A New Ripper Book

[perrymason]

"According to The Times, Dr Cook alleges that the five women considered to have been the Ripper's victims – Mary Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly – cannot have been killed by the same person."


On the above quote,.....Id say spot on. Seems like someone sees this killer in similar terms to myself.

3 could have though....without adding any new evidence.

Best regards AP, all.

[babybird67]

hi Mike



i think it comes down once again to terminology, and i would have to object to the use of "cannot have killed", which effectively says there is evidence to prove that the same killer killing all five isn't possible.

It IS possible that they were all killed by the same man, otherwise they wouldn't be known as the canonical five would they?

I'm not saying anything about the probability of there being a different killer in some cases, because i still dont really know enough, especially about signatures, MO's etc etc...i just object to the term "cannot" as it rules out the possiblity that it actually could be one killer.

hope you're enjoying the weekend

[m_w_r]

What would his defence be if he was arrested for an offence under the revised 'Obscene Publications Act'?

Well, AP, just looking at the thing from the outside, I suspect his defence would be as follows:

1) Intent: Where a publication can be considered to be 'in the interests of science, literature, art or learning', it must be examined in toto. Of course, expert evidence would have to prove the former premise, but, supposing it did so (which, in reality, it would, since Cook's book is a re-examination of data within an established field of study), then the location of the photograph in question within the text becomes irrelevant. This is not an open goal - obviously, the crucial test is that of the merit of the book.

2) Precedent: Cook is not the first to show the Kelly picture. It is available in countless other Ripper books, and here on Casebook, and doubtless elsewhere on the net as well. So why have there been no prosecutions against these sources? The reason is, of course, that Farson, Rumbelow, Casebook and the sundry other texts and sources which have already presented the photograph to the public are considered to have done so in the context of advancing learning and understanding. Where in the text they placed it is entirely immaterial. To find Cook's book guilty under the Obscene Publications Act would therefore have serious ramifications for other books and websites, none of which have been the subject of legal enquiry before. At that point, hypothetically, the issue would quickly shift from one of taste (which is where contributors to this thread seem to be, thinking the cover tasteless, although it is not, within the definition of the law, obscene), to one of censorship. Personally, I don't like looking at the Kelly photograph - I'm squeamish - but it is essentially part of a corpus of academic material, unless presented otherwise. If it were to be censored, you'd be outraged, and I'd join you on the barricades. But it never was, and won't be now, for the reasons I've outlined.

Regards,

Mark

[Archaic]

I Can't Handle This Cover

Hi, all. We've been discussing our visual responses to Mr. Cooks cover photo, but it just occurred to me that if I were holding a copy of this book and reading it, I'd basically have my left hand holding and lying across the cover... So my fingers would be lying right across the photo of Mary's poor, exposed, eviscerated corpse.

I realize it's a small psychological detail compared to the larger issues we've been discussing, but I think other people might not want to have to physically handle that photo over and over either. To be forced to do so seems repugnant and disrespectful. -Archaic

[Cap'n Jack]

Mark, excellent post, and points, I could argue with you all night long, but I've got a whisky bottle here that has serious attitude probelms and needs sorting out. It's full and I'm running on empty.

'.but it is essentially part of a corpus of academic material'

I don't believe that to be true.
Twenty years of grubby fingering of this image has produced now't but a whole load of half-arsed hype about letters or numerals carved into the victim's body, and the case has not been advanced by one jot in the use of massive blow ups of the image.
I've yet to see a single point of academic merit result from studies of these disturbing images of the death of a sound woman.
I believe that in June of this year the internet community is in for a shock where such graphic images are concerned, and to be perfectly honest with you I think that such disturbing images should only be available to view by accredited researchers within a restricted environment which prevents the further transmission of such images to a wider community.
Unlike you I do view the private parts of a murdered woman to be unsuitable for public view, in any format, and I will continue to boil hell to prevent such an outrage of a woman's common decency, especially when she has no choice in the matter, and more especially when such is being done for pure commercial gain... as is being done here.
And I will use every manner and means at my disposal.

[perrymason]

Hypothetically,.....If within the book it could be proven that Mary Kelly was in fact a Ripper victim, would that help justify the use of the image?

The thing for me is that the picture and the woman are only linked with Jack based on some opinions all these years....if the book doesnt intend to make the argument that she was a Ripper victim, then the image is unwarranted and probably used for titillation....in which case, and at the very least, its not in good taste.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

i think it comes down once again to terminology, and i would have to object to the use of "cannot have killed", which effectively says there is evidence to prove that the same killer killing all five isn't possible.

It IS possible that they were all killed by the same man, otherwise they wouldn't be known as the canonical five would they?

I'm not saying anything about the probability of there being a different killer in some cases, because i still dont really know enough, especially about signatures, MO's etc etc...i just object to the term "cannot" as it rules out the possiblity that it actually could be one killer.

hope you're enjoying the weekend

Hi BB,

I kept forgetting to respond to your post....sorry bout that. The weekend is wet but good so far, hope yours is dry and good.

The thing with "leaving the door open' is that almost anything can sneak in.....in the Canonical Group I think that would have to be Liz Stride....and whenever we assign a death to him,.....his potential profile changes. By the inclusion of Liz Stride we are to believe that the man who killed Polly and Annie would just slit a womans throat for his next kill....or get caught without sufficient time to even start to do his dirty work..... and return to his prior character 35-40 minutes later. In Liz Strides case, the medical opinion onsite as to the time of her throat cut virtually eliminates Diemshutz as an "interruption", and if he had 5 minutes alone with Liz, we should have seen 5/6ths of what was done to Kate.

But we dont. We see a single cut and an untouched woman postmortem. We see a long skirt still covering her legs...we see her on her side, and she appears to have died where she fell by bleeding to death.

She should'nt be skewing Jacks profile, IMHO.

Best regards baby bird....cheers.

[Christine]

Well Cap'n, if the pictures hadn't been available for all to see, then we wouldn't know that there was nothing in them to advance the case.

One of the reasons I think that the Ripper continues to intrigue is that there were so many things that the officials did wrong that they could have done right--things that they had the technology for, but simply didn't know to do yet, like fingerprints, and more and better photographs, and fiber samples. So the belief that there ought to be something that the police just missed is extremely strong, and poor MJK really does look like she might have something more to tell us.

[Chris]

... to be perfectly honest with you I think that such disturbing images should only be available to view by accredited researchers within a restricted environment which prevents the further transmission of such images to a wider community.

So you think members of the public should not be allowed to see the Kelly photograph, unless they can get themselves "accredited" as Ripper researchers? And, presumably, they should not be allowed to see copies of any of the books in which that photograph has been published over the last four decades or so.

Perhaps you can tell us whether you think we should be allowed to retain our copies of those books, or whether we should be compelled to give them up so that they can be destroyed. Perhaps you have in mind a mass book-burning ceremony?

And I'm curious about one other thing. During the period of nearly 40 years since that photo first appeared in Farson's book, have you ever called for its publication to be banned before? If not, why are you doing so now?

[Khanada]

Hi, all. We've been discussing our visual responses to Mr. Cooks cover photo, but it just occurred to me that if I were holding a copy of this book and reading it, I'd basically have my left hand holding and lying across the cover... So my fingers would be lying right across the photo of Mary's poor, exposed, eviscerated corpse.

I realize it's a small psychological detail compared to the larger issues we've been discussing, but I think other people might not want to have to physically handle that photo over and over either. To be forced to do so seems repugnant and disrespectful. -Archaic

I do see your point, but I've never felt that way.

It's not that I "enjoy" seeing the photo, because I don't. But the primary thing I feel when I see it, after the initial holycrapthereitisagain jolt, is just sheer sadness. I'm simply sad for her. And so, I don't feel bothered touching the photo. (Which doesn't change the fact that, when this book does come out, and I inevitably buy a copy, I'll have to create a plain brown wrapper for it if I expect to read it anywhere but in my own home, lest I freak out the populace.)

(If it makes you feel better, or at least commiserated with, I feel similarly to you if I find myself accidentally touching a photo of a spider. Mary Jane Kelly does not inspire revulsion, but spiders sure do, for me.)

[Jeff Leahy]

So you think members of the public should not be allowed to see the Kelly photograph, unless they can get themselves "accredited" as Ripper researchers? And, presumably, they should not be allowed to see copies of any of the books in which that photograph has been published over the last four decades or so.

Perhaps you can tell us whether you think we should be allowed to retain our copies of those books, or whether we should be compelled to give them up so that they can be destroyed. Perhaps you have in mind a mass book-burning ceremony?

And I'm curious about one other thing. During the period of nearly 40 years since that photo first appeared in Farson's book, have you ever called for its publication to be banned before? If not, why are you doing so now?

Yes I must agree with Chris on this. Its one thing saying that as a cover Andrew Cooks book is in bad taste and expliotative, quite another suggesting the whole-sale ban. As long as the image sits in context then I think it important for the public to know this was a real killer who committed terrible crimes against inocent people.

While I'd agree that he Kelly photo is probably the most shocking ever taken, there are many history books that cover equally shocking stories with highly disturbing images..I think in particular of photos from trenches in the First World War, decaying bodies, and in particular the second world war concentration camps...Is schindlers List pornagraphic? I think not, its a message people must know and be faced with.

Pirate

[sushka]

Let's be frank. This book is likely to have limited appeal. It is likely that the publisher has made the decision to put this image on the cover in the hope that its shock value will provoke some attention. The attention that Cap'n seems hell bent on giving it. A better course is to ignore it. Think of all the religious nuts who protest certain films, only to see their actions increase the film's promotion.

I think the cover decision is wrong, but restricting access to this photo is not only unnecessary, but more obviously wholly impractical. There are horrible photographs available to those who seek them. In the scheme of things this photo, whilst shocking when you understand the background, is quite tame compared to the photographs and videos now available over the WWW. Censorship has never worked, ever.

Ciao

Sushka

[babybird67]

i had two main concerns regarding the use of this as a cover...

one was that children may come across it if the book is promoted in bookshops, and, over here in the UK, supermarkets have a large slice of the book market, in which case, parents and their young children may come across it without being prepared for it.

The second concern, was really for MJK, in that as she had been used as a commodity within her own lifetime, she was now being used once again for that purpose.

I have to say though, i have changed my mind a little from my original stance, and that is purely from reading the for/against arguments on here and talking to people and asking what they think.

MJK has sadly been long dead and to anyone's knowledge there is no family currently alive that could be upset by the use of the photo. The photo has been used many times in many books, so its not an issue of the photo just suddenly being put out there and suddenly causing offence.

It's an incredibly sad photograph to look at, and I only wish we had a photo of Mary in life that could have been put on the cover so we could remember her as a living human being, rather than as a mutilated corpse, but at present we do not.

The photo itself is unique in its status, as i think Anna has pointed out, as being the only one where the victim has been photographed in situ as it were, giving a singular insight into the crime and the criminal's behaviour. It's an extremely important photograph for those reasons, and the arguments in favour of censorship, such as limiting its availability to accredited Ripperologists is just not viable; that certainly would raise the question of how you would become an accredited Ripperologist when your access to primary material in the case (which, let's face it, is limited anyway) is being limited by censorship: this would give rise to a farcical situation where you could not become accredited until well-read/well informed on the case, and you could not become well-read/well informed on the case because your access to the material that would allow you to be so, has been arbitrarily restricted. I don't think anyone really wants that.

Personally, i find the mortuary photographs of Catherine Eddowes much more shocking than the MJK one. Obviously not because MJK was less mutilated, but because the photo of MJK is very difficult to look at in the first place, and when you do look, there has been so much damage that perhaps the killer has achieved his primary object in completely dehumanising his victim. In Catherine's photos, you can see her, and her humanity, and what has been done to her much more clearly, and for this reason i think her photos, to me anyway, are much more shocking and disturbing.

Presumably the cover of this book will not have a bare photograph; at present i am imagining it over the face of the book, but overlaid on that will surely be the title, author's name, perhaps some reviews etc etc. The photo will therefore be obscured to some extent, and seeing as it is already very difficult to distinguish exactly what it is a photograph of, this will make it much more difficult, thus lessening my worries of children coming across it.

So there we are. Personally i wouldn't have chosen it for a cover. But, and this shows it can be done, i have changed my mind on it from talking about the issue with others and reading the views on here. My only remaining beef would be that it is not stocked in supermarkets where people can come across it whilst family shopping, but in bookshops i think it would be fine.

[Cap'n Jack]

I struggle to understand the concept of some of the seemingly fair comments that have been expressed here in regard to this image, perhaps because I still have the imagination and talent of a small child through my semi-autistic interpretation of the world I live in.
If you like this reinforces such images that may appear to you to be mildly frightening, but for me the same image would be horrific in the extreme, in other words it would give me nightmares, and play on my mind constantly during the day, causing me anxiety, effecting my relationships with fellow humans, causing me to flinch at any movement from them, eventually percolating down to my very soul and perhaps causing lasting damage in my ability to respond correctly to the social signals that others send me. There exists a very true possibility that I might, or could, damage another member of society if I was exposed to an image just like this over a long period of time, because as I strive to understand the image my childish imagination and talent will accept the fact that adults are actually showing me this image in the free spirit of approval, and at the same time they are not sending me to bed to prevent me from seeing the image, they are not hiding the book to prevent me from seeing the image.
I see tins of beans, packets of cereals, rows of chocolates, and then I see a woman chopped to pieces with all her naughty bits cut away and I am left, as a child in the dark alleyways of a Tesco store, bewildered, confused and very much alone with my imagination, and talent.

[babybird67]

hi Cap'n Jack

i honestly don't think Tesco's will stock it. There would probably be too many complaints. I think it will be marketed responsibly, and i dont think the image is "obvious" enough to cause nightmares from a fleeting glimpse.