Jack the Ripper: The Hand of a Woman

by John Morris

The Jack the Ripper murders of 1888 continue to exert a macabre hold on the collective imagination of the masses more than a century later, and this book, the result of extensive research, sheds some light on them. Among the first serial murders, their brutality and bizarreness begged questions such as What kind of person could have performed such horrific deeds? and How could they not have been caught by the huge police effort? The book offers keen insight into Victorian London and its policing as it follows the investigations of the infamous murders. Arguing that many unresolved questions could be answered if Jack was in reality a woman, this bold account names a suspect and explains why the murders stopped.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, True Crime, Crime, Biography, Mystery, Historical

208 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 2012

About the author

John Morris was born and brought in Northamptonshire, son of an aircraft engineer and headmistress of the local village school. John married Yvonne in 1976 and they have two adult children. A graduate in law, John attended Guildford College of Law prior to qualifying as a solicitor. He practised mainly as a criminal lawyer in Swansea for more than twenty years. In millennium year, John and his family moved to Yvonne's home country of Ireland, where he continued to practice law. Now retired and living in Wicklow with his wife, two cats and a dog, John continues to conduct historical research with an emphasis on the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

Reviews

[Eva Müller · Rating 1 out of 5]

Beware: this is goint to be gory. You would expect that in books about the Ripper anyway but I do go in some details about mutilations and sexual assault. Nothing too graphic but I thought I warn just in case.

This was really bad and insulting on a surprising number of levels. The author is convinced Lizzie Williams committed the Ripper-murders. According to him she was desperate because her marriage remained childless and when she found out that her husband was having an affair with Mary Kelly (no there is no proof for that) she panicked because Mary was still young enough to bear children and don't we all know the thousands of stories about Victorian men who left their wives for random prostitutes?
Neither do I.
Now some of you might now also wonder why she committed five murders if she was just after Mary Kelly but the author has a perfectly reasonable explanation for that, too: Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman were just practise. After all killing and mutilating is hard work and you need to make sure that you can really do it even if you already have some knowledge about anatomy like Lizzie. And Lizzie knew about anatomy because her husband was a surgeon and she always watched him during operation...you know just like watching 8 seasons of Criminal Minds have made me a proper profiler.
That's two murders explained, Liz Stride was killed because Williams had asked her about the whereabouts of Mary Kelly and she wanted to stop her from telling the police about it. It was just unfortunate that Stride directed her to the wrong Mary Kelly for Catherine Eddowes also went under that name (rejoice! That is a proper fact!). Once she learned that she killed the wrong women she again asked after Mary Kelly but no longer felt the need to kill everybody she asked because who would remember a woman asking after a prostitute?

We have more fun with contradictions. One of the many mysteries surrounding the Ripper-murders was that one of Kelly's neighbours swore that she saw her the morning after she had been murdered and even talked to her. The author claims that this must have been Williams leaving the scene after the murder and so far that actually makes sense but first he writes that if she replied in a Welsh accent (Kelly was born in Ireland but grew up in Wales so she had a Welsh accent) and that Lizzie usually spoke with an English accent but “could also speak with a Welsh accent she required.” That makes sense...and implied that Williams did it on purpose because speaking with an accent that is not the one you usually use is not something you randomly do. However a few pages later he claims that Lizzie only responded to the call 'Mary' of the neighbour because Mary was one of her given names and some family-members still called her so...now that suggests that she just slipped and replied because she was somewhere else with her thoughts in which case she would have replied with the accent she used everyday.

The author is also rather desperate to convince that readers that it is totally obvious that the Ripper must have been a woman because the victims weren't sexually assaulted and a man would have done this. He repeats this over and over in almost every third chapter (he is rather fond of repeating things, I guess if you cut out all the repetitions you'd loose at least a third of the book).
It's just unfortunate that


While some serial killers achieve sexual satisfaction through rimary mechanisms (e.g.sexual assault), others resort to secondary mechanisms related to violence. It is likely that Jack the Ripper utilized the violence of stabbing and slashing his victims with a knife as methods for exerting his power and control over the victim. He used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victim, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse.

Source

See? I heard that on Criminal Minds but still googled it to make sure. This is called 'research' and is something the author should have done more of.
Interestingly he mentions having read Patricia Cornwall's book on the Ripper and that he wasn't convinced by it (probably the only thing we have in common). Cornwall's theory is completely built around the fact that her favourite suspect had a deformed penis, couldn't have sex and so went for the 'secondary mechanisms'. So even if he dismisses her, he should at least have heard of the possibility of lust-murders that do not involve sexual assault.

Almost as much time as trying to convince the reader of that he spends trying to convince them that yes, women like poisoning but it is not completely impossible that they use knives to kill. Now while that is true he uses the worst possible examples to make his point: he cites several cases of women who attacked pregnant women, cut open their womb and stole the babies...now while I'm not an expert I know that poisoning (as well as almost any other method) is a very bad idea if you want the baby alive. These people had no other choice than to use a knife. The only other example he cites is about two sisters who killed their step-father after he had sexually assaulted one of them which is again a completely different context to these murders out of jealousy as Lizzie is supposed to have committed.

Oh and there is something else he likes talking about: he repeats the exact circumstances that supposedly lead Lizzy to killing (her infertility, her husband's infidelity, other family issues) several times, explaining everytime that only this could have lead a middle-class woman like Lizzie to murder people. The first time I thought it was just a really sloppy formulated sentence (it wouldn't be the only one...if this thing had an editor I hope he goes to editor-hell where he is read excerpts from this book 24 hours a day) but he repeats this over and over again. Apparently only working-class people commit murders on a regular basis, the middle-and upper classes would never do that unless the circumstances force them to. It's not in their nature.

Of course he's also selective with mentioning facts. He only talks about the first letter the police recieved (the one that was signed with 'Yours truly Jack the Ripper') and says this was probably a journalist who wanted to sell more papers, a theory that is rather popular. However he neither mentiones the Saucy Jack postcard (that announced the Double Event) nor the package with the kidney that Lusk received (which by many is believed really to have belonged to Catherine Eddowes) let alone any reasons why he dismisses them.

[Sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I first heard about this book and the theory it put forward I was rather excited as the idea the Jack was not as everyone has pictured for the last 128 just tickles me, and knowing how vicious female murderers can be at first blush this theory has serious credence. But on reading it I was rather disappointed. Morris and his father seem to have started with their conclusions and worked backwards hand picking the evidence the supports it (or that can be interpreted in such a way as to support it) and ignoring the evidence that undermines it. Not to mention making some rather large assumptions with nothing to back up their reasoning (or the lack there of). The only thing that saves this book is the writing which has a lovely fireside story telling feel to it, kind of how the gossips of old talked when Jack was stalking the streets. Great idea but poor execution (pardon the pun) lacking research and evidence (such a shame).

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whenever you hear the name "Jack the Ripper" what image springs to mind? Most everyone would picture the same thing: the corner of a cobblestoned street, fog obliterating every inch of brick and mortar, with a lonely person walking through, dressed in black cape and top hat, carrying a bloody, dripping knife by his side. This is the image that has been seered into our memories for decades. So how would you then feel if evidence suggested that this image is completely wrong? What if, in fact, Jack the Ripper had been a woman all along?

John Morris' journey alongside his father to uncover the truth has resulted in this book, The Hand of a Woman, and the evidence suggested within was enough to even make me question all I thought I knew about the infamous Ripper case. While most of the evidence presented throughout was circumstantial at best (even Morris declares as such), the coincidences about the case at hand are too revealing to be anything but the truth. The way Morris presents his and his father's findings over the years makes the idea of infamous Jack as a woman seem so plausible, that it makes you want to believe; enough to make me deny anyone else who would say otherwise. If you think about it, how society was stacked up in the 19th Century, women being all but fragile, delicate creatures with not a shred of morbidity in their bones, would never EVER commit a crime so heinous. They are all but invisible. Which is why they could get away with most anything. The investigators on the case even wrote off females seen around the crime scene at the time it occurred because the police knew they were searching for a man. Because ONLY a man could have overpowered five women and rendered them unrecognizable. But what if it wasn't?

What The Hand of a Woman shows us is just how powerful the media can be even back in the 19th Century when people took what they read in the newspapers to be nothing but fact. So when an anonymous letter is sent to the paper signed Jack the Ripper, the very idea of the murderer being a male is forever set in stone. The image of that dark, sinister man walking beneath the streetlight has been carved into our minds for so long, that it's staggering to realize that this image is nothing but a falsehood. Morris' novel is another true example as to how one image propagated through the media, even in those arcane days, can solidify an image in the mind of the populace with little to no evidence whatsoever, but yet we take it as fact. Once that image is seered into the mind and accepted as the personification of a dangerous individual unknown to everyone, then a bias is formed for all other lines of investigation. These lines are later dissolved, not followed up on because it doesn't fit the image we all know to be "true." All of which makes the idea of the Ripper being a woman all the more probable. And if that doesn't keep you up at night, then I don't know what will.

[Natalie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did like the book, just not the writing. I knew very little about Jack the Ripper before this book, I did learn a lot. I thought the facts and theories in this book were fascinating and for the most part very compelling. It dragged in some parts and was very, very repetitive. The basic theory is that Jack the Ripper was in fact a woman. When the known evidence is revisited with this possibility in mind, it does seem like a strong possibility.

<3
This was a father/son project for the author and the reverence he holds for his father and their time spent together made a huge impact on me. There are parts of the book when you want to roll your eyes at the author, but he is clearly very passionate about the subject and I'm a sucker for family projects. Very sweet and endearing undertone to the investigation.

Much of the evidence they reinterpret to support their theory makes sense. I was surprised. I rarely felt like the facts were being over-interpreted to fit their ideas. When it didn't make sense, he admitted that. I learned so much about not only the Jack the Ripper case, but society in the late 1800's, early medicine and medical care, and surprisingly women's health rights.

3
Stop complaining about other theorists. I don't care what they had to say about this case. If I did, I'd read their book instead. I felt like the author took every possible opportunity to take a swipe at another Jack the Ripper author. Really? Really? Stop. No one cares.

The book got very repetitive and was hard to follow at times. They did not go chronologically but more in order of how the author uncovered his theory. Interesting idea to organize this book, but it was very confusing at times.

tl;dr

Intriguing theory that Jack the Ripper was a woman. Gets repetitive, but is supported by compelling evidence.

[Grady · Rating 5 out of 5]

The vivisection of a mystery: Post Mortem Thoughts

`Truth is what you decide to believe' has been said in many phrases by many famous thinkers. After reading this completely engrossing, entertaining, well researched book by John Morris and his equally obsessed father Byron Morris, now deceased, and written here by John Morris with the skill of a top flight mystery writer, THE HAND OF A WOMAN leaves this reader deciding to believe that this version of the identity of Jack the Ripper is entirely plausible. But whether or not the reader arrives at the same conclusion should not detract from the book as a whole. This is a work of genteel quality about one of the most heinous serial killers in history, and though that may sound like a non sequitur, just attempt to read the first chapter and admire the elegant way John Morris sets about sharing the years of investigation both he and his father endured to arrive at the conclusions offered here.

The story of Jack the Ripper is well known and has been the subject of many fine books, films, theatrical works, and works of the visual arts. The brief time in 1888 when five murders were performed is described as a moment in history when the laws of England were different, the customs of the times different, and the views of women outside of society (prostitutes, women of the streets, workhouse girls and the like) considered to be less than noticeable or of significance is the stage Morris creates like an artist at canvas. Each of the murders is described in meticulous detail and there many accompanying photographs of the victims and those people involved in the fruitless investigation to find the perpetrator. Morris has the eye and the language of a trained forensic expert in bringing these ghastly incidents to life.

Rather early on in the book Morris share the information that his investigation uncovered and names the woman (the wife of a physician whose infidelities only served to place a spotlight on the fact that the woman was barren and unable to produce the child the physician so desperately wanted) who Morris is convinced was responsible for all five murders and because of her status in society (her husband was a physician to the Royal family) went completely unnoticed. Is it a far-fetched thought? Not in the manner in which Morris presents his case. In the author's words, 'It had been an orgy of death - the reason for which only a woman unable to have children of her own, a woman who had lost her fortune and was now faced with losing her husband too, a woman on the edge of insanity, could fully understand. But the butchery had taken much longer than she had realised.' At the end of this book Morris presents three appendices that lend further proof to his postulates.

In the end this is a book so well written and enthralling that it is almost impossible to set it aside once started. The sound, smells, flavors of Victorian England suffuse every page. For those who enjoy mysteries and the process if investigation and resolution, this book is bound to please.

Grady Harp

[Dee Eisel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh, I wanted this to be better. I love novel theories on the Whitechapel murders. I was fascinated by the "Jill the Ripper" hypothesis I'd seen very loosely referenced online, and I wanted more. Alas, this book is not the place to look. It latches onto a single person, a woman not even named in most of the literature, and comes just short of outright accusing her of the murders.

Don't mistake me: "Ripperology" always involved a large amount of "could have," "might have," ad "possibly." I'm used to reading that and accept it. I tend to avoid the books that are more inclined to point a finger at a specific person, simply because I don't believe that we can say anything at all definitive, much less that there was one murderer and it was this specific person, almost 130 years on. I look at any new "discoveries" with curiosity but don't expect to find a bloody knife at this point in time. Given the number of admitted hoaxes as far as communications and the fact that copycat murders are now and were then a factor, I think it's stretching it to even say these women were killed by one person. To have this writer (and his by-publication-deceased father) declare they're sure that it was one woman - well. I'm having a hard time buying that.

To make matters worse, the book is highly repetitive. Morris seems to be aware to an extent of how slender his thread is, and reacts by trying to drive his points home over and over, often using the same phrasing. The net effect on me was that I got bored with the book faster than I thought I might have. The ways he thought that the accused would have learned how to accomplish the murders were ever so faintly plausible, and if Morris hadn't been so focused on this one, upper-middle-class woman that he might not have ignored other options that might have been available to different women from different classes and walks of life.

I wish the author had more primary sources to back up his points. I wish, failing that, that the book had been shorter. I wish the proposed motives didn't raise the "I detect an anti-feminist" hairs on my arms. I'm actively looking for a different "Jill the Ripper" book now, but this wasn't the one. Two of five stars.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most gruesome account of final victim's murder I've ever read. And not sure all the Ripper evidence stacks up, though the author admits much is circumstantial, nor do I think he has a real handle on the female heart, soul and psyche. Still, it's neat how he fits the research together, he makes a compelling argument for his suspect. Well written, fun to read and fun to see how the author pieces together every aspect of the case to point toward his suspect. Even if you don't believe everything he comes up with, you'll get a full account of the murders, victim by victim, following them on each of their fateful nights like you were there.

[Marti · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished this book and I will say, it has given me a new perspective on the murders. Everything the author wrote was taken from the police reports and as in every cold case the work was very thorough. I don't want to give a spoiler, but I can see this being the work of a woman. I recommend this book for all true crime buffs and mystery buffs alike. It is written in a way that the reader knows that it is non-fiction, but the narrative flows like a novel.

[Annie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interessante Interpretation der Fakten (sofern sie denn stimmen, denn allzu firm bin ich darin auch nicht) und bis auf die ewig wiederholten, bekannten Fakten unterhaltsam geschrieben. Allerdings rate ich davon ab, die Bilder zu den beschriebenen Opfern im Internet zu googlen. Zumal zur nächtlichen Stunde eine eher blöde Idee falls man die Nacht noch schlafen will. Schriftlich genaue Ausführungen reichen völlig. Ingesamt kann ich das Buch allerdings sehr empfehlen.

[Cellardoora Maar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gleich mal zur Bewertung: 3,5 Sterne.

Eine mögliche Auflösung der Ripper-Morde hat mich schon immer interessiert, auch wenn mir klar ist, dass es DIE eine Lösung wohl nie mehr geben wird. Sogar mit den neuesten DNA-Technologien kommt man dem Ganzen nach all der Zeit nicht eindeutig auf die Spur. Trotzdem macht es mir Spaß, mich auf die vielen Theorien einzulassen - auch wenn manche davon eher sehr weit hergeholt sind.

Hier wird der schon 1888 aufgekommenen Theorie von "Vielleicht war es ja in Wahrheit eine Frau?!" nachgegangen. John Morris knüpft mit seinem Vater dabei an eine andere Täter-Theorie an: doch statt des vermeintlichen Mediziners ist es ihrer Meinung nach dessen Ehefrau.

Also arbeitet sich das Vater-Sohn-Gespann durch die zugänglichen Dokumente, um diesen Verdacht "ehrlich, genau und fehlerfrei" zu belegen. Das Ergebnis ihrer scheinbar *fruchtbaren* Forschung ist in diesem an sich überschaubar langen Buch zusammengetragen.

Und hier kommen wir gleich zum größten Kritikpunkt: die ständigen Wiederholungen.
Man merkt dem Buch schnell an, dass Morris Junior den Leser auf unterhaltsame und spannende Weise alle vollbrachten Gedankengänge nachverfolgen lassen will. Leider verrennt er sich dabei gerne mal, kommt vom Logikweg ab und nimmt dann an anderer Stelle erneut Anlauf, indem er bereits Gesagtes detailliert wiederholt. Ein roter Erzählfaden wird auf diese Weise unnötig ausgefranst, was den Leser erst stört und irgendwann richtig nervt.

Mich störte auch die Art und Weise wie die Grundlage "Solche krassen Verbrechen können nur Frauen begehen!" belegt werden sollte. Da wird beispielsweise die Ehefrau des Mediziners wiederholt in einem wirklich schlechten Licht dargestellt: unattraktiv, von Geburt an verwöhnt, langweilig, eifersüchtig, launisch - und während der Taten sowohl total meschugge als auch super intelligent und durchtrieben. Nicht selten fragte ich mich wie es für diese Dame aus der englischen Oberschicht wohl wäre, wenn sie dieses Buch heute lesen könnte ...

Und im krassen Gegenzug wird das letzte Opfer, Mary Kelly, derart halbgeifernd von Morris angepriesen, dass einem als Frau mitunter schlecht wird. Natürlich ist dieses übertriebene Vergleichen zugunsten Kellys nötig, um die Kernmotivation der Mordserie zu untermauern. Aber mal ehrlich, Morris beschreibt den wohlhabenden Mediziner als arroganten, selbstverliebten Muttersöhnchen-Schnösel und ausgerechnet so eine Type von Mann soll sich auf eine bettelarme Whitechapel-Hure eingeschossen haben?!? Der Kerl hätte sich doch mit Leichtigkeit eine hochrangigere Geliebte an Land ziehen können.

Und hier kommt der letzte Kritikpunkt: Wo sind die Belege? Die konkreten Verweise?
Im Buch wird viel erzählt, so manches zitiert, aber am Ende kriegt man als Leser gerade mal ein komplettes Kipling-Gedicht vorgelegt. Im Appendix. Ach herrje.
Und das macht mich zusätzlich stutzig: Da soll Doktor Notgeil berufsbedingt *irgendwie* in den Kontakt mit einigen der späteren Opfer gekommen sein, sich Mary Kelly als Geliebte angelacht und mit ihr sogar zwei Wochen Schmusidusi-Urlaub in Paris gemacht haben. Weil da in irgendeinem Familiendokument der Name "Mary" fiel. Zumal "Mary" ein super seltener Name im überbevölkerten London gewesen sein dürfte ...
Klar wird der liebe Onkel Doktor hier und da "weibliche Zerstreuung" gesucht und sich einen Erben gewünscht haben, aber ich glaube kaum, dass dabei eine Frau wie Mary Kelly seine Wahl numero uno gewesen wäre.

Trotzdem lässt sich die Theorie relativ schlüssig lesen und man ist leicht versucht, ihr Glauben zu schenken. Ich halte die Möglichkeit eines weiblichen oder gar als Frau verkleideten Rippers für durchaus denkbar. Vielleicht war sogar ein Duo aus Mann und Frau am Werk - wer weiß?!

Nun, wir wissen es nicht, aber uns bleibt die Spekulation und die Freude an eben dieser. Weitere Spekulationen werden zweifelsohne folgen.
Unter den aktuell bestehenden halte ich die Theorie vom Team Morris für eine der besseren.

[Samantha van Buuren · Rating 4 out of 5]

We'll, I'm pretty convinced. In that respect the book set forth the authors argument that the infamous Jack the Ripper was actually a woman, very clearly and effectively.

The author states in the book that no facts were altered to fit their theory, nor did they pick and choose the facts that suited them best. Every fact of the case was examined and was explained completely by the authors theory.

I love the fact that the author came up with this idea with his father, spurred on by a claim from another writer that Jack the Ripper was in fact a well respected doctor whom the authors father admired. And they did a great job, though I don't think said doctor comes out of this completely squeeky clean.

I also love that for any readers still not completely convinced, there is an appendix at the end listing similar attacks against women since the Jack the Ripper murders, all of which were committed by a woman! It is definitely very compelling.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the book, the writing did bother me. It's a slim book but I think it could have been written better with half the pages. The author repeats himself a lot and it got quite annoying.

However, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in the Ripper murders. While the evidence is mostly circumstantial, this books wraps everything up in a neat little bow. It's a truly fascinating and enjoyable read.

[Si · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is all rather silly. I accept that Jack The Ripper could have been a woman and it seems perfectly reasonable. However the author has decided on the killer and built a book around it, just as Patricia Cornwall did. It's all supposition and could have been. The idea that a surgeon would show his wife how to remove organs and she would save the knowledge untill years later when she went on a killing spree is not only daft but there is no evidence to support it. There is also no proof that he ever had an affair with Mary Kelly or even if he did that his wife knew. It was an interesting read as are most Ripper books but fails to make a convincing conclusion.

[Shazza Maddog · Rating 3 out of 5]

Grabbed this one on a whim as I'd read Ann Rule's Ripper book a short time before.

John Morris and his father started doing research into the possibility the Ripper could be a woman based on a single off-hand phrase made by one of the investigators. Their research seems well thought-out and compelling, and it make sense.

Offers some possible insight into who the Ripper might have been and her access and abilities regarding why she might have murdered these women.

[Natalie Schroeder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, Intriguing and Thought provoking. A few of their facts seemed to be jumping to conclusions but some of the hallmarks of female killers are there and shown in this book. Contains real pictures of victims. I find this a solid theory.

[Tecre · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thin evidence presented with great confidence

[Mcandrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Makes you think.

[Tony Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read almost every Ripper book and would say I'm quite the expert. When I first saw this book it made me chuckle, and I thought about money making etc etc.. But.. this is actually quite a plausible theory, I've actually changed my attitude slightly after reading this. It answers many questions, one being why nobody ever saw the killer.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Firstly many thanks to GR, the author and the publisher for my free copy of this book. It arrived in my mailbox in truly record time!

This is a presentation of a well thought out, well researched theory regarding the Jack The Ripper or Whitechaple Murders. The subject matter may seem a little dry to some but I assure you that the book is anything but.

Jack the Ripper is most famous for the simple fact that no one has ever been able to prove who the ripper was. No one was ever convicted of the murders and just as quickly as they started, the murders stopped. No single theory regarding the identity of the ripper has been able to make all of the facts fit without ignoring some facts or twisting others. The Hand of a Woman does an incredibly good job of showing that all of the facts regarding the case all can fit together. John Morris with the help of his father conclusively shows that the ripper was not only a woman but was someone who would or should have been considered a suspect at the time (in my opinion at least). Basically Morris shows us how the police had a huge blind spot regarding the gender of the killer and then goes on to show us who the killer most likely was if you simply acknowledge the fact that it could have been a woman.

All of the evidence that Morris uses is well documented and he certainly does an excellent job of compiling and using all of the known facts. I find this theory and timeline to be perfectly plausible and would encourage others to rethink how they perceive the Ripper murders.

An excellent read and I would most certainly recommend it to any fans of true crime or Ripper lore. I very much enjoyed it.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting, though frustrating, book. I vacillated between giving it two or three stars, but ultimately stuck with three because the theory presented is largely plausible and has clearly been given much thought. The process behind each conclusion is clearly explained, and though not all of them are as believable as others (which, of course, is subjective - any discussion of the Ripper at this point is ultimately conjecture), the reader is always fully aware of how the author and his father came to each piece of support.

What really works against this book is how much repetition there is, along with fairly frequent grammatical errors. Every fact gets repeated at least twice, and sometimes entire segments of the theory are repeated over and over. It feels in places as if the author is actively working through ideas as he writes, and that should have been edited for better efficiency. The comma errors and spelling errors (less frequent, but noticeable) are also detractors. It's unfortunate, because if this book had been cut down and more harshly edited, it really could be a pretty solid, compact presentation of an interesting theory.

[Alicia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this book as a First Reads Giveaway.

I enjoyed this book for the most part. It really kept me engaged throughout until the end where it began to become a little repetitive. The author makes some great arguments as to why he believes a woman, Lizzie Williams, was the actual 'Jack the Ripper' but it is still all speculation.

With all the evidence the author presents, I still am not convinced fully as to say Lizzie was the killer. I don't think we will ever really know without a shadow of doubt.

This was my first book about the infamous 'Jack the Ripper' and before I make any judgements as to what seems to be a pretty accurate account as to who 'Jack the Ripper' may have been, I would have to dig a little deeper.

I love crime/mystery novels and this one was definitely entertaining. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this genre.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellantly writtern, well-thought-out and logical book cataloguing what is evidently a thorough and personal journey of research by the author and his late father. I wasn't aware of the exact details of the murders...this being the first Ripper book I've read, so I tried to remain objective and toughly cynical. The theory, that Jack the Ripper was really a woman, is compelling and throws new angles on the murders. The female suspect who Morris believes was the Ripper (won't throw any spoilers, promise!) certainly had motive for one of the murders, but I couldn't help feeling that the others were 'fit in' around this, on the basis of circumstance and supposition. Nevertheless a very accessible and readable book. Beware the gruesome images on the centrefold pictures...not censored!
I've knocked a star off because I'm still not convinced they have found the truth.

[Andrea Hickman Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've never read any of the books or theories suggesting that the Ripper was female, so I thought it was time, and this one looked interesting (I admit, I picked it based entirely on the title and cover). The argument for the Ripper being female is far more compelling than I had expected. Their choice of villain however, is not particularly believable as it appears to be entirely based on conjecture of the 'this could have happened' type, with absolutely no real evidence to back it up. It's a good story though.

[Joanna Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Will we ever really know the identity of Jack the Ripper? Probably not. But in Jack The Ripper: The Hand of a Woman, John Morris and his father present a well researched and well outlined theory that successfully convinces the reader that these crimes could have been committed by a woman. Although at times a bit repetitive, this book is an excellent choice for crime buffs and those intrigued by the mystery of Jack the Ripper.

[Hemant Rajput · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first time I read about this haunting,vicious murder mystery. I was really devastated with the brutality and cruelty of the events. John Morris and his father's research was very much cogent. I won't say that their inference is perfect, however, they are extremely convincing. I specially liked the way, how they relate the connections between all the white-chapel's murders.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Author makes a good argument but here's where it falls flat for me. The women were killed whilst lying on their backs, presumably waiting to offer the service they no doubt gave.
How likely was it to have a lesbian arrangement? And how likely was it that the woman seeking sex would be above the person she was paying?
The book covers the known facts very well.

[Vicki Krivak · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good book and worth the read. A reasonable case is made of the possibility of Jack the Ripper could have been a
woman. I thought it was a pretty good theory, but no real evidence to back it up. This book is speculation at best.
Still worth the read though.

[LaLaLa · Rating 2 out of 5]

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

overall it was great admired your passion and your father'but I wish the novel would have been longer (finished in one day.

[Tomara · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.75/5 stars

Interesting but very repetitive information

[Ronnie Tucker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly an interesting theory and the writer seems to be able to tie up some loose ends, but it's still not a perfect theory. Still, it's one of the best theories thus far I think.