"The Diary of Jack the Ripper", which came to light in 1991, revealed the identity of the world's most notorious serial killer. At the time it was widely believed to have been a hoax, yet, incredibly, not one person has managed to prove how it was forged or by whom. This, argues Paul Feldman, is because the diary was genuine. Discover how the largest and most detailed investigation on the subject ever to be undertaken led the author through the smokescreen of an official cover-up, via the Royals and the Masons, to the true provenance of the Diary, Jack the Ripper's watch and, ultimately, his identity.
Could have been a really interesting book, but I felt the author was really pompous and chippy. And I'm still not sure if the diary was genuine or not.
I admit I didn't get very far in the book. But I'm not going to read a book that's more than 400 pages that after just a few chapters I hate. I wanted to like it, but obviously that didn't happen. On page 5 I almost stopped reading, but decided to keep trying. On page 40 I finally gave up.
lol....James Maybrick, was NOT Jack. You study the facts, it will be obvious to you too. That is of course.........unless you're a Liberal (including the variety that can actually read).
This book, complete with phony diary (proven phony). And ridiculously lame, self absorbed, pseudo intellectual statements, such as (when he was talking about asking someone covertly if it was James Maybrick) "Does it have something to do with building houses in the springtime?". Get it? May=spring and brick=houses............good Lord, calm me. What a MORON. And of course the pocket-watch engraved "I am Jack"..pffffff..hahahaha!
*gets up off floor*
From the bottom of my truthful heart...........C - R - A - P !