 'The killer who never was' by Peter Turnbull. I read it when it came out in 1996. And if I remember his theory correctly then Turnbull believed each murder was a copycat. Basically because the details of each murder were printed in the newspaper and so anybody could copy them. Don't hold me to any of this, it's been 13 years since I read it.

Rob

[Robert]

Blimey, it's a bit like those chain letters people get. But when it got to Kelly, no one had the stomach for it.

[Archaic]

I found this article late last night (May 3). It's from The National.com, and headline reads: "Book Claims Jack The Ripper Was A Newspaper's Bid For Sales."

Article's first lines are: (Quote) "LONDON: One of the world's most notorious serial killers did not really exist, according to the latest research."

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090503/FOREIGN/705029845/1135

Article also says "Mr Cook has uncovered a hitherto unknown account of the murders by Percy Clark, a police surgeon in Whitechapel at the time of the murders"
and "The book also says that the search for a lone killer enabled copycat murderers to get away with the crimes."

I saw some other similar articles; I'll see if I can locate them for you. -Best regards, Archaic
(PS: I've always wondered who gets to decide what constitutes "The LATEST Research"?)

[Archaic]

Here's another, from The Times Online, May 1, 2009.

Article's first line: "Jack the Ripper was a fictional creation of journalists who linked together an series of unrelated murders into one sensational killing spree to sell newspapers, a new book suggests."

[url]http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6201628.ece[/url

[Robert]

Alex Chisholm did some work in this area some years ago.

[Stephen Thomas]

The more I hear about this book the more I expect it to be a load of tosh.

What's he got?

Six or seven Jack the Rippers running around?

[Chris]

For anyone in need of a little humour, the discussion about this on jtrforums.com could scarcely be bettered:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=6365

First we have A. P. Wolf solemnly telling everyone that he is "sure" that the photo of Mary Kelly is an "extreme pornographic image" within the meaning of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which implies not only that the photo "must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", but also that anyone in the UK who even owns a copy of it is committing a criminal offence, punishable by a prison sentence of up to three years. (Heaven only knows what they'd do to Stephen Ryder for producing that high-resolution scan!)

Then we hear that A. P. has arranged a meeting with "the legal representative of the Duke of Normandy" to ask for the image to be banned from the Channel Islands - to which his full agreement is anticipated. This being only a first step to banning the image within "Her Majesty's Realms and Colonies".

Given all that, perhaps it was only to be expected that the site owner would intervene. But what's this? What is he saying? That anyone who disagrees with A. P. Wolf about this should do so "elsewhere" - because those who agree with him "are clearly in the majority" and the subject of the thread (which is entitled "Andrew Cook's new book on the Ripper") is apparently "the objections to the image on the cover of the book".

And having ruled that no one is allowed to speak a word in Andrew Cook's defence, we then have a pious little delegation lining up to invite Cook to "join in the discussion", where "we promise him a polite reception".

You couldn't make this stuff up ...

[Howard Brown]

You certainly couldn't... although having no actual life to speak of,you certainly have enough time to work on that area, I would think.

Anyway...there were a few posts which referred to individuals in our community...which includes Casebook..or any site... drooling over the Kelly photo and victim photos...I objected, had some words with the offending party which Lifeless Phillips was not privy to....and took care of it.

Stick to your own patch Phillips.