A New Ripper Book

[Stewart P Evans]

Some may have noticed that a new Ripper book by Andrew Cook has been advertised on amazon. Andrew wrote the excellent book on Clarence, as well as several others, and his name will already be known to Ripper aficionados.

I have been very impressed with Andrew's research skills and I am sure that this new book will actually approach the case in a fresh manner and will include new information with an interesting new perspective. It should be out in a month or two and will complement a new Channel 5 documentary due to be aired in May.

[Lord Lucan]

So off to Amazon I go!
Thanks for the heads up Stewart. This is definately one to watch our for.

[Mike Covell]

Good morning Stewart, there is a thread here discussing Andrew's book. I hear it covers the press and their take on the murders, and I have pre-ordered a copy.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=70985#post70985

[Stewart P Evans]

Better

Good morning Stewart, there is a thread here discussing Andrew's book. I hear it covers the press and their take on the murders, and I have pre-ordered a copy.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...0985#post70985

Yes, I was aware of that Mike, but don't you think that the thread went a little bit off course, and resulted in some unfair comments on the book based solely on the proposed title and theme? It promises to be a lot better than some of those who are not going to give it a chance suggest.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes I’m aware of Andrew Cooks program and theory. I wonder if he is aware of Andy and Sue parlours book. The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel murders. On page 40 is an interesting item about the first recorded entry of the name ‘Jack the Ripper’ and it doesn’t appear in a newspaper but in the parish register of Liz Strides church.

“In the morning at 1 am Elizabeth Gutafsdotter Stride was murdered in Berner St. She had often received assistance from the church. (Murdered by Jack the Ripper)

As far as I’m aware this is the earliest known writing of the name Jack the Ripper and predates the central news agency ‘Dear Boss’ letter.

Of course it has been suggested that this entry could have been made retro-spectively (which is possible) but it does raise the interesting question whether or not the name Jack the Ripper was known on the Streets of Whitechapel before the central news agency got involved? Will channel 5 point this out?

While it seems to have become popular to reduce the Jack the Ripper body count in recent years, there really is no more evidence for that suggestion than there is for a suggestion increasing the toll. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a compelling argument that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes weren’t victims of the same knife.

Looks like we are in for another documentary that avoids the central issues of the case.

Pirate Jack

[ChrisGeorge]

While it seems to have become popular to reduce the Jack the Ripper body count in recent years, there really is no more evidence for that suggestion than there is for a suggestion increasing the toll. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a compelling argument that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes weren’t victims of the same knife.

As you will know, the usual ones that some argue to remove from the body count are Stride and/or Kelly, although likewise I have not read a convincing argument for eliminating them from being killed by the same hand as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Anyway we can discuss that on another thread and keep this thread for discussing the new Andrew Cook title.

Chris

[Jeff Leahy]

My point was simply the name 'Jack the Ripper' was first recorded by a Parish Priest not the Central News Agency.

i.e. Not the invention of the Press.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Incredible

My point was simply the name 'Jack the Ripper' was first recorded by a Parish Priest not the Central News Agency.
i.e. Not the invention of the Press.
Pirate

I am just trying to work this incredible statement out.

The name 'Jack the Ripper' was first 'recorded' in a letter dated 25 September 1888, and posted and received at the offices of the Central News Agency, 5 New Bridge Street, City, on 27 September 1888. This letter was forwarded to Scotland Yard, by the Central News, on 29 September 1888. All these dates precede the date of the diary entry of 30 September.

The entry, as often is the case with such diary entries, was so obviously retrospective that the contention of the currency of the name 'on the street' on the 30th has long since been discarded by Ripper authorities.

As Chris George states, this thread should stay on topic.

[perrymason]

My point was simply the name 'Jack the Ripper' was first recorded by a Parish Priest not the Central News Agency.

i.e. Not the invention of the Press.

Pirate

Pirate, the name Jack the Ripper, as Stewart pointed out, was on paper before Liz Strides murder, so how can her death notice pre-date that?

On the new book, ....sounds good, my rule of thumb is if I see a source recommendation from Stewart Evans, I read it. Thanks Stewart for the heads up.

Cheers and best regards.

[Jeff Leahy]

The point is that the name jack the Ripper is usually thought to have appeared with the first letters sent to the press ‘Dear Boss’ letter and the ‘Saucy Jack’ postcard. Extracts from these were published on 1st October, but full reproduction only came out on the 4th October. The name Jack the Ripper was mentioned in some news papers on 1st and 2nd October along with extracts.

There fore this diary entry (30th Sept) was written before the press printed the name ‘Jack the Ripper’

I believe I have already mentioned that it has been suggested that the entry was written retrospectively, However the possibility remains that the name Jack the Ripper was on the Streets before the press invented it.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

The point is that the name jack the Ripper is usually thought to have appeared with the first letters sent to the press ‘Dear Boss’ letter and the ‘Saucy Jack’ postcard. Extracts from these were published on 1st October, but full reproduction only came out on the 4th October. The name Jack the Ripper was mentioned in some news papers on 1st and 2nd October along with extracts.
There fore this diary entry (30th Sept) was written before the press printed the name ‘Jack the Ripper’
I believe I have already mentioned that it has been suggested that the entry was written retrospectively, However the possibility remains that the name Jack the Ripper was on the Streets before the press invented it.
Pirate

The point is that you are missing the point.

There is no evidence to suggest that the name 'Jack the Ripper' had any general currency before its publication on 1 October 1888. However, obviously the name was known to, at least, the staff at the Central News Agency on 27 September 1888, and anyone they may have told. The police were certainly aware of the name 'Jack the Ripper' on 29 September.

You simply cannot say 'this diary entry was written before the press printed the name Jack the Ripper.' There is no proof of this and such diaries are rarely maintained exactly on the day of the entry. Indeed, Stride had not been publicly identified as the victim until Monday 1 October, which is the likely date that the entry would have been made in the diary.

There are all sorts of 'possibilities', but they should, at least, have something substantive to back them up.

[Jeff Leahy]

The point is that you are missing the point.

There is no evidence to suggest that the name 'Jack the Ripper' had any general currency before its publication on 1 October 1888. However, obviously the name was known to, at least, the staff at the Central News Agency on 27 September 1888, and anyone they may have told. The police were certainly aware of the name 'Jack the Ripper' on 29 September.

You simply cannot say 'this diary entry was written before the press printed the name Jack the Ripper.' There is no proof of this and such diaries are rarely maintained exactly on the day of the entry. Indeed, Stride had not been publicly identified as the victim until Monday 1 October, which is the likely date that the entry would have been made in the diary.

There are all sorts of 'possibilities', but they should, at least, have something substantive to back them up.

I can only go by what is written:

"It is of course, possible that the Ripper reference was written in the September 30th entry a day later, after reading the newspaper. Given that Pastor Johannis Palmer was noted for his pedantic efficiency on organisational issues and matters of record, it is unlikely. Also the entry goes on after the reference to the Ripper. It was a long entry, and the name 'Jack the Ripper' was thus not entered later."

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Written

I can only go by what is written:
"It is of course, possible that the Ripper reference was written in the September 30th entry a day later, after reading the newspaper. Given that Pastor Johannis Palmer was noted for his pedantic efficiency on organisational issues and matters of record, it is unlikely. Also the entry goes on after the reference to the Ripper. It was a long entry, and the name 'Jack the Ripper' was thus not entered later."
Pirate

I appreciate what was written, but the point is that there are other factors to bear in mind when you are reading secondary sources. I suggest that you take more into consideration when interpreting what you see in books.

[Jeff Leahy]

The Fact remains that the entry was dated the 30th September and the newspapers didn’t print he name ‘Jack the Ripper’ before 1st October. Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Meaningless

The Fact remains that the entry was dated the 30th September and the newspapers didn’t print he name ‘Jack the Ripper’ before 1st October. Pirate

Just the sort of meaningless statement that we have come to expect from this poster. This discussion is off topic.