A New Ripper Book

[Tom_Wescott]

He stresses strongly that we must read the book in order to understand his choice of MJK for the cover.

And in order to read it, we must purchase it. You buying any of this Menges?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

I can tell you that he and the publisher agreed on the cover, he believes that the cover of the book is appropriate given the content of the book (which none of us have read yet), that the photo on the cover reflects the realities of these murders and he had no intention for it to offend. In fact, Cook states that this cover (taken in conjunction with the content of the book) is a statement against offensiveness. Like Chris on the other thread, what Andrew Cook finds more offensive is the exploitation of the crimes in order to pin them on a particular innocent suspect, also the sale of board games, hundreds of people going on Ripper Walks etc..

Thanks for posting this. It had occurred to me that the use of the photograph could perhaps be defended by arguing that it reflects the reality of the crimes, and that much of the literature - by treating the whole thing as an enormous whodunit - has not reflected that reality.

[Tom_Wescott]

And yet none of this has anything to do with the cover of the book, which by using the name 'Jack the Ripper', feeds into what Cook apparently regards as the 'myth' of the lone killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Christine]

The book doesn't seem to be available anywhere; Amazon.uk says "temporarily out of stock," Amazon.com says "out of print." Other outlets I checked don't have it at all. I'm not sure what this means. It could be because Amberley Press doesn't distribute through normal channels, or something else.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

Well if anyone can get the interview, you’re the man to do it, so good luck. I think we’d all like to hear Andrew Cooks side of the argument, I will probably purchase the book, although I hold little hope that it will contain anything that convinces me that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were not killed by a single serial killer, known as Jack the Ripper.

But given his glowing recommendation I will certainly give Andrew the time of Day.

I cant quite see why if Kelly was killed by JtR or a lone copy cat it makes any difference to the use of this image on the front page of a book.

Is Andrew Cook suggesting that ‘Case Closed’ is some sort of ironic joke at theorists like Paticia Cornwall? (Whose own new book is due next year)

I’m sorry I really didn’t get any of these excuses and the comment ‘just read the book’ does seem having your cake and eating it…

If your reading this ANDREW COOK why not do an interview and tell us why we should purchase a copy?…And why you choose this cover?

Pirate

The way I see it……while we have these crack pot theories clogging up the air waves it’s very difficult to get anything sensible done.

[Tom_Wescott]

While JMenges is free to endorse Cook's actions and promote his work, I'm not quite as convinced. Andrew Cook does not need to do an interview, he merely needs to post on here like the rest of us. Think he doesn't visit the Casebook? Think again.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

'Lastly, for now, I'll inform you all that Andrew Cook donates 100% of the proceeds of his books to various charities, so he is not personally profiting from the sale of this book.'

That sort of sounds generous, JM, but the publisher will be getting 90% of the income earned, and the author 10%, if he is lucky, so will Sutton be throwing that at the disembowelled naked prostitutes fund or what?
To be honest with you JM, I find the situation even more precarious now, that a respected author is funding charities through his agreed use of an image showing a naked and brutalised woman murdered for no good reason that he can explain.
Basically Cook is dealing with an image on the cover of his new book which most decent people find indecent, and it is up to him to deal with that situation, but he plainly is not doing that. He is fluffing.
As I'm a charitable man as well, I'll make him an offer.
I will take over the publication of his new book, with a new cover, and I will split the deal at 50% each, he can give his 50% to charity, and my 50% will pay for the production and distribution of his book.
At no profit to me, but at least my soul is clean.

[anna]

Well said,Tom!

It's just an excuse,he could come on here,to explain his crackpot theory..

The guys barking mad if he thinks there was no "Jack The Ripper"..
Most of us agree on three of the victims being by the same had...if not,there would have had to have been five maniacs walking around Spitalfields,all with the same idea in mind,over the same few months...
I mean.............it's not over likely,is it.

...if he really must write a fantasy book,

Perhaps he should have tried Mills and Boon,and used the name Daphne.

[babybird67]

anna

you made me smile!

[m_w_r]

The guys barking mad if he thinks there was no "Jack The Ripper"..
Most of us agree on three of the victims being by the same had...if not,there would have had to have been five maniacs walking around Spitalfields,all with the same idea in mind,over the same few months...
I mean.............it's not over likely,is it.

Anna raises a relevant point here. In the pre-publicity article in the Times, and available via this link, Cook mentions two contemporary victim count-ups which did not dovetail with Macnaghten's total of five: one being that of Percy Clark (three victims), and the other that of Thomas Arnold (four victims). Of course, the familiarity of Macnaghten's view is always subject to critical challenge. But the fact that the various policemen's retrospective enumerations failed to tally is a fact already known - Walter Dew, for example, fancied seven, and Edmund Reid nine - so I don't see any reason to mention Clark or Arnold unless you're sticking with three as a minimum. I haven't read the book and don't know anything more about it than anyone else, but I'd be surprised if the thesis was that all the murders were by separate hands.

Just one other thing - the same article describes Clark's view as "forgotten". It was certainly remembered as recently as 2005, since it's mentioned in Nick Connell's excellent biography, Walter Dew - The Man Who Caught Crippen, in which he says, "Percy Clark was sure that one man committed three of the murders, but he 'would not like to say he did the others' (p.43).

Regards,

Mark

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes you made me laugh also Anna

Stewart Evans said at the 2007 conference, that anyone who comes up with a jtR theory and is prepared to put his head above the parapet, better be prepared to take flack. (or similar wording)

I don’t think Andrew’s decision to put his head above the parapet is being questioned. I’m a big supporter of that.

It’s the choice of book cover and why he choose the words ‘Case Closed’ that has the angry mob baying for answers.

and of course he reads casebook. However posting on a public forum is a matter of choice not requirement.

I’m sure Jonathon would give him a fair hearing where he might feel less…threatened? Intimidated? Under flack? but its his chioce.

I know I certainly wouldn’t post here

Pirate

[Robert]

I'd be surprised if Jack the Ripper didn't murder at least half a person.

[Jeff Leahy]

Unless someone comes up with a "Jack the Ripper" was a football croud theory?

Now you come to mention it

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

If Jack the Ripper was innocent, why didn't he step forward at the time and offer an aliby? Answer THAT one, Mr. Cook!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Something along the lines of "It couldn't have been me, I was someone else at the time."