A New Ripper Book

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi - I know at least one person with a copy of the book, which is why I know that Mr Cook is in a lot of trouble.

PHILIP

Your comments are cryptic, but you're clearly not happy with Cook. Does this have something to do with your Dutfield's Yard photo?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I thought I would stay out of this until I at least saw a copy of the book, which I received today.

I'm not a document or handwriting expert, and Cook states that more than one was used in the upcoming documentary, but at first blush it doesn't appear to me that Frederick Best's handwriting matches that of the Dear Boss letter. There are some similarities but those might be attributed to the Victorian way of learning how to write in a "style." To be honest, I thought the poet Francis Joseph Thompson's handwriting to be the closest match I have ever seen (not that I'm backing Thompson as the Ripper).

I also note that Cook does not claim to have discovered the interview with Dr. Percy Clark found in the East London Observer, 14 May, 1910. Although there are no footnotes to tell us where he found the article it seems likely that he got it from Stewart Evans and Nick Connell's The Man Who Hunted the Ripper (which is listed in the 5 page bibliography).

Wolf.

[m_w_r]

A journalist with too much time
Wrote Jack into the book of crime.
But Andrew Cook, he took his pen,
And wrote the fellow out again.

[caz]

Later on in Miller's Court
Mary's beau, quite overwrought,
Took grim revenge and burned a hat
And Diddles cried: "You copycat!"

A Crock, 2009

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

so 'e come up wif a cover
that you wouldn't show your muffer

'nuff said
'e's brown bread.

[caz]

In '88 a crafty hack
Made up a fiend and named him Jack.
His crime scenes still cause hell today
I wish that Jack would go away.

A. Cook, May 2009

----------------------------

The other day a tuppenny hack
Passed on a threat from Saucy Jack.
He'll rip another one today
Cause "Nothing" can't wish Jack away.

'Night old Cook, Sept 30 1888

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

I was wondering whether the following might have inspired and influenced Mr Cook's 'new' book:

'Casting the Spell of Terror: the Press and the Early Whitechapel Murders.
Oldridge, Darren (2007) Casting the Spell of Terror: the Press and the Early Whitechapel Murders. In: Jack the Ripper : Media, Culture, History. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 46-55. ISBN 9780719074936

Full text not available from this repository.



Official URL: http://www.manchesteruniversitypress...ok.asp?id=1079

I think that there is a fallacy in some of the logic being used here.......in that historical documents of any kind can and should be censored when being used to promote something publicly.

My whole issue with publishing any victim image from the "alleged" Ripper crimes is that it is basically using images of people and linking them with a killer without hard evidence. And thereby exposing their lives to scrutiny and opinion forever. Not one of the Canonical's is known to have been killed by the fella Dear Boss suggests is Jack the Ripper, therefore none of them are technically his victims in the first place. Their image is not associated with a trial and verdict,....its a purely speculative link. They are murdered women from unsolved crimes, not the Rippers tally.

Thats the offense....not just using the image....that anyone can use that image as a promotion for Ripper information of any kind. Mary Kelly was not murdered by Jack the Ripper, she was murdered, and that crime is still unsolved. In which case the evidence should never have been made public.

So many people are disparaged by their association with these horrible crimes, from "suspects" and their families to victims families.

Best regards all.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Wednesday

I gather that there is very little information for and against which victims were or were not ripper victims. I would be interested in your view on this?

Pirate

[The Wednesday]

Er... it's a book.

Read it. The cover is immaterial - no pun intended.

[Archaic]

Philip, don't tell me YOU took the cover photo?

I know you get around- and your reputation as a Photographer & Historian precedes you...hmmmm...

Best regards, Archaic

[George Hutchinson]

Hi - I know at least one person with a copy of the book, which is why I know that Mr Cook is in a lot of trouble.

PHILIP

[Archaic]

Copy-Cat Killings As Social Phenomena?

It occurred to me that if a belief in the social phenomena of ''Copy-Cat Killings & Mutilations'' is in any way connected the thesis of the book, it renders the cover photo even more objectionable. If one feels that Copy-Cat Violence on the scale of the Ripper Murders was a reality 120 years ago, what might be the implications for today?

I think the real danger to society is the Mass Desensitization To Images of Violence and Cruelty. Think how scary our society would be if no one complained or even blinked at book covers like the one we are discussing. What if such images become so common that we stop 'seeing' them? Of course, I do not think this was Mr. Cook's aim in any way when he chose the cover. But I can't help wondering if in 5 or 10 years the photo of Mary Kelly's ravaged body might become a sort of 'celebrity wall-poster' that disaffected teenagers hang in their bedrooms.

However, I feel I should add that I have NOT read the book (which hasn't even been released yet), so I honestly don't know if 'Copy-Cat Killings' are actually presented as the essential phenomena behind the Ripper Crimes. I couldn't quite make this out from the recent interview, either. I just know how I feel about what's on the cover.
-Best regards, Archaic

[caz]

Hi JM,
Then do you think he chose the image to use on the cover for sensationalist reasons ?

Hi Nats,

I don't think it matters either way because it's something that can't be proved or denied. It's enough that many potential readers will assume it was for sensationalist reasons, so anyone choosing that image would have to be rather dim not to appreciate that, or they simply couldn't give a damn.

Isn't putting the "most shocking" photo on the cover kind of like printing a synopsis of the ending of a movie on the DVD box?

Hi Brenda,

I likened it elsewhere to ‘putting one’s “best” goods in the shop window’.

It’s a carve-up, isn’t it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Brenda]

If you look at it from a totally dispassionate business sense point of view, the cover choice makes even less sense. Most people agree that the MJK photo is the "most shocking", and the climax of the evil that the Ripper was capable of. If you're going to use photos at all, wouldn't it make better business sense to have it inside the book, where you can demonstrate through photo progression exactly how the whole Whitechapel mess spiraled out of control - and culminating in the sad and brutal murder of MJK? Isn't putting the "most shocking" photo on the cover kind of like printing a synopsis of the ending of a movie on the DVD box? The way it stands, you've possibly shocked your reader into not actually reading the book at all, or not paying attention to what they do read. They might just want to get to the part where they can find out what happened to the woman on the cover.