A New Ripper Book

[Tom_Wescott]

I think it boils down to two things: The suspect presented, and how the author chooses to present the suspect. I don't believe that all suspect books are 'the same' or that they are somehow bad. A lot of them are, but then a lot are valuable. In the case of Cook, I don't blame him for seeking the opinion of a graphologist and then publishing his findings. But pretending that some woman's opinion of handwriting "proves" Best wrote the Dear Boss letter is not only misrepresentative of the evidence, it's irresponsible of him as an author. But none of this invalidates the fact that he discovered a letter of value to the investigation which - once published- can be scrutinized by people with more objectivity.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stephen Thomas]

Apparently: ''Graphology offers guidance in understanding interpersonal relationships...''

''And on a lighter note, Graphology can be used as an Entertainment feature at a large event or for an intimate group.''

Well, I'm convinced. That should cover all the bases when it comes to analyzing a Serial Murderer, don't you agree? We'll nab him soon.

Hi Archaic

I worked for many years in a large organisation and knew a very gifted amateur graphologist. I didn't like the man at all as he was arrogant and overbearing (with me being such a laid back chap and all that) but I was very impressed by his analysis of my personality and inner life simply from his looking at my handwriting. I later showed him handwriting examples from several of my friends (who he didn't know) and he was always spot on about their personalities. So I for one am not 'down on graphologists'. I'd say that like the Luscher Colour Test, graphology is serious business and certainly shouldn't be used for entertainment or party games as that link suggests.

[Chris]

With the assistance of the extremely helpful staff of Waterstones, I managed to buy a copy of the book today.

My initial reaction is that it would be very useful if Andrew Cook were willing to do a follow-up interview to answer some further questions, after people have had a chance to read the book and see the forthcoming documentary.

[Tom_Wescott]

Do you think people would still care to hear from him AFTER they've read the book and seen the doc?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Do you think people would still care to hear from him AFTER they've read the book and seen the doc?

Well, at the moment, for me it is posing more questions than it's answering.

I'm hoping some of them may be answered by the documentary. But it seems odd to be hoping a one-hour (I assume) documentary will fill in the gaps left by a full-length book.

[jmenges]

My initial reaction is that it would be very useful if Andrew Cook were willing to do a follow-up interview to answer some further questions, after people have had a chance to read the book and see the forthcoming documentary.

It's possible for me to conduct another interview with him after the airing of the documentary if his schedule permits it. But, Philip Hutchinson is a valued contributor to the podcast and I would not feel comfortable at this time promoting a book that fails to credit or provide proper compensation for the use of his photograph. I will therefore wait until that important issue is resolved before I approach him with further questions for a public interview.

JM

[Chris]

Just one example. The crucial two sentences of the letter written by John Brunner to Henry Massingham on 7 July 1890, after Massingham had been informally offered the editorship of the Star following the resignation of T. P. o'Connor, read as follows:

"I have submitted on a number of occasions that Mr O'Connor's former use of compatriots such as Messrs. Best and O'Brien have not only been responsible for several potential legal actions against the Star, but in the unfortunate case of Mr Parke, a somewhat more serious consequence in January last.

"Furthermore, Mr Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper."

The "serious consequence" for Parke was his libel conviction in January 1890 following his allegations against the Earl of Euston in connection with the Cleveland Street Scandal (as editor of the North London Press).

I can't claim to have read every word of the book, but I can't see any discussion of this. Surely the fact that Best or O'Brien, or other "compatriots" of O'Connor, were implicated in this cause celebre would have been worth a comment?

[Chris]

It's possible for me to conduct another interview with him after the airing of the documentary if his schedule permits it. But, Philip Hutchinson is a valued contributor to the podcast and I would not feel comfortable at this time promoting a book that fails to credit or provide proper compensation for the use of his photograph. I will therefore wait until that important issue is resolved before I approach him with further questions for a public interview.

Fair enough (though I wasn't thinking of it as necessarily "promotion" of the book).

Just out of interest, could you or Philip indicate which is the offending/disputed photo? I have been trying to work it out.

[George Hutchinson]

Fair enough (though I wasn't thinking of it as necessarily "promotion" of the book).

Just out of interest, could you or Philip indicate which is the offending/disputed photo? I have been trying to work it out.

Chris, Cook scanned an interior shot of 29 Hanbury Street from The Whitby Collection out of Rob's & mine's book in spite of it being clearly under copyright and put it in his own without credit to John Gordon Whitby, Margaret Whitby-Green, myself or the book he scanned it from.

Mr Cook has denied he scanned it from the book and claims that someone gave him a copy of the actual photograph, which has been proven to be utterly untrue on both counts. He was aware he had to get permission before using it as not only was it obvious from our book, but he had been directly told by others. He used it anyway without contacting me. His editor is currently on leave and will be back in her office soon. I am awaiting her response. Mr Cook is aware he is in a mess of his own making and that I have completely rejected his bizarre excuses to me. Margaret Whitby-Green is very angry and upset by this disregard of her uncle's name and work. I'm still furious. Did he really think we wouldn't find out?

PHILIP

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm glad to hear JMenges has a few scruples about his pimping of the Cook book. That's very commendable. I find Cook's treatment of Philip's work to be more offensive than even the cover photo. When people piss Philip off, they tend to go to jail, so Cook and his editor should think long and hard before publishing the book with that photo in it.

Having said that, I'm relieved to hear that it's not the Dutfield's Yard photo that Cook ripped off, since Philip sent that only to people he trusted.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mike Covell]

The book is available now, so Mr Cook is making money off Philip's work!

[Archaic]

Hi, Mike. I checked the U.S. Amazon site & Cook's book is still classed as a Pre-order that's not out yet.

Then I checked the Amazon UK site, and was quite surprised to see that there are already 3 reviews up, all three 5-Stars and all three giving a direct plug for the upcoming TV Documentary!
How's that for speed & efficiency?

By the way, Philip, I'm very sorry to hear about the infringements of your copyright. Is there anything the we CB members can do to show our support for you & to encourage the publishers to resolve your issue quickly and fairly?

Best regards, Archaic

[Chris]

Chris, Cook scanned an interior shot of 29 Hanbury Street from The Whitby Collection out of Rob's & mine's book in spite of it being clearly under copyright and put it in his own without credit to John Gordon Whitby, Margaret Whitby-Green, myself or the book he scanned it from.

Mr Cook has denied he scanned it from the book and claims that someone gave him a copy of the actual photograph, which has been proven to be utterly untrue on both counts. He was aware he had to get permission before using it as not only was it obvious from our book, but he had been directly told by others. He used it anyway without contacting me.

Thanks for explaining the situation. That sounds like very bad behaviour, and I can understand why you would want that issue resolved before other questions about the book are pursued.

[Cap'n Jack]

Just out of interest I'd like to know whom the person was that Cook claimed gave him access to the photograph?

[Tom_Wescott]

Is it just me, or is anyone else now thinking that his evidence regarding Best needs to be appraised by someone else before we start taking its validity for granted?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Regarding AP's question above: If the story Cook told Philip is true, then he would have no reason to hold that information back from Philip, so I too would be curious to know.