A New Ripper Book

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176040/Jack-Ripper-invented-win-tabloid-newspaper-war.html

http://jtrandme.blogspot.com/2009/05/author-believes-ripper-crimes-committed.html

http://blog.taragana.com/n/jack-the-ripper-was-a-fictional-character-invented-by-journalists-47446/

Just to prove that I'm not making this up, heres todays finds including the Daily Mail.

I dont know who this publicist is? but someone get his/her phone number

[caz]

HI Caz

Firstly, let me say once again, i would not have chosen this photograph myself for the cover of a book; i don't think it is a wise choice however i do believe obscuring it with details of title, author etc etc as it most probably will be, mitigates my own concerns of it being seen by anyone "vulnerable" if you like.

All book covers usually have details of author, title and usually some sort of review by someone in the field or a newspaper reviewer, so to ask

Quote:
"how much point there is if it’s going to be obscured anyway?"


could apply to every other book packaged and marketed in the world...what is the point of having any cover if it is going to be obscured by details of who has produced the books etc? Perhaps covering books in brown paper would eliminate this issue, otherwise it's a moot point i think.

Not really sure of your example of smacking a child being particularly relevant either, to be honest.

I think some of the comments that have been expressed about how only a certain privileged few should be able to view the photograph because they must (by implication) be incapable of corruption, whilst the rest of us are deemed unsuitable to behold it, smacks more of a well-intentioned but misguided parent, to be honest.

tc

Hi bb,

What I meant was that if this particularly strong photo was chosen specifically to hit the casual W.H.Smith browser between the eyes with the promise of an equally strong lesson about the causes of such bodily destruction (which could go some way towards justifying its use on the cover, if the lesson inside is instructive and doesn't dump the reader back in the dark ages) then it will be better if everyone concerned just comes out and says so, and doesn't take the line that it can't hurt because anyone not already familiar with the image won’t recognise it as a mutilated female corpse anyway, especially by the time it's covered with a lot of words.

In short, you don't choose a photo like that one for your book cover 'unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly' unless you are a complete twit, nor 'to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding' unless you are four and twenty twits rolled into one. So assuming it's a choice you would only arrive at in good faith, for reasons you believe in, what would be the point of toning it down to a level where the wider market it is aimed at has no clue what is being aimed at them or why? That's what I was getting at.

Your final paragraph, just for the record, doesn’t refer to any comment I have posted.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the links.

The line being pushed by the MailOnline, last updated on May 1st, is that:

'Dr Cook says streetwalkers Mary Nichols, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Kelly, Elizabeth Stride and Annie Chapman were killed by different men, as were the six other Whitechapel victims often added to the Ripper's toll.'

I suspect liberties are being taken here and Dr Cook may not have meant that the women were each killed by different men, but merely that the five named victims were not all killed by the same man, but by at least three different killers.

But I still say that Mary’s killer did a zillion times more genuine ‘inflating’ of the ripper story (almost certainly his own story) than can be laid at the door of the press, using a pair of wheezy old bellows to apply artificial respiration to an otherwise dull, dull, incredibly dull ripping yarn.

One view is that Mary’s photo provides a tangible warning to everyone - male and female - not to make themselves vulnerable to potentially predatory strangers. Serial killers can’t operate if they can never get you on your own.

At the other extreme would come the frankly dotty advice to women to “Know your place” - because if you put a foot wrong the man in your life, whoever he is, only needs the right sort of encouragement from his daily paper and he’ll turn into a one-off human mincing machine.

I might give the ‘different men’ theory more credence if there is evidence of the Whitechapel victims being subjected to physical abuse from partners or male associates known to have violent tendencies in the run up to the main events.

I just hope for Cook's sake that every man jack of them (ha ha) is not supposed to have been under the thumb and suffering in resentful silence until a Star man crept up behind him and fired a starting pistol in his ear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

Without seeing the actually press release whether Andrew Cooks theory is going to claim all the victims were by different people or only three were committed by one person, is hard to work out. They are very different positions.

Its possible some stories are simply miss quoting what they have borrowed from other stories. Or the original release might just have been deliberately vague.

I'm hoping Jonathon will be able to clarify the situation fairly soon.

Pirate

[caz]

Hi Jeff,

Two very different positions indeed.

One is a non-starter; t'other a highly speculative non-story, as far as I can see.

And still we have Mary screaming from the rooftops that hers is one story in the whole horrible history of the world that no newspaper could have artificially inflated. Had the photo appeared in the Star at the time, Mary would have done a cracking inflating job for them.

And still she works for her supper...

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

Its possible some stories are simply miss quoting what they have borrowed from other stories.

Sounds just like the press reporting back then in 1888.

Chris

[Gideon Fell]

The judge and jury, my dear bird, are the police, from whom the image was stolen from in the first place.
I think that theft should be discussed before we dissect a dissected murder victim.
This image should never have come into the public domain.

Theft; a serious charge indeed. Who is the thief?

[Cap'n Jack]

Although the US postal laws on obscene material are in a state of some flux at the moment, the basic rule on such still applies, that they will not carry or distribute material that they consider 'obscene, lewd or lascivious', so I shall be writing to the US postmaster general to alert him to the fact that Amazon may well be distributing this image through his service.
In addition to that I was interested to find the following law in regard to images distributed through the UK postal system which show:

'scenes of actual violence or
mutilation shown in an exploitative
context where they are not part of a
legitimate documentary. For example
a compilation of newsreel footage
concentrating solely on scenes of
violence or mutilation.'

So I shall also be writing to the post office directorship, and Her Majesty's Customs to alert them to this graphic image showing a severe degree of mutilation.

[Tom_Wescott]

Has it yet been determined if Andrew Cook's book contains a single original thought, idea, observation, or piece of evidence? So far I haven't seen any.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

A. P.

But if those regulations prohibited Andrew Cook's book, they would also prohibit many of the other Ripper books on the market, and even copies of the Casebook DVD edition.

The longer you go on like this, the more it looks as though you're engaged in a personal vendetta against Andrew Cook, rather than expressing genuine concern about the use of the Kelly photograph.

[Jeff Leahy]

At present, what we have is speculation based on the press release.

However if you read those releases they seem to imply that Andrew Cook has proved a guy called Best, did write the Dear Boss letter..

So if proved this would be NEW, if not completely unexpected..

What do you think AP..could he have proof?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

First, he'd have to prove that Best existed, that his Best did in fact work for the Star at the time, and that Best wrote the Dear Boss letter. That's a heavy order. At best (pardon the pun) he may have proved that there was a reporter named Best. I would love to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey dont shoot the messenger..you asked what the big discovery was and I'm speculating on (lets say rumour) that this is where this documentary goes...hand writing analysis? (we love that)

I do not know for sure...I'm speculating..

Pirate

Come on Jonathon spill the beans

PS in an earlier post I repeated the A to Z entry on Best. Detail Post 236.

[babybird67]

HI Caz

What I meant was that if this particularly strong photo was chosen specifically to hit the casual W.H.Smith browser between the eyes with the promise of an equally strong lesson about the causes of such bodily destruction (which could go some way towards justifying its use on the cover, if the lesson inside is instructive and doesn't dump the reader back in the dark ages) then it will be better if everyone concerned just comes out and says so, and doesn't take the line that it can't hurt because anyone not already familiar with the image won’t recognise it as a mutilated female corpse anyway, especially by the time it's covered with a lot of words.

hmmmm....i dont see how we can ascertain the justification of the choice of cover until we have read the contents, or perhaps spoken to Mr Cook, or had his rationale for the cover relayed to us by JM. I doubt very much it was chosen for the bizarre intention which Cap'n Jack seems intent on claiming, which seems to be some weird perverted type of titilation, which i really do not comprehend.

Now i know we innocents of the female fairer sex aren't really supposed to either know about, or enjoy, pornography , but I've looked at a little bit, purely for research purposes of course, and not a single bit of it has taken the image of a flesh-stripped murder victim of over a hundred years old...maybe i just haven't been looking at the right magazines!

In short, you don't choose a photo like that one for your book cover 'unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly' unless you are a complete twit, nor 'to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding' unless you are four and twenty twits rolled into one.

There's that terminology again. What on earth has the MJK photograph got to do with carnal lusts and appetites? And why specifically only male carnal lusts and appetites...don't females have any? Are females allowed to view said photograph with it being a given that they are not possibly capable of doing so with some kind of inappropriate sexual desire?

Maybe this discussion should be expunged of the inappropriate terminology such as titilation, masturbation, pornography etc...or maybe it can be pointed out to teenagers so that we could have the pleasure of confusing them a little...well, if "this" is pornography, what's that stuff i have under my bed?

So assuming it's a choice you would only arrive at in good faith, for reasons you believe in, what would be the point of toning it down to a level where the wider market it is aimed at has no clue what is being aimed at them or why? That's what I was getting at.

I don't think i mentioned any deliberate toning down. I just mentioned that as per every other published work, the cover isn't solely a photograph, but will be overlaid with things like title, author, maybe a couple of bitesize review-type comments. That's not toning down something due to public demand...it's just a fact that books need to have the information on the outside as to author, publisher, title etc.

Your final paragraph, just for the record, doesn’t refer to any comment I have posted.

It was merely extending the metaphor of parents misguidedly smacking their children, to include parents misguidedly censoring their children's access to something.

tc Caz


General comment: language about sex/pornography/masturbation etc is completely and utterly inappropriate in a case of this kind. I see absolutely no connection, indeed it is rather a worry that some people can.

[Jeff Leahy]

HI Caz
General comment: language about sex/pornography/masturbation etc is completely and utterly inappropriate in a case of this kind. I see absolutely no connection, indeed it is rather a worry that some people can.

Almost every seven seconds apparently But then were off topic again

Pirate

[m_w_r]

Hey dont shoot the messenger..you asked what the big discovery was and I'm speculating on (lets say rumour) that this is where this documentary goes...hand writing analysis? (we love that)

I do not know for sure...I'm speculating..

Jeff,

The Daily Mail article you posted a link to (about six and a half hours ago, in post 286) explicitly states that Cook has used handwriting analysis to link Best and the letter. I for one would be astonished if the tied-in documentary did not reflect this.

So you're not really speculating, unless you didn't read the content of the links you posted.

Of course the outcomes of the analysis bear further scrutiny when more details are known.

Regards,

Mark