A New Ripper Book

[Christine]

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

Well, the press put Tabram and Smith in the series, which meant that the panic/press series began before the likely first serial killing.

It is highly likely that Jack was aware of the press activity and interacted with it to some extent. For example, he may have decided that it was time for a new killing because people were no longer talking about his last killing.

But that's all speculative, and there's really not enough solid material there to fill a book. And the idea that Nichols was done as an escalating copycat in hopes of getting some of the attention for himself that was being lavished on the Tabram and Smith killings, is really another case of extreme speculation about Jack's obviously very disturbed mental state.

And I agree, you really can't make a good argument that the C3 were copycats. I don't think Kelly was a copycat either, although it's nominally more likely. Neat murders like drug tampering get lots of copycats. There may have been more than one man who was capable of killing Kelly, but I rather doubt that there were two men capable of doing that to her.

[Chris]

Howard Brown

Thank you for such a prompt response!

On the one hand, obviously it's your site and the editorial policy is naturally in your hands. But on the other a policy of not allowing posts that disagree with those who "are clearly in the majority" is singularly stupid, if you don't mind my saying so.

By the way, I'm not quite sure what the "Get a life, Phillips!" tone of your post was meant to achieve. Please bear in mind that I've been insulted by people far more skilful than you. But what's interesting is the contrast between this and the rather sickly-sweet sycophancy of the emails you sent when you were first trying to persuade me to contribute to jtrforums.com (I still have them, by the way). I suppose the older one gets, the more one learns not to take anything at face value.

[Archaic]

There's a lot to ponder here... at this rate, the book will certainly end up as fodder for Oprah & all the other Daytime Talk Shows, Talk Radio, Nancy Grace, etc. (Gee - maybe that's the intention??)

That thought does seem very cynical- though not nearly as cynical as the theory that Bulling & Best deliberately hoaxed & misled the Police, promoted horrific murder, and gleefully fiddled while Whitechapel burned... In my opinion, that would make them criminals themselves.

*Has Mr. Cook responded to the furor? I'd very much like to hear what he has to say.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Lifeless:

Those missives to you in the past were sincere,since I appreciate your contributions to Ripperology. I recently asked you to join that one thread with SPE...but you told me you would prefer not to. Thats fine.

"Please bear in mind that I've been insulted by people far more skilful than you."

Yes,but not as sincerely as when I remind you to mind your own business. You didn't know what went on behind the scenes...and again,its not your business. You have a bad habit of this.

You also spelled "skillful" incorrectly....

Go to your room.

[Chris]

Oh dear. Now I've incurred Howard Brown's wrath for my Unamerican spelling. But perhaps he didn't realise I was English?

And his claims that I shouldn't have commented because I "didn't know what went on behind the scenes" don't make much sense either. I commented only on his statement that anyone who disagreed with A. P. Wolf about this should do so "elsewhere". But maybe it's my lack of proficiency in American that's the problem again - maybe on the other side of the pond "anyone" means "someone in particular" ...

But Howard Brown is right that this isn't the place for criticism of his editorial policies. (Of course, there isn't any place for that. On this site, it's none of our business. On his own site, it gets deleted.) In fact I'm doubtful whether it's even the place for amusement at A. P. Wolf's quixotic campaign to ban the Kelly photo throughout the British Empire, though in its milder forms that seems to have been the main topic of conversation so far.

[Jeff Leahy]

Dear Admin

May I point out that Chris Philips is again Trolling and attempting to high jack this thread.

It has just turned into an interesting speculative discussion about the subject of Andrew Cook’s book, possibly: “Was Jack the Ripper an invention of the press”

And we again have him responding to something off topic in an antagonistic debate about spelling and grammar…please would you remove his posts?

Pirate

[Chris]

Pirate Jack

You are really accusing me of hijacking the thread with a post about A. P. Wolf's campaign against the use of the "pornographic" Kelly image on the cover of the book - which has been the topic of most of the recent discussion? After you yourself contributed to that discussion by posting all that off-topic stuff about how often people think about sex?

If you had bothered to read the earlier messages, you would have seen that I have actually been trying to discuss the content of this book, despite the fact that A. P. and others, including you, have been more interested in talking about pornography and sex.

[Jeff Leahy]

Then perhaps instead of continually trying to judge books by their covers, you would like to comment on Andrew Cooks fourth coming book and TV program and its suggested theorizing?

Perhaps you might like to start with Christine’s interesting comments about Kelly?

Copycat or serial killer?

Pirate

[anna]

Hi all..

Kelly photo being pornographic............... now THAT has to be in the mind of males...

It is the only in-situ photo we have,the only one of Kelly,as at the moment we have no mortuary shot,like we do of the others.....

THAT is why we all view it in minute detail...

As the meercat says...................SIMPLE ???????

With regard to the series being individuals connected to make a story....as someone else has just said...so we have five Jack's or three...as we all agree three are done by the same hand.........so I should have said three Jacks...
The only people who would have benefited would have been the Social Reformers who I have been suspicious of as having a hand in it in some way,for some time.It would have aided and furthered their cause..but then they have to find someone to murder the women...I think I've hit a snag!
Oh............and put a newspaper man in there,as it would have been good for sales.
So................................back to square one,then.

[Chris]

Then perhaps instead of continually trying to judge books by their covers, you would like to comment on Andrew Cooks fourth coming book and TV program and its suggested theorizing?

I haven't made any comment whatsoever about the cover, let alone "judging the book by it". What I commented on was the ridiculous claim by A. P. Wolf that the Kelly photograph constitutes an "extreme pornographic image", which would make it illegal for anyone in the UK to possess a copy of it.

And I can only repeat that if you look earlier in the thread you will find that I posted the report from the Times and asked some questions about the content of the book. But as you can see, the thread has largely been taken over by discussion about the cover of the book, and by schoolboy humour about sex, of which you were the main contributor.

[Jeff Leahy]

“The Star was the first newspaper to link three murders in Whitechapel to a serial killer and sales soared to 232,000 a day as London became gripped by a morbid fascination with the savage crimes, in which all of the victims had their throats slashed.
Sales of the newspaper, however, fell off sharply when the Star wrongly identified a local boot maker as the killer. Within days a letter, starting “Dear Boss” and signed “Jack the Ripper”, was published in the newspaper and sales took off again.”

I cant help thinking the same question that always arises when considering the Ripper murders. Then why did they stop?

If they were indeed an invention of the press. Why stop? Why not more connected murders and more news paper sales?

Or perhaps they thought the police were on to them? the same policeman who claimed that the identity of the killer was an ascertained fact?

And they new the identity of the letter writer?

Isn’t this program just likely to be another side-line with less substance than the last channel 5 outing?

We still have three killings by Jack the Ripper at conservative estimate.

Pirate

PS stop blithering Philips and contribute. The 'cover' comment was metaphorical.

[Robert]

I don't think that Mr Cook is suggesting that the murders were actually committed by a journalist, is he?

[Jeff Leahy]

No Robert. If you check the link kindly posted by Archaic, I think the suggestion is that they were murders committed by different people and linked and hyp'ed by the press to increase news paper sales.

As I have said before the claim that JtR was a press invention could be turned on its head..Perhaps our rather unique British press was given birth to by JtR?

It doesn't look however that they have tried to dsimiss the C3 (CE, AC, PN).

Stride is a common point of argument. So I guess the most interesting claim is likely to be Kelly..thats where I was trying to move the discussion.

Was Kelly a copycat hyped by the press? It would seem to be a claim that runs against conventional wisdom on the crimes. Although there has been much recent interest in Barnett and more recently Flemming as a lone copy-cat killer.

Pirate

[Chris]

PS stop blithering Philips and contribute.

I didn't realise you had been put in charge of things here.

Anyhow, for myself I shall wait until more information emerges about Andrew Cook's book, rather than indulging in too much speculative discussion.

[Jeff Leahy]

here we go then:

http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2009/05/did_newspapers_invent_jack_the_ripper.php

Excellent Chris, those of us interested in the case can therefore get on with some fun speculation. Clearly there will be more reviews over the coming days.

I must admit that given the cover of this book (not metaphorical) that some of you seem more upset by an ‘iconic’ photo, than the wording on the cover;

‘Case Closed’

this caused such an out cry when used by Patricia Cornwall, yet this has gone largely unchallenged…hands up who thinks the case is closed?

As this book is clearly out for review surely someone has their mittens on a copy? Own up…

Pirate

PS Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...paper-war.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/jack-the-ripper-was-a-fictional-character-invented-by-journalists_100187063.html