A New Ripper Book

[John Bennett]

Tis a pity that yet another thread turns into a row.

I'm sure Mr. Cook's book will be judged on its own merits once people have read what's in it.

However, whereas I'm sure many agree that the decision to put the MJK photo on the COVER of the book is wrong, I am not sure it could be classed as pornography if the definition of that word means to cause 'sexual arousal'. It's certainly something, but whether 'pornography' is the right term is another matter.

Regarding AP Wolf's campaign to have the image banned throughout the Kingdom (apparently), it's a little like closing the door after the horse has bolted, seeing as it has been published countless times since 1972, however all power to him. Unfortunately, AP also falls back on his other obsessions, such as earning the 'Yankee Dollar', taking pops at those he considers to be 'Rippersaurs' and also indiscriminately describing 'authors' and 'researchers' as purveyors of pornography.

Whatever the book is like inside, that image should not be on the cover. I just fear that AP's moral stance on the issue, which in my opinion is totally justified, is now part of some seemingly long-standing desire on his part to save 'Ripperology' from itself.

I support AP's forthrightness in this matter, but just wish he wouldn't use his actions as yet another excuse to belittle others in the field.

[Jeff Leahy]

And the claim 'Caseclosed' ?

[John Bennett]

'Case closed?'

Oh, obviously that's the usual 'solved at last' stuff Ripper books are often saddled with and should be considered with a pinch of salt.

[Jeff Leahy]

So poor old Patsy gets hounded into removing the claim on her next book (correctly so) but its OK for Andrew Cook and Channel 5 to miss lead the public?

Pirate

[John Bennett]

So poor old Patsy gets hounded into removing the claim on her next book (correctly so) but its OK for Andrew Cook and Channel 5 to miss lead the public?

Pirate

Personally speaking, I take 'case closed' claims with that proverbial pinch of salt. And personally speaking, I could not get all worked up about it enough to blast Cornwell, Cook or Channel 5 for using it.

Dozens of books have made similar claims only using different words. I happen to have Bruce Paley's book here in front of me and it says on the back cover that he "has finally uncovered the real face behind the chilling murders of Jack the Ripper". I don't think he has. I don't think anybody has, but I wouldn't feel the need to blast anybody for claiming they had.

I'm sure Mr. Cook hasn't solved the case, whatever his theory may be. But he could have had a different cover!

JB

[anna]

ANYONE placing CASE CLOSED on their book,are showing a distince lack of intelligence....

Talking of which....

Has it not occurred to any males agreeing with AP's view of the Kelly image, that if it needed to be objected to,not to be viewed or grace the cover of a book us girls would have done what girls do best,and SCREAMED VERY LOUDLY..........but we didn't.


hmmm..there could be a clue there...

[Jeff Leahy]

Certainly no claim could be laid at your door John, however there are those who were throthing at the mouth about this very claim made by Patsy, not so long ago. Voices that seem strangely quiet now.

Personally I have know problem with the use of this image, I have and would use it myself (hopefully in the right context however). Clearly I understand a little about viewing figures and the need to shock and grab audience attention. (As long as that audience is also informed, educated and entertained)

I am fairly annoyed about another farcical channel 5-champain claiming that they have a program that finally solves the Jack the Ripper murder mystery. Especially in view of there last program that provided us with a photo fit of Freddy Mercury, a poorly thought out profile analysis and DNA tests carried out on a Shawl they must have known was fake?

It’s worse than poor documentary journalism, it’s fundamentally dishonest.

Pirate

[Chris]

I commented only on his statement that anyone who disagreed with A. P. Wolf about this should do so "elsewhere".

To be fair to Howard Brown, he has now acknowledged that he "phrased the post incorrectly", and has said people can speak their minds.

[John Bennett]

Anna -

Interesting point. Considering the furore by women's groups over the naming of the 'Jack the Ripper' pub in the 1980s, it is surprising how many women are honestly interested in the case. Most of my tour bookings are made by women too.

But I fear I'm drifting off-topic.

Pirate Jack -

I have no problem with the 'standard' use of the image either (if it is inside a JTR book, for it is published in context). Putting it on the cover of a book pushes it into the domain of people who have not made a choice to investigate the contents and obviously the reality of that image is unpleasant and disturbing. It does smack of sensationalist marketing in its most tasteless and shallow form.

I think that perhaps the theme of how JTR is marketed deserves a separate thread. Anybody agree?

[Christine]

I'd guess the supposed reason the killings stopped is that the press and all the copycatters lost interest. Think about this though. Joe Barnett or Hutch is thinking "Well, it was fun killing MJK and I got my revenge on her. But I don't think I'll ever eviscerate a corpse again now that the press coverage is dropping!"

It's a highly unlikely mental state.

[Jeff Leahy]

I must agree with you totally Christine. I have studied this photo and the autopsy reports for some time, and the only conclusion must be that this was an act of a person not fully in control of their mental faculties.

There is no other example of a domestic killing, stretching to such lengths and depravity to disguise themselves as a copy Cat. None.

Which sought of rules Barnett out for me. Of course the recent discussions about Flemings mental condition is more interesting but as far as I'm aware this particular avenue of investigation was over looked by the program.

I think it reasonable to question this programs claims given that most authorititive opinion, that can be gained on the subject, at least places Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman and Nicol's as Victims of a single serial killer we refer to as Jack the Ripper.

Besides I thought it was the Guy at the Central News Agency not the Star, that wrote the Dear Boss?

Pirate

[Robert]

Jeff, I think that Kelly was a Ripper victim - but I'm not an authority! Stewart Evans is an authority, and he's by no means convinced.

Re the copycat theory on Kelly, again I think the Ripper killed Kelly. However Glenn Anderson is adamant that there have been similar, and even worse, copycat or domestic killings. I don't know any examples because I'm only interested in JTR.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, it will be most interesting to see on what grounds Kelly is dismissed as a JtR victim.....the same old indoors aguement never fails to amuse.

Perhaps to young? seen alive that morning? or perhaps it was Diddles the Cat after all?

Pirate

[Chris]

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".

A quick update - the court official told A. P. that the bailiff of Jersey didn't, after all, have any authority over material in books, and advised him instead to contact the book stores and ask them not to display the image. Actually, this sounds to me like a sensible way of proceeding, which might have some measure of success.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes i can see the publicity people at channel 5 rubbing there hands in glee and praying that he is successful as we speak. What a great story that will make.

Pirate