A New Ripper Book

[auspirograph]

I wouldn't pay any attention to anything coming from that site. Tom Wescott

Tom,

I appreciate that Dan Norder is reluctant in showing his face around these parts due to the money owed to authors but allowing him to use your Casebook account is a little over the top.

You appear to have strayed somewhat from the topic of this thread, which is, Andrew Cook's new book, and for which I expressed an opinion.

It was Ben's disagreement on the actress Keira Knightly which I found rather more acute than anything you may have to say. And I doubt you could pay attention to anything as the site is a free resource, the choice is there.

But that's the beauty of having democracy, Andrew Cook's book has demonstrated that despite a few 'experts' wishing to penetrate the vox populi with their own delusions of grandeur.

Like most reasonable people reading this thread, I'm also prepared to wait for Jonathan to pass on any further details on this long awaited book, or even better, to actually read it before forming half-baked speculations.

[Tom_Wescott]

I appreciate that Dan Norder is reluctant in showing his face around these parts due to the money owed to authors but allowing him to use your Casebook account is a little over the top.

Play nice, or I'll recommend your site to Pirate Jack.

Since none of us HAVE read the book, and can only comment on press blurbs, it's not surprising that most of the discussion has centered around the retarded cover he posted on Amazon. While I don't personally agree that the Mary Kelly image is 'pornography', you'll notice I haven't been challenging AP much on this issue. That's because I agree that the cover should be changed. Not just for reasons of decency, but because his book will represent our field to a good number of people, and it's clearly a poor representation of us.

Also, the idea that no two Ripper victims were killed by the same man is just plain silly. So, we haven't seen anything new or impressive in the work as of yet. However, because Cook enjoys a decent reputation for his previous work, I'm keeping an open mind that his Ripper book might contain something of merit.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Play nice, or I'll recommend your site to Pirate Jack.
Tom Wescott

My my we are a sore loser tonight

[Tom_Wescott]

You're right, even jesting that's a horrible fate to wish on any webmaster. Sorry, Spiro.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r1f4f6Aj-Q&feature=related

see you jimmy

[Cap'n Jack]

I noted today that both Gatwick and Heathrow airport security staff are confiscating books of boarding passengers if they depict a weapon on the front cover, such as a gun or a bomb.
I do wonder what they will do when they view the disembowelled remains of a human being on this cover?

[Tom_Wescott]

That probably won't happen, because I doubt a book with such a cover would sell very well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bailey]

I noted today that both Gatwick and Heathrow airport security staff are confiscating books of boarding passengers if they depict a weapon on the front cover, such as a gun or a bomb.

Surely someone's taking the mickey there? That is simply too moronic a concept to be true...

B.

[Cap'n Jack]

I just found it interesting, Tom, that folks in authority were now beginning to view the covers of books as either an incitement or encouragement to do harm to others, rather than just a cover.
It sort of sends a chilling message to those who would abuse the power of good and common decency to make a fast buck.

[Sam Flynn]

I noted today that both Gatwick and Heathrow airport security staff are confiscating books of boarding passengers if they depict a weapon on the front cover, such as a gun or a bomb.
I do wonder what they will do when they view the disembowelled remains of a human being on this cover?

... or anyone disembarking from Cancun clutching the paperback edition of Animal Farm.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sam, you crack me up!

AP,

I must say that what scares me is us turning to government for everything. I do not want to see the day when I can't read a book with a weapon (or whatever authority perceives as weaponry!) on the cover. Mainstream books with covers like Cook's are thankfully rare, and not because of the government, but because society as a whole doesn't want to see it. I think the best watchdog we can have is ourselves.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Pigs can fly, Sam.
You know that the publishers attempted to persuade Orwell to change the pigs into less 'offensive' animals, and if they had their way it would have been 'two legs good, four legs bad'.
But Orwell stuck to his guns and made his pigs fly, even after four publishers turned him down.
What a brave new world it was then; and what a tacky and vicious world have we built now... just throw a gutted whore on the cover, that'll sell.

[Archaic]

Words To Live By

Just Remember: EVERYTHING NOT COMPULSORY IS FORBIDDEN and you'll be fine.

(State Motto of North Korea or something)
-Archaic

[jmenges]

I'll be conducting my interview with Andrew Cook at 10am Pacific Time, 6pm UK, tomorrow (Saturday). I will be recording the interview to either transcribe the event for accuracy or, if Mr. Cook agrees, I'll upload the audio into the podcast stream so those interested can stream it from this site. I hope for the later, if only to save me some typing. Either way, I'll post an update with the interview details tomorrow.

In the meantime, send in your questions.

Thanks,

JM

[Archaic]

Questions For Mr. Cook re: 'Penny-A-Liners' & Motives

Hi, Jonathan. I have a few more questions for Mr. Cook, so I hope I haven't already exceeded my allowance! My questions regard Journalistic Profits & Motives.

I've been considering the implications of the theory that certain London Newspaper Journalists not only 'hyped' their coverage of the Whitechapel Murders in order to sell more newspapers, but that they in fact knowingly crossed the line into highly unethical & potentially criminal acts by deliberately sending Hoax Letters to the Police purporting to be from the Murderer. As we know, these Letters contained a variety of threats against members of Law Enforcement, the general Public, & specific Individuals. In short, they evince a strong desire to mock, divert & confuse the Investigation while terrorizing the populace.

As I understand it, those who hold to this theory believe it was done for commercial gain via the increased sale of Newspapers.

We all know the phrase ''Penny-A-Liner'', commonly used as a derogatory term to describe a Journalist reduced to churning out 'volume' at the expense of 'content'. >> But were the Journalists in question really paid that way, by the Line? Or were they paid by the Page, the Paragraph, the Word, or the Story? Did they make a decent living?

>>Were the News-writers in question on some type of special Commission whereby they could reasonably expect to make a significant amount of extra Income if their Papers sold well?

How much more money are we talking? Enough to inspire some writers to sell their own souls by sending the Police false & deliberately deceitful 'information' in the midst of an ongoing series of horrible Murders?? (Especially if they ever once believed for a single moment that even one of the Murders might be a 'Copy-Cat' Killing inspired by their own creative efforts?)

I'm sincerely trying to understand this, but it seems to me that unless the Writers were both utterly depraved and upon some kind of enormous Sales-related Commission that: 1.) Only the Newspaper's OWNER could realistically be expected to 'get rich' through a spike in sales AND 2.) If any Journalists were so colossally selfish & foolish as to knowingly perpetrate such a Hoax, they would have been rapidly appalled by the disastrously deadly course it was taking and either confess to the Police or throw themselves in the Thames.

Of course all these questions go to Motive. >And of course, none of us has yet had the opportunity to read your book, so thank you for this chance to ask you questions beforehand! I look forward to hearing your response and learning more about your findings & theories.
(Sorry if my question is 'wordy'; I was formulating it in my mind as I wrote.) -Thanks & Best Regards, Archaic