Author: Spryder
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 07:07 pm |        |
A.P. Wolf's Jack the Myth is one of the more difficult Ripper titles to find these days, with first editions commanding $200 and more on the open market. Thankfully, A.P. has been kind enough to allow Myth to be published online on the Casebook, in its entirety. It will be made available to all Casebook readers, free of charge.
I will be encoding and posting the first few sections of the book this weekend, with future installments coming every few weeks till the end is reached.
I'd like to thank A.P. for this rare opportunity! |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 07:39 pm | |
| Should anyone be surprised that A.P. will appear before A.R.? |
Author: Spryder
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 10:16 pm | |
The introduction and first chapter of Jack the Myth can now be found at:
http://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/jackmyth.html |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 11:29 pm | |
Thanks for putting this up--interesting first chapter. I appreciate having the chance to read this.
A.P. Wolf is a new name to me. Can anyone provide this armchair murderer with a brief biographical sketch?
Dave |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 06:12 am | |
Hello Spryder, I've copied the first chapter right away, thank you very much for putting it on.
Much appreciated, Rick |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 08:24 am | |
David O'Flaherty
Re A.P. Wolf. I don't think anyone really knows who he or she is. A.P. Wolf is a pseudonym.
In the January 2003 issue of 'Ripperana'(a must), Editor Nick warren has written a small article relating to this very question.
If anybody knows the answer it could be Stewart Evans.
A. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 11:26 am | |
Thanks for that, Andy. I had no idea A.P. Wolf was a pseudonym. While the Nick Warren article sounds interesting and I admit I'm curious, I'd be content to let the mystery rest, since A.P. Wolf is allowing me to read this book for free.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 03:21 pm | |
It is extremely generous for A.P. Wolf to allow this; it would be terrific if other out-of-print works were also made available in similar fashion.
I notice the following, however. I take it that the author has updated his text!
Sir Robert Anderson
"Joseph Sickert himself is a very questionable source anyway, claiming to be the
illegitimate son of artist Walter Sickert - without any visible proof whatsoever - who, as
we we have seen is also a suspect for our Ripperologists, and is once again being paraded
in front of us as Jack the Ripper by Patricia Cornwall in the latest best seller. Nobody
seems to have alerted the latest Jack author to the fact that her theory of Walter Sickert
being the Ripper was written up in 1990 by Jean Overton Fuller in 'Sickert and the Ripper
Crimes', and it was shot out of the water then as a complete and utter pack of lies and
fantasy, as no doubt it will be now." |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 04:42 pm | |
David
You asked for details about A.P.Wolf
I'm lucky to have a first edition copy of the book and on the inside of the dust jacket it gives this resume of the author:
"A.P.Wolf is a writer involved in such diverse subjects as Egyptology, wildlife and crime as well as fiction. This present volume represents a lifetime's interest in the subject as well as three years' intensive research which was started with an open mind. The author is based in Germany but often travels to London to carry out research. This is his fourth book."
Hope this helps
Chris Scott |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 04:53 pm | |
Thanks very much, Chris--just what I was looking for!
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 06:24 pm | |
Robert,
How was that vacation? Switzerland must've been nicer than London with a murderer on the loose.
B |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 12:46 am | |
Brian, Dr. Smith's timing perhaps could have been better.
Sir Robert |
Author: Spryder
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 09:24 am | |
| Chapter 2 of Jack the Myth is now available. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 03:00 pm | |
Chris Scott & David O'Flaherty,
The mystery of who A.P.Wolf is, deepens. The resume that Chris mentions is possibly itself a canard, for the writer of the Egyptology, Crime and Fiction that is mentioned, is Elizabeth Peters, another pseudonym.
Is Wolf & Peters the same person??
Perhaps Sir Robert can give the answer? |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 04:41 pm | |
Hi Andy & Sue
It gets even more complex cos it seems that "Elizabeth Peters" also writes under the names of Barbara Michaels and Barbara Mertz!!!
see http://www.autopen.com/elizabeth.peters.shtml#anchor1172485
apparently the author is known as MPM from the initials of the three names used and gives her own resume as follows:
I didn't want to be a writer. I wanted to be an archaeologist. My parents wanted me to be a teacher; it was a nice practical career for a woman. When they discovered, somewhat belatedly, that I had changed my major (I had been at the Oriental Institute for six months), they were bewildered, but bless them, they didn't try to make me change my mind. I still believe, with all my heart, that young people should be allowed to follow their own aspirations and inclinations, however impractical these may seem. If they don't try, they will never know whether or not they might have succeeded; and who's to say what is practical? Egyptology was an impractical career, especially for a young married woman forty years ago. Writing was, and still is, an impractical career, because so few people succeed in earning a living that way. I was one of the lucky ones; and if I hadn't been so obsessed with ancient Egypt (as I still am) I might have noticed that I did enjoy writing, and that some people thought I was pretty good at it. But I've never regretted studying Egyptology even though I was unable to make it my career. --MPM
http://www.mpmbooks.com/MPMFAQ.HTM
The only published author I've found so far is Professor A.P.Wolf Dept of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University
Chris Scott |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 12:14 pm | |
It is flattering that some people on this site seem interested in my somewhat convoluted identities, however it was never my intention, when I decided to present my work here, to draw attention to my good self but rather to the work I am presenting.
My point being that I firmly believe the Jack story to have long suffered from the dreadful 20th Century disease of ‘cult personality’, something that I hope my work addresses in both a radical and fresh manner. Therefore as a writer I feel it absolutely vital to also avoid this modern disease as it patently wears away at an individual’s unique style and presentation. To this end in a very expensive edition of Ripper writer’s theories, I was the only author able to resist the vanity of having my photograph attached to the text. I also refused to sign a single copy, again the only author who took this course of action. I have refused offers to talk on radio shows, or appear on television programs, and strongly resist any attempt to disseminate myself rather than my publications in the media. I am an intensely private person who likes to keep herself to himself.
I am more than happy to discuss any aspect of my work, but not myself.
My works and identities are anyway manifold. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 02:51 pm | |
Hello A.P.Wolf,
Thanks for your contribution. You have become more elusive than JTR to identify. But please, please, keep it that way.
A.P. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 04:33 pm | |
Thank you A.P.
I aim to keep it that way.
The identification of JTR is the smallest part of the story, church bells will not ring out when we truly know the identity of JTR, in fact the world will probably be a very silent place.
However if we could but understand the 'why' perhaps the world would then be full of noise.
I set out to find the 'why' not the 'who'.
Hope you enjoy the read. |
Author: Stan Russo
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 09:19 pm | |
A.P.,
You find out any more information about you preferred suspect Thomas Cutbush?
STAN |
Author: AP. Wolf
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 05:06 am | |
Ah yes, Cutbush.
As I said in a previous post I wasn’t looking for a suspect at all when I began the book, I was looking for motive. However I found Cutbush in Collindales, the little ordinary man who came marching out at me from the newspapers of the time.
I admit to a certain amount of rust creeping into the volume over the past nine years but am chipping away at most of it.
I have revised and rewritten much of the Cutbush part of the book and this will now appear as an additional final chapter. I am also following up a small lead concerning Cutbush that I really should have followed up then.
Thank you for your interest. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 12:06 pm | |
AP Pooh.
Good book. I have a copy and thought it great.
Why was the lead not followed up at the time ?
Tell me where to stick it if Im prying...I do not mean to.
Monty
|
Author: AP. Wolf
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 01:20 pm | |
Pooh.
Others who do not possess the book would probably think you rude.
I found the quotes from Milne to be a nice counter weight to the gravity of the text.
The lead was not sensational enough, the man was only a clerk working for Kearly & Tonge in the tea trade, the entire work was drowned in the false tide swept in by the so-called Ripper Diaries released at the same time.
Thank you for the positive comments. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 02:33 pm | |
Hello A.P.,
Just thought is'nt it nice having 2 AP's on the casebook. There is nothing like a bit of confusion to keep the pot boiling on the subject of JTR.
When the film 'Crapper' is finally finished, with the extra footage, that was not seen at last Saturday's C&D meeting. It will answer more questions on the crimes of 1888.
A.P. |
Author: Esther Wilson
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 10:07 am | |
Thanks so much for posting the chapters from Jack The Myth for those of us who can't find our own copies.
Esther |
Author: AP. Wolf
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 11:32 am | |
My pleasure Esther.
Thanks must also go to Spryder for his part.
Hope you are enjoying the read. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 02:34 pm | |
I'm looking forward to a new final chapter of this book ($200 for a first edition? God knows my wife will be even more sorely tempted to bump me off and sell my crime library when she learns that!).
I must admit, however, that while I enjoyed Jack the Myth and found its presentation of Michael Kidney's culpability to be quite persuasive, I've always been bothered, Mr (or Miss, Or Mrs) Wolf, by the rather sneering tone taken towards what, for lack of a better term, we call 'Ripperologists.' There is, to be sure, a great deal of morbidity in the field and an occasional tendency to concentrate solely on the Ripper's 'technique' or 'M.O.' whilst forgetting the depraved brutality that lies at the heart of the crimes. Still, I would hope that during your ongoing research, you've seen that not all students of the case can be classified as people who 'cheerfully ask each other 'so you think her breasts were found between her legs?' (a paraphrase from JTM).
Not a criticism of the book per se, only my own perception of some of its characterisations. But a sincere thank you, regardless, for allowing a viewing of the book here and for contributing a new chapter.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: AP. Wolf
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 05:35 pm | |
Thank you for that CM. I must admit as I have been preparing the text anew for this site I too have been struck by my somewhat negative attitude towards what you call 'Ripperologists', and questioned myself quite severely if such an attitude was really required. The answer was I'm afraid yes. Not because of a personal animosity, but rather a desire to see a cull amongst the people who willingly spread untruths for commercial gain and fame, as we are exactly now seeing with Cornwell's book at the present time.
But please rest assured I do not by any means classify everybody who has an interest in this case in that genre. In fact after reading though a vast number of the messages that are posted on this site, I am learning to respect many of you.
And I thank you for your kind comments. |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 06:30 am | |
AP,
I certainly don't dispute that some authors writing on Jack the Ripper have written atrocious books. I do think that your use of the term "Ripperologist" to refer to these specific individuals is unfortunate. Most of us here probably think of that word as meaning authors who specialize in this area.
Most of the authors that I think you and I would both agree are most ridiculous -- Colin Wilson, Stephen Knight, Patricia Cornwell -- wrote ripper books as side projects. Cornwell specifically denies that label for herself. Knight is, well, a religious bigot conspiracy theoriest more than anything else. Most of your comments about truly objectionable and even pornographic material was written by Colin Wilson, better known as a pusher of a long line of wild ideas like UFOs and so forth. In fact, I found myself asking, "He wrote something about Jack the Ripper? Really?" as I read your well-worded refutation of his ideas on sexual violence.
I think this is a prime example of how it's not safe to paint all members of a group with the same brush, especially considering most of the people you are disputing probably don't even rightfully belong to the group in question.
Your comments about Rumbelow's discussion of the practices of prostitutes in the late 1800s seemed a bit out of place to me, however. Knowing whether it was at all likely that Jack could have, um, approached the victims from the rear while they were unprotected and unaware of an impending attack is a point that goes toward establishing how the killings could have happened. Perhaps your familiarity with Wilson's sexual ramblings colored your interpretation of Rumbelow's reasoning for bringing this up.
Ignoring some factual details that I would dispute, I think the parts of the book posted here so far have shown well reasoned arguments. You make a very convincing argument that Stride's death was different from the others and likely was committed by her ex-boyfriend. You are also right to point out that police often make horrible mistakes when trying to catch serial killers, and that many (though I would dispute the term "most") ripper authors chase completely unrealistic and fictionalized superhuman Jacks who probably bear no relation to the true killer.
I must say I am looking forward to reading the rest of your book as it is posted here. Thanks for allowing this site to post your work.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 10:53 am | |
Dan,
I am disappointed in the fact that you seem to
get a charge out of bad-mouthing other authors,
and in many cases other posters.
Stephen Knight is dead, why comment on his atrosious book. Cornwell I don't worry about,but
Colin Wilson does not fit in the same category as
Cornwell. It is one thing to not agree with their
ideas, theories etc., but it is yet another thing
to insult their writings. These people are good
writers, entertaining in some cases,but talented
in others. Why not just dispute their theory or
JtR suspects, but don't insult their intelligence.
These atrosious books , as you called them, did
sell. So I guess anyone who read them sould be
considered in the same category as you have placed
them. Constructive Critism is a must, there is no
question,but why badmouth them.Why not give credit
where credit is due?
julie |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:03 pm | |
Hi All,
Has Cornwell 'willingly spread untruths for commercial gain and fame'?
She already had more fame than any Ripper writer ever, and she has to earn more from her book on Sickert than the millions she spent on writing it before she can gain commercially.
And that doesn't even address the question of whether Cornwell 'willingly spread untruths' in the process. No one can claim to know such a thing, can they? Is there no possibility that she has convinced herself that her beliefs about Sickert are in fact true?
If such a possibility exists, then the accusation against Cornwell, of deliberate deception on a grand scale, is as much a belief without proof as is Cornwell's accusation against Sickert - isn't it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 01:39 pm | |
| Ms. Cornwell's advance from her publishers for writing a book is, I understand, normally $9 million. However, for the Sickert book she accepted a smaller amount, but, from a source in the USA, I am led to believe that it still exceeded the $6 million she claimed to have spent on research. That means she's already in profit. Oh to command such advances! She's a better writer than I am that's for sure. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 01:41 pm | |
Dan
I perfectly agree with almost everything you wrote in your note. There are some points I will not cover now as that would very likely prejudice forthcoming chapters where I discuss these very points. Hope you can understand that.
Things were very different when I originally wrote the myth, Colin Wilson was considered the king, and Rumbelow was very much his ‘umble servant, so yes, perhaps you are right, I did allow my impatience with Wilson to spill over to Rumbelow, and your point about the killer’s approach to the victim is a valid one.
As I said in a previous note I am learning anew on this site, and certainly do not view the term 'Ripperologist' with the same negative qualities that I once did.
The world is a much bigger place now than it was in 1993.
Your positive comments about the myth were appreciated. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 01:49 pm | |
Caroline
all I can tell you - taking my vast experience in the murky world of publishing - is that Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers.
It is a farce, and can only discredit anyone with a serious interest in this case.
The only thing poor old Walter ever murdered was paint. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 02:33 pm | |
Hi, Caz and Stewart
Have sales from 'Portrait of a Killer' already covered Ms. Cornwell's advance? I know it was a best seller, but hasn't it fallen in the rankings?
Caz, I think you might be giving Ms. Cornwell too much credit, although I agree with you that money might not be her main motive here. It's interesting that she claims to have eschewed the fundamentalist religon of her childhood, yet her belief in the guilt of Walter Sickert smacks of fundamentalism (in that she holds fast to her belief in his guilt, despite all and any reasonable evidence to the contrary).
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 06:55 pm | |
Julie,
I'm sorry you object to my criticizing people.
Cornwell's ridiculousness has been well covered in other threads so I don't think we need to pollute this thread by discussing her any more. Knight is known to have fabricated false evidence to try to support his lifelong anti-Mason crusade, which is certainly worth criticizing regardless of whether he is dead or not. One only has to read the excerpts from AP Wolf's book to see many examples of Colin Wilson's offenses -- such as suggesting that rape and pedophilia victims were "asking for it" and so forth -- and I would think that saying that an author normally focuses on topics like claiming that little green men have abducted people or that Atlantis exists and is a real place with mystical powers, etc., is a nice way to sum up how seriously he can be taken when it comes to historical research.
If you think I will just lie and say, oh, these people deserve our respect, sorry, but it ain't going to happen. You have to judge people by their actions, and this group has collectively brought shame to this field. I only brought it up to make a comparative difference between those people and normal Ripperologists, so it's not like I was going out of my way to insult them for no reason. Showing the differences was my way of clearing other authors from claims of pornography, etc., just for being associated with the same topic as books by these shameful authors.
As far as "bad-mouthing" other people on the boards, I think this criticism is misplaced, especially in comparison to the common actions of a number of other posters here. I always try to get the debate back down to facts and evidence, which sometimes upsets those who don't have anything to back up wild claims.
And, to be perfectly honest, trying to claim that personal attacks are bad while at the same time attacking me over the issue seems like a strange strategy.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 07:07 pm | |
'Knight is, well, a religious bigot conspiracy theoriest more than anything else. Most of your comments about truly objectionable and even pornographic material was written by Colin Wilson, better known as a pusher of a long line of wild ideas like UFOs and so forth. In fact, I found myself asking, "He wrote something about Jack the Ripper? Really?"'
Mr. Norder,
You use strong words. I wouldn't think books about the Whitechapel murders would be considered "objectionable." Rather, the proper motif for analyzing a book might be to question whether it is right or wrong. Wilson, especially Knight, and perhaps even Cornwell to a small extent made contributions.
With respect to books, the term "objectionable" would, it seems to me, be reserved for "Mein Kampf," or something written by David Duke, that kind of thing.
The positions you take are extreme on both sides of the equation. You can't, it seems, see this for yourself. On the one hand, often you push the case evidence as hard as you can to get support for your position, and then on the other you will haul out Big Bertha to blast those who express reservations on your procedure. Taken together, the self-serving nature of your discourse is apparent to many.
It is true that you know something about the case evidence, but you wield Ripperology like a club.
What you do is too big, too bombastic, on both sides of the board. What julienonperson says above is true.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 07:30 pm | |
David,
Coming from you that's a riot. I'm still waiting for a retraction and apology for your libelous insults and false claims against me on the recent profiling thread.
Please get your apology over with so you can avoid getting banned from this site yet again (I'm not sure why your last one was temporary), and then learn to stick to the case instead of continuing your silly crusade of attacks against myself, Garry Wroe, and the editors of the ripperology periodicals.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 07:36 pm | |
Hi All,
Caz, I would not care to hazard a guess as to what Ms. Cornwell has convinced herself of, but it is irrefutable that what she has written in her book and what she has stated in public are very different indeed.
I don't have the book in front of me, but from memory, she referred to her mtDNA evidence as "a cautious indicator" that the Sickert and Ripper mtDNA sequences were from the same person. Similarly, of the three matching watermarks, it was "I can't claim these letters were written by Sickert or Jtr...".
So, it's at least occurred to her that her evidence is inconclusive, she stated as much in her book. Yet she's publicly claimed the case is "solved 100%" and Sickert's guilt is a "scientific fact", or words to that effect. IMHO, the charges that have been made here of intellectual dishonesty on Cornwell's part have some merit, as well as the old-fashioned "lie through your teeth and take the rubes for every penny they got" sort.
Cheers luv, 
Jim |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 10:54 pm | |
Stewart said:
"She's a better writer tha I am that's for sure."
Mr. Evans, let you assure you are a FAR better
author with a tighter and more interesting
palette. I've read two of Cornwell's books and ALL of yours, and there is no comparison.
Sir Robert
CID (retired) |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 01:03 am | |
Dr. Anderson,
Please reveal yourself to us fully.
1. What specifically made you believe the Ripper was a Polish Jew?
2. Who was you suspect?
3. Who was your witness?
Thank you.
David |
