What do you think?
Rate this book
Jack the Ripper: The Whitechapel Murderer
Horrific, horrendous, unspeakable, The Whitechapel Murderer, Jack the Ripper, stalked the streets of East London in 1888, slaughtering prostitutes and bewildering the police who were hunting him. They never succeeded in apprehending him, and to this day the mystery of his identity remains an enigma. But he did leave clues to his identity, and numerous theories have been entertained throughout the one hundred and twenty years since he held London s East End in his grip of terror. This book looks at the evidence left by the murderer and the reports and investigative papers which recorded the atrocities that the ripper performed. It takes time to analyse the existing information and evaluate the letters sent to the police. It is the strongest and most powerful book ever written on the murders. It dispels a lot of myths attached to the Ripper, and eliminates a lot of the previously conjectured perpetrators, leaving only those who realistically could have been... Jack the Ripper.
356 pages, Paperback
First published September 10, 2007
47 people are currently reading
622 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
August 28, 2021
Um dos psicopatas mais famosos e decifráveis de todos os tempos. Terry Lynch desmitifica os mitos e lendas por detrás desta figura.
Quem são as principais vítimas? Os suspeitos? E as evidências?
Afinal quem era Jack, o estripador? Será esta pergunta que permanecerá na mente do leitor no fim do livro.
Quem são as principais vítimas? Os suspeitos? E as evidências?
Afinal quem era Jack, o estripador? Será esta pergunta que permanecerá na mente do leitor no fim do livro.
January 12, 2014
I genuinely don't understand what the author wanted to achieve with this book. Large parts were just basic facts about the case: where the victims were found, who found them, details from the autopsy, witness-statements and so on. This part is quite well done and if you are unfamiliar with the details of the Ripper-murders this book does gives quite a good overview.
However once you get to the authors own theories it all becomes...questionable. The author names various people that have been suspects and gives his opinions on the likeliness of them really having been the Ripper. He often raises some good points but his research is hardly as new and ground-breaking as he claims in the introduction as many of the points have been raised long before. I also question how useful it is to spent a whole chapter on a guy who has been imprisoned and on a different continent at the time of the murders. It feels like he just needed to fill pages before he came to his suspect of choice: MJ Druitt...he doesn't dedicate much more pages to him than to those he considers unlikely suspects. His theory is solely based on the facts that
a) Druitt committed suicide shortly after the last murder
b) he left a note saying 'I fear I would become like mother' and his mother had been institutionalized in a mental asylum shortly before (he does not mention if he made an effort to find out why exactly Druitt's mother had been institutionalized, e.g if she had been violent towards others, in which case that part of the theory might have half a leg to stand on or if the family just saw a danger of her hurting herself/not being able to care for herself anymore in which case it would all be rather far-fetched)
c) from looking at photos of Druitt and from the wounds the Ripper's victims received he concludes that both must have been left-handed. He does make some good arguments for both of these theories but even if we accept both it is a rather thin argument.
d) Druitt has been included in the Macnaughten Memorandum...and at this point it simply gets really weird because he admits that the Memorandum is full of mistakes (it gets Druitt's age, job and date of death wrong) but for him that's a proof that Macnaughten must have known more than he said but couldn't tell it because Druitt was already dead and you can't put a dead man on trial (John Williams would like to protest)
He then goes on to talk about various possible Ripper-letters and how likely it is that they were genuine. Like with the suspects he makes some good, if not new, points but also dismisses many letters that announced more murders because there were no new murders after Mary Kelly, completely ignoring the possibility of the Ripper dying/being injured in an accident or being arrested for an unrelated crime, something he hardly would have mentioned in the letters.
Then it gets really odd because at the end he pulls another suspect out of his hat: John Kelly, Catherine Eddowes' partner. He throws some facts(?) at the reader that might have made compelling case if he elaborated a bit more and given sources for the claims he made but he doesn't which makes the chapter pretty useless.
All in all really not a book you need to read. If you're looking for a good overview you're petter of with e.g. Whitehead's & Rivett's Jack the Ripper.
Finally a word to the cover which is somewhat problematic. I don't want to blame the author for the cover-designers mistakes but putting pictures of possible victims on the cover that are then dismissed in book by the author is...well. If you're apparently stealing those pictures online it's even worse.
However once you get to the authors own theories it all becomes...questionable. The author names various people that have been suspects and gives his opinions on the likeliness of them really having been the Ripper. He often raises some good points but his research is hardly as new and ground-breaking as he claims in the introduction as many of the points have been raised long before. I also question how useful it is to spent a whole chapter on a guy who has been imprisoned and on a different continent at the time of the murders. It feels like he just needed to fill pages before he came to his suspect of choice: MJ Druitt...he doesn't dedicate much more pages to him than to those he considers unlikely suspects. His theory is solely based on the facts that
a) Druitt committed suicide shortly after the last murder
b) he left a note saying 'I fear I would become like mother' and his mother had been institutionalized in a mental asylum shortly before (he does not mention if he made an effort to find out why exactly Druitt's mother had been institutionalized, e.g if she had been violent towards others, in which case that part of the theory might have half a leg to stand on or if the family just saw a danger of her hurting herself/not being able to care for herself anymore in which case it would all be rather far-fetched)
c) from looking at photos of Druitt and from the wounds the Ripper's victims received he concludes that both must have been left-handed. He does make some good arguments for both of these theories but even if we accept both it is a rather thin argument.
d) Druitt has been included in the Macnaughten Memorandum...and at this point it simply gets really weird because he admits that the Memorandum is full of mistakes (it gets Druitt's age, job and date of death wrong) but for him that's a proof that Macnaughten must have known more than he said but couldn't tell it because Druitt was already dead and you can't put a dead man on trial (John Williams would like to protest)
He then goes on to talk about various possible Ripper-letters and how likely it is that they were genuine. Like with the suspects he makes some good, if not new, points but also dismisses many letters that announced more murders because there were no new murders after Mary Kelly, completely ignoring the possibility of the Ripper dying/being injured in an accident or being arrested for an unrelated crime, something he hardly would have mentioned in the letters.
Then it gets really odd because at the end he pulls another suspect out of his hat: John Kelly, Catherine Eddowes' partner. He throws some facts(?) at the reader that might have made compelling case if he elaborated a bit more and given sources for the claims he made but he doesn't which makes the chapter pretty useless.
All in all really not a book you need to read. If you're looking for a good overview you're petter of with e.g. Whitehead's & Rivett's Jack the Ripper.
Finally a word to the cover which is somewhat problematic. I don't want to blame the author for the cover-designers mistakes but putting pictures of possible victims on the cover that are then dismissed in book by the author is...well. If you're apparently stealing those pictures online it's even worse.
September 9, 2012
Well, this was... different from what I normally read, let's keep it at that.
It's fairly straightforward: first, we get descriptions of the murders, also including the ones the author doesn't think were committed by the Ripper. Then, there's a chapter on possible suspects, followed by a long chapter summing up all the paperwork related to the case. I personally found this a bit dull to read, as it was mostly 'on this date, this paperwork was filed, talking about x and x'. Finally, the author puts everything together and names his three primal suspects.
I must admit I found the author a bit overly present at times. A lot of things weren't really presented objectively, though I must admit this is a hard feat to accomplish considering it's about crimes committed over a century ago. What bugged me more was how the author was very keen on forcing in his own ideas, becoming positively snarky at points (e.g. 'at this point one wonders if they would have arrested him had he carried a bloody knife', referring to an officer not taking in someone he thought was suspicious. The police at the time didn't come across as terribly competent in this case, but come on). Another thing that bugged me was his discussion of the Ripper letters. He dismissed a majority of them mostly based on the sole fact that they were written after the final murder predicting he'd commit another one, only to have the killings stop there. Yeah, because I suppose if Jack the Ripper had known he was going to be killed himself or taken into custody for another case or whatever, he'd have written that in his note rather than 'I intend to kill again', right? Things like that made me kind of wary of the author.
My final problem was with the author constantly emphasizing certain facts (his insistance the Ripper was left-handed, the final letter being of huge importance despite not being investigated thoroughly before), only to kind of shove them aside in the final chapter called 'Whodunit'. He mentions he's built an entire case against a fourth suspect during the writing of this book, but he completely omits him from the chapter, despite him being the most likely candidate to have written that final letter. Only one of his suspects is discussed to be left-handed. One of the other suspects he initially all but dismissed. Overall, it kind of seemed like the author had done his research, decided on his conclusion, and then continued to write the actual book.
Or maybe the snarkiness is rubbing off on me.
That isn't to say it's a bad book. If you want to know more about the Ripper cases rather than just 'someone killed prostitutes in 1888', I think this might be a good introduction, considering the author starts from zero, discussing every case and even including personal backgrounds for all of the victims. It even gets a bit too detailed at times when discussing the mutilations, and I certainly could have done without the unexpected death photos (though admittingly, most were featured on the cover - just not the facially mutilated victims). The author does strongly suggest you agree with his ideas, but as long as you're aware of that, this is a comprehensive and somewhat morbidly interesting book on the facts, the myths, and the possibilities connected to the Ripper murders.
(I am now just left wondering why the hell this book was included in Wordsworth classics' 'tales of mystery and the supernatural', considering all of the other books I've found in this series have been (collected) fictional stories rather than real-case discussions.)
It's fairly straightforward: first, we get descriptions of the murders, also including the ones the author doesn't think were committed by the Ripper. Then, there's a chapter on possible suspects, followed by a long chapter summing up all the paperwork related to the case. I personally found this a bit dull to read, as it was mostly 'on this date, this paperwork was filed, talking about x and x'. Finally, the author puts everything together and names his three primal suspects.
I must admit I found the author a bit overly present at times. A lot of things weren't really presented objectively, though I must admit this is a hard feat to accomplish considering it's about crimes committed over a century ago. What bugged me more was how the author was very keen on forcing in his own ideas, becoming positively snarky at points (e.g. 'at this point one wonders if they would have arrested him had he carried a bloody knife', referring to an officer not taking in someone he thought was suspicious. The police at the time didn't come across as terribly competent in this case, but come on). Another thing that bugged me was his discussion of the Ripper letters. He dismissed a majority of them mostly based on the sole fact that they were written after the final murder predicting he'd commit another one, only to have the killings stop there. Yeah, because I suppose if Jack the Ripper had known he was going to be killed himself or taken into custody for another case or whatever, he'd have written that in his note rather than 'I intend to kill again', right? Things like that made me kind of wary of the author.
My final problem was with the author constantly emphasizing certain facts (his insistance the Ripper was left-handed, the final letter being of huge importance despite not being investigated thoroughly before), only to kind of shove them aside in the final chapter called 'Whodunit'. He mentions he's built an entire case against a fourth suspect during the writing of this book, but he completely omits him from the chapter, despite him being the most likely candidate to have written that final letter. Only one of his suspects is discussed to be left-handed. One of the other suspects he initially all but dismissed. Overall, it kind of seemed like the author had done his research, decided on his conclusion, and then continued to write the actual book.
Or maybe the snarkiness is rubbing off on me.
That isn't to say it's a bad book. If you want to know more about the Ripper cases rather than just 'someone killed prostitutes in 1888', I think this might be a good introduction, considering the author starts from zero, discussing every case and even including personal backgrounds for all of the victims. It even gets a bit too detailed at times when discussing the mutilations, and I certainly could have done without the unexpected death photos (though admittingly, most were featured on the cover - just not the facially mutilated victims). The author does strongly suggest you agree with his ideas, but as long as you're aware of that, this is a comprehensive and somewhat morbidly interesting book on the facts, the myths, and the possibilities connected to the Ripper murders.
(I am now just left wondering why the hell this book was included in Wordsworth classics' 'tales of mystery and the supernatural', considering all of the other books I've found in this series have been (collected) fictional stories rather than real-case discussions.)
April 22, 2020
fully detailed book about the most scary serial killer in a very dark buried past. Jack the ripper remains the most lethal killer despite the fact he might have committed the least murderers. This is because the extreme violent nature of the crimes. It is a must read for those who research the crimes and its nature.
August 13, 2021
So where do I start? Firstly *spoiler warning* as I will go into detail about the content of the book. Secondly I'll give a trigger warning if anyone isn't up for reading quite detailed medical reports about the horrific deaths of these women in case you think about picking this up. For context, I picked this up on a whim. I had just finished "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold and wanted to read a bit further into the portrayal of the victims of Jack the Ripper as a comparison to her view. I happened to find this book in a store and thought "why not?" This book was written in 2008 so any of the authors information may have been disproved or taken further.
So I find reading non-fiction quite difficult. I tend to get bored quickly and any non-fiction I start, I'll DNF for another day, but then never get around to it again. I tend to watch documentaries which is where all my previous knowledge of the crimes of Jack the Ripper are from and while I was in the frame of mind, I went into my first reading experience of this case.
Now on to the book; it opens (and blurbs with) 'the strongest and most comprehensive/ most powerful book ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper'.... quite a statement. At this point I knew I needed a pen for annotation! I had also seen other reviews on Goodreads and was curious if I'd have the same thoughts.
I'll start with the positives: the book is full of information. From police statements, witness statements, medical reports, copies of the letters apparently sent by the Ripper and lots of other tidbits from newspapers and other reports out at the time. The author does go into some details about the points made and makes use of them to form theories and potentially new suspects and also other victims that weren't included with the 5 women we are aware of. And as a final positive, I was so frustrated at times, it compelled me to finish it so, there's that.
Next the negatives: I'll try to be reasonable with my thoughts on this. I am aware (more so now) that there seems to be a lack of information for the case. While this book includes a lot, the author explains that a lot is missing like police notes and numerous other reports (some are mentioned in the papers but the originals are gone). My one gripe with this book was the reliance on senior officer memoirs who worked the case at the time. They were quoted in one breath as 'must be respected as "person" was there and would have had intimate knowledge of the case and evidence' but then later deemed unreliable by the author because the senior office focused on certain suspects and ignored what the author stated as clear inconsistancies (and some focus by the officer seemed to be racially motivated from my understanding). The author also referred to a lot of other books by other authors as they seemed to have included other evidence or various takes on evidence that he wanted to include. I appreciate the author admires other writers and their works but what was meant to be respectfully referring to them as 'renowned' in the world of 'Ripperology' (a term I am not too keen on), it came across in some parts of the book as heavy reliance on their input to prove or disprove something.
There was also a lot of back and forth- the author proceeded to criticise an officer who came quite close to a gentleman who he thought was suspect, got a good look at him but in his word "couldn't justify" questioning the gentleman. Throughout the police statement, the author adds in brackets with his own thoughts, breaking up the flow of the officer's account, and distracting the reader with comments like "and he still never pulled him in" at regular intervals. Only by the end of the book to say that if this officer is 'trusted and honest', he may have been used by the Met to view witnesses/suspects at inquests to see if any of them resemble who he saw in a hope to catch him.
The author also went to great length to insert their viewpoints in the middle of reports, witness statements, medical reports to a point, where I had to reread pages as I wasn't sure if I was still reading the report or had some how glided into the authors narrative. Obviously the author had done a lot of research, this is his book, his theories based on the evidence available but his voice was so "loud" while I was reading, I found it difficult at times to understand the evidence at all and split what he wanted you to think over 'the reader coming to their own conclusion'. There are other problematic things in this book including the author speculating that a suspect was homosexual (this is never addressed with proof other than with speculation and assumptions- which I found uncomfortable).
Finally, the italics!! Breaking up the flow of evidence is one thing, yes, by all means put your conclusions into a sentence, a paragraph even a chapter, but little bits of italics here and there felt jarring. One of the main purposes of these italics was to point out (quite regularly) that the author thinks that the Ripper was left-handed. Great! He explains in length (in the medical reports) why he thinks that. Again, great. He even names someone, who was part of the original suspect pool basing it on 2 "well known" photos of said suspect. Are these photos in the book? Nope! The faces of the victims are, the drawings of their bodies are, other images of the other suspects are, a map of Whitechapel is in there as is the Jack the Ripper letters including those thought to be fakes. But the 2 photos that prove the authors point- no where to be seen. With no explanation as to why. If they are protected or unavailable, fine but there is no mention of this. Just the assumption that the reader has seen them and in 2008, it's not like most would go out of their way to Google it. I certainly haven't.
I was also confused why its part of a "mystery and supernatural" collection- I get the mystery but the supernatural?
Overall my 2 stars are essentially: one star for the research and collection of everything and the other star for the fact I managed to finish it. That fact alone (to me) means the book had something about it to keep me going. Be it curiosity or sheer frustration.
I certainly wouldn't reread it, I can't get rid of my book now as some of my annotations are impulsive thoughts to say the least and I wouldn't recommend it. I'd rather summarise for someone, maybe share some of the annotations, then direct them to a more up to date book about the case.
So I find reading non-fiction quite difficult. I tend to get bored quickly and any non-fiction I start, I'll DNF for another day, but then never get around to it again. I tend to watch documentaries which is where all my previous knowledge of the crimes of Jack the Ripper are from and while I was in the frame of mind, I went into my first reading experience of this case.
Now on to the book; it opens (and blurbs with) 'the strongest and most comprehensive/ most powerful book ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper'.... quite a statement. At this point I knew I needed a pen for annotation! I had also seen other reviews on Goodreads and was curious if I'd have the same thoughts.
I'll start with the positives: the book is full of information. From police statements, witness statements, medical reports, copies of the letters apparently sent by the Ripper and lots of other tidbits from newspapers and other reports out at the time. The author does go into some details about the points made and makes use of them to form theories and potentially new suspects and also other victims that weren't included with the 5 women we are aware of. And as a final positive, I was so frustrated at times, it compelled me to finish it so, there's that.
Next the negatives: I'll try to be reasonable with my thoughts on this. I am aware (more so now) that there seems to be a lack of information for the case. While this book includes a lot, the author explains that a lot is missing like police notes and numerous other reports (some are mentioned in the papers but the originals are gone). My one gripe with this book was the reliance on senior officer memoirs who worked the case at the time. They were quoted in one breath as 'must be respected as "person" was there and would have had intimate knowledge of the case and evidence' but then later deemed unreliable by the author because the senior office focused on certain suspects and ignored what the author stated as clear inconsistancies (and some focus by the officer seemed to be racially motivated from my understanding). The author also referred to a lot of other books by other authors as they seemed to have included other evidence or various takes on evidence that he wanted to include. I appreciate the author admires other writers and their works but what was meant to be respectfully referring to them as 'renowned' in the world of 'Ripperology' (a term I am not too keen on), it came across in some parts of the book as heavy reliance on their input to prove or disprove something.
There was also a lot of back and forth- the author proceeded to criticise an officer who came quite close to a gentleman who he thought was suspect, got a good look at him but in his word "couldn't justify" questioning the gentleman. Throughout the police statement, the author adds in brackets with his own thoughts, breaking up the flow of the officer's account, and distracting the reader with comments like "and he still never pulled him in" at regular intervals. Only by the end of the book to say that if this officer is 'trusted and honest', he may have been used by the Met to view witnesses/suspects at inquests to see if any of them resemble who he saw in a hope to catch him.
The author also went to great length to insert their viewpoints in the middle of reports, witness statements, medical reports to a point, where I had to reread pages as I wasn't sure if I was still reading the report or had some how glided into the authors narrative. Obviously the author had done a lot of research, this is his book, his theories based on the evidence available but his voice was so "loud" while I was reading, I found it difficult at times to understand the evidence at all and split what he wanted you to think over 'the reader coming to their own conclusion'. There are other problematic things in this book including the author speculating that a suspect was homosexual (this is never addressed with proof other than with speculation and assumptions- which I found uncomfortable).
Finally, the italics!! Breaking up the flow of evidence is one thing, yes, by all means put your conclusions into a sentence, a paragraph even a chapter, but little bits of italics here and there felt jarring. One of the main purposes of these italics was to point out (quite regularly) that the author thinks that the Ripper was left-handed. Great! He explains in length (in the medical reports) why he thinks that. Again, great. He even names someone, who was part of the original suspect pool basing it on 2 "well known" photos of said suspect. Are these photos in the book? Nope! The faces of the victims are, the drawings of their bodies are, other images of the other suspects are, a map of Whitechapel is in there as is the Jack the Ripper letters including those thought to be fakes. But the 2 photos that prove the authors point- no where to be seen. With no explanation as to why. If they are protected or unavailable, fine but there is no mention of this. Just the assumption that the reader has seen them and in 2008, it's not like most would go out of their way to Google it. I certainly haven't.
I was also confused why its part of a "mystery and supernatural" collection- I get the mystery but the supernatural?
Overall my 2 stars are essentially: one star for the research and collection of everything and the other star for the fact I managed to finish it. That fact alone (to me) means the book had something about it to keep me going. Be it curiosity or sheer frustration.
I certainly wouldn't reread it, I can't get rid of my book now as some of my annotations are impulsive thoughts to say the least and I wouldn't recommend it. I'd rather summarise for someone, maybe share some of the annotations, then direct them to a more up to date book about the case.
February 12, 2024
I started this book with great interest since I'm pretty curious about the legend of Jack the Ripper. But alas, as I advanced I was less and less engaged with Lynch's research and even began to question what good it'll do if we get to know who actually was the culprit. It's about a time long gone and in the present day not more (for me, at least) than a mysterious legend. A whodunit without a definitive answer and I don't see why it would need an almost academic research dedicated to it.
Immediately from the introduction irritations began to arise. If you begin your book with "This manuscript unquestionably represents the strongest and most comprehensive book ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper" and "I believe that I know more about this subject than anyone alive", you immediately lose points with me. Then it also bases itself to some extent on assumptions (about the legend of the Ripper, but mostly about the reader's knowledge on the subject) which doesn't help in getting interested. This all made me scan most parts of the book than reading it carefully (something I normally never do) which feels like a big shame. I never had so big an urge to stop reading (which I didn't, because I'm a loyal completionist), so that should say enough on its own.
Immediately from the introduction irritations began to arise. If you begin your book with "This manuscript unquestionably represents the strongest and most comprehensive book ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper" and "I believe that I know more about this subject than anyone alive", you immediately lose points with me. Then it also bases itself to some extent on assumptions (about the legend of the Ripper, but mostly about the reader's knowledge on the subject) which doesn't help in getting interested. This all made me scan most parts of the book than reading it carefully (something I normally never do) which feels like a big shame. I never had so big an urge to stop reading (which I didn't, because I'm a loyal completionist), so that should say enough on its own.
November 4, 2017
Interesting book. Very detailed in the way it describes the brutal murders, the investigations and they likely suspects. This is not a book to read for "enjoyment" but a carefully constructed documentations of the diabolical acts and the search for Jack the Ripper who was never caught in the end but still leaves room to much conjecture. The book is important also because it tries to address many of the possibilities and the 'whodunit' which points to more soul-searching and conjecture in which there was five ripper victims, but certainly there could be more. The book is important because it also gives the reader a comprehensive picture of Whitechapel in the 1880s and provides a social make up of the community as it existed and the different methods used by the police then. A valuable read for those interested in crime and solution.
December 9, 2013
Delighted to find this! I wouldn't say I'm a "fan" of Jack the Ripper, but that time, place, and the crimes have always held my fascination.
Very organized in setup, very detailed in all its information. All I could really think was, wow, the Hughes Brothers really did their homework! And I was not shocked to read about how many people confessed to being Jack the Ripper.
Very organized in setup, very detailed in all its information. All I could really think was, wow, the Hughes Brothers really did their homework! And I was not shocked to read about how many people confessed to being Jack the Ripper.
July 27, 2024
JACK THE RIPPER-TERDY LYNCH
✒️"This manuscript unquestionably represents the strongest and most comprehensive book ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper."
Terry Lynch-prva rečenica uvoda 😁
🤓Da li je Terry Lynch arogantni kreten ili je zaista rešio "whodunit"?🤔
🤓Pošto sam odgledala milion ekranizacija koje se bave temom Džeka Trboseka,od ove knjige sam dobila nešto što do sada nisam-činjenice.
🤓I to činjenice sređene s neverovatnom preciznošću-počevši s kratkom biografijom žrtve,njenog kretanja na dan ubistva,detaljnih policijskih,novinskih i obdukcijskih izveštaja do svih izjava svedoka.
🤓Ako vam smetaju detaljni opisi autopsije,pa sad... ipak je ovo knjiga o Džeku Trboseku 🤷♀️
🤓Drugi deo se bavi osumnjičenima,zatim policijskom istragom,pismima koje je navodno Džek slao policiji i štampi.
🤓Do konačnog rešenja misterije. Možda 😁
🤓Usput sam guglala sve termine vezane za London i žovot siromašnih slojeva u tom periodu.
🤓Najčudnije (za mene)-uglavnom mrzim komentare i teorije autora,ali on je prvo pokazao sve što je mogao da nađe od dokumenata,pa je onda dodao svoj zaključak zašto misli da je neko opravdano ili neopravdano osumnjičen. Do kraja me je ubedio. Da sam u poroti,visio bi...ne autor,već njegov izabrani ubica. 😁
😁Ako neko zna obimniju,detaljniju i bolje obrazloženu knjigu o Džeku Trboseku,dajte predloge. Dotle,slažem se s rečenicom kojom je autor otvorio ovo delo.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
#7sensesofabook #terrylinch #jacktheripper
✒️"This manuscript unquestionably represents the strongest and most comprehensive book ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper."
Terry Lynch-prva rečenica uvoda 😁
🤓Da li je Terry Lynch arogantni kreten ili je zaista rešio "whodunit"?🤔
🤓Pošto sam odgledala milion ekranizacija koje se bave temom Džeka Trboseka,od ove knjige sam dobila nešto što do sada nisam-činjenice.
🤓I to činjenice sređene s neverovatnom preciznošću-počevši s kratkom biografijom žrtve,njenog kretanja na dan ubistva,detaljnih policijskih,novinskih i obdukcijskih izveštaja do svih izjava svedoka.
🤓Ako vam smetaju detaljni opisi autopsije,pa sad... ipak je ovo knjiga o Džeku Trboseku 🤷♀️
🤓Drugi deo se bavi osumnjičenima,zatim policijskom istragom,pismima koje je navodno Džek slao policiji i štampi.
🤓Do konačnog rešenja misterije. Možda 😁
🤓Usput sam guglala sve termine vezane za London i žovot siromašnih slojeva u tom periodu.
🤓Najčudnije (za mene)-uglavnom mrzim komentare i teorije autora,ali on je prvo pokazao sve što je mogao da nađe od dokumenata,pa je onda dodao svoj zaključak zašto misli da je neko opravdano ili neopravdano osumnjičen. Do kraja me je ubedio. Da sam u poroti,visio bi...ne autor,već njegov izabrani ubica. 😁
😁Ako neko zna obimniju,detaljniju i bolje obrazloženu knjigu o Džeku Trboseku,dajte predloge. Dotle,slažem se s rečenicom kojom je autor otvorio ovo delo.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
#7sensesofabook #terrylinch #jacktheripper
January 6, 2014
I have given this book one star to acknowledge the research the author must have carried out. However, I was dreadfully disappointed with the book in general. It did not turn up anything new, did not reach any sensible or interesting conclusions and was, quite frankly, an insult to all the much better works about JTR which had gone before it. The worst aspects of this traditionally published book however were the spelling errors, typographical errors, incorrect grammar and overall dreadfully negligent editing. The sheer volume of incomplete sentences and bad punctuation alone was quite irritating. That this passed the scrutiny of an editor or two in a major legitimate publishing house is remarkable.
This book deserves to exist however if only to belie the mistaken view that self published books might be less well edited than those published by traditional publishers.
Since I wrote this review, I see that the book has been released in a new edition with different cover (the one shown above) and with the afore-mentioned typos corrected. Hopefully, most of the other reviewers were fortunate enough not to have bought the earlier version. The publishers should never have released an un-edited version however.
This book deserves to exist however if only to belie the mistaken view that self published books might be less well edited than those published by traditional publishers.
Since I wrote this review, I see that the book has been released in a new edition with different cover (the one shown above) and with the afore-mentioned typos corrected. Hopefully, most of the other reviewers were fortunate enough not to have bought the earlier version. The publishers should never have released an un-edited version however.
February 16, 2011
I thought this book was well written and well researched (especially compared to some of its contemparies). It traces recent crimes prior to the Ripper killings in an effort to establish a beginnings to the murderers career. He then charts the series of murders using original police documents and witness accounts as well as implementing victorian investigation tecniques to disasemble facts and does not simply indulge in wild speculation and well troden cliches to impart information. Predictably, however, the case remains unresolved but not before plenty of in depth anaylsis into the prime suspects which gives you plenty to consider.
My only criticism is that the victorian map published in the book is far too small to properly scrutinise, especially as a lot of the evidence offered is geographically based.
My only criticism is that the victorian map published in the book is far too small to properly scrutinise, especially as a lot of the evidence offered is geographically based.
December 20, 2021
This is different to normal books I read but I found myself interesting in the Ripper murders for quite some time so I decided to read it to find out more. It certainly tells you a lot about them, from post mortem pictures to dates and times of people's whereabouts, even records that are missing from the Scotland Yard. Terry Lynch definitely did his research. However, it does jump around quite a bit and I found it heavy going to read because it was full of so much information in such long sentences. I also read it at night...I don't recommend 😂 but I enjoyed being convinced by his opinion without it being forced upon me. Kept me interested in the Ripper murders!
January 7, 2009
Perhaps this will only appeal to serious Jack The Ripper freaks. It's packed with facts and Ripper minutia, but it's so dry and lifeless that by the time I had 75 pages left, I was forever cured of having any interest in the topic. Who was Jack The Ripper? After reading this book, I don't really care.
May 7, 2019
It was interesting. I did learn something new about the myth. It did give facts that not many people know unless they have researched the case themselves. I would like a sequel just to see if the man he thinks is actually the Ripper. All in all i do recommend this book.
December 6, 2021
Tip for authors: don't put things like "this manuscript UNUESTIONABLY respresents the strongest and MOST COMPREHENSIVE book EVER written on the subject of Jack the Ripper" or "I believe I know more about this subject than ANYONE ALIVE". Emphasis is all mine. It's arrogant and I'm going to be looking for flaws.
Unfortunately, I didn't have to look hard.
Parts were interesting, but this book is clearly written by someone with a very obsessive interest in Jack the Ripper and has deluded himself into thinking everyone who want to learn more about Jack the Ripper must want to know EVERY SINGLE MINUTE DETAIL OF EVERYTHING.
I appreciate attention to detail and was looking forward to have a clear, well-thought out explanation of the murders and who the author believed was the murderer.
What I got was 300 pages of ridiculously long-winded and often times unecessary explanation of events. Also, the autopsies were written word-for-word in both the first section of the book and the third. That's just one example of unecessary things in this book.
The first section, about the murders and the victims, could have been done in 50 pages. The second section could have been half the length, I skimmed all 64 pages and still got the gist of it.
The third section seemed promising, specifically the chapter about the Ripper letters and the examination of which ones the author believed to be genuine and why. The rest of the chapter felt redundant and lazy, repeating information we had already discussed in detail, but rehashing it in EVEN MORE DETAIL.
In conclusion, if your book investigating and discussing a serial killer puts me to sleep MULTIPLE TIMES, you fucked up. Serial killers shouldn't be boring. They should be intriguing, disturbing, frightening, and interesting. This book was none of those things.
Unfortunately, I didn't have to look hard.
Parts were interesting, but this book is clearly written by someone with a very obsessive interest in Jack the Ripper and has deluded himself into thinking everyone who want to learn more about Jack the Ripper must want to know EVERY SINGLE MINUTE DETAIL OF EVERYTHING.
I appreciate attention to detail and was looking forward to have a clear, well-thought out explanation of the murders and who the author believed was the murderer.
What I got was 300 pages of ridiculously long-winded and often times unecessary explanation of events. Also, the autopsies were written word-for-word in both the first section of the book and the third. That's just one example of unecessary things in this book.
The first section, about the murders and the victims, could have been done in 50 pages. The second section could have been half the length, I skimmed all 64 pages and still got the gist of it.
The third section seemed promising, specifically the chapter about the Ripper letters and the examination of which ones the author believed to be genuine and why. The rest of the chapter felt redundant and lazy, repeating information we had already discussed in detail, but rehashing it in EVEN MORE DETAIL.
In conclusion, if your book investigating and discussing a serial killer puts me to sleep MULTIPLE TIMES, you fucked up. Serial killers shouldn't be boring. They should be intriguing, disturbing, frightening, and interesting. This book was none of those things.
January 19, 2023
Jack The Ripper. Terry Lynch
Een jaar of tien – vijftien geleden las ik enkele werken over Jack the Ripper, de seriemoordenaar uit het Londonse East End, die in de herfst van 1888 vijf vrouwen vermoordde en verminkte. Sindsdien was het stil op dat gebied, maar nu zag ik in de boekhandel de Britse reeks Tales of Mystery and the Supernatural van uitgeverij Wordsworth staan. Eén van de werken was deze Jack the Ripper van Terry Lynch. Deze dateert al van 2008. Ik dacht, waarom de zaak eens niet terug opnemen, en zien of er iets nieuws is ontdekt?
Lynch pakt de zaken heel serieus aan. Dat vind hij ook van zichzelf, want in zijn inleiding stelt hij boudweg dat “I believe I know more about the subject than anyone alive”. Daarmee krijgen de talrijke overleden Ripperologen nog even het voordeel van de twijfel. Maar spoedig volgt de nog stoutere bewering “ I have written the best ever book on the subject.” Oei, daarmee gaan ook de overleden auteurs voor de bijl. Tsja, bescheidenheid lijkt geen vooraanstaande eigenschap van de auteur. Ook niet van sommige anderen, want de passage doet erg denken aan wat Majoor Henry Smith, adjunct commissaris van de City Police ten tijde van de moorden, over zichzelf zei. Quote van Lynch: “Major Smith stated in his Memoirs: ‘There is no man living who knows as much about these murders as I do’, and then proceeded to make numerous errors in his evaluation of the killings.” Zou Lynch deze gelijkenis met zijn eigen introductie echt niet opgevallen zijn?
Ik vind trouwens bijzonder weinig informatie over Lynch, ook niet op de uitstekende websites jack-the-ripper.org en casebook.org, en al helemaal niet in het standaardwerk The Complete Jack the Ripper A to Z van Paul Begg, Martin Fido en Keith Skinner (geüpdated en gedigitaliseerd in 2015). Lynch pocht wel dat hij een nieuw document ontdekt heeft, maar zijn collega-ripperologen zwijgen hem toch liever dood. Op het forum van casebook.org is er één thread over het boek van Lynch, en daar zijn de leden nogal vernietigend, o.a. omdat hij illustraties van hun website zou gepikt hebben... Bij uitgeverij Wordsworth Editions leren we enkel dat hij vermeld wordt als Ripperologist (niet bepaald een openbaring, gezien zijn auteurschap van een boek van 350 blz. over Jack), en blijkt het zijn eerste boek te zijn. Van Lynch is dus aanzienlijk minder bekend dan van Jack the Ripper zelf.
Nu geef ik toe dat Lynch het onderwerp grondig en systematisch benadert. Soms een beetje té. Het boek bestaat uit drie delen.
Het eerste deel gaat gedetailleerd over de slachtoffers en de moorden, maar die zijn al uitgebreid beschreven in vroegere werken. Veel nieuws komt daar niet uit. Wel een goede, nauwkeurige beschrijving.
In het tweede deel wordt er veel aandacht besteed aan een hele stoet verdachten, waarvan de meesten compleet van de pot gerukt zijn, wat Lynch dan als conclusie ook vaak moet vermelden. Moet daar dan echt zoveel plaats voor ingeruimd worden?
Het derde deel gaat over het onderzoek van de politie. Hier wordt eerst heel veel aandacht besteed aan de brieven die tijdens en na de bloedige herfst van 1888 bij de politie en andere betrokkenen toekwamen en die meestal van aandachtszoekers of journalisten kwamen, zoals door vroegere onderzoekers reeds uitgebreid gedocumenteerd werd. Geen enkele kon met zekerheid aan de moordenaar toegeschreven worden. Ook hier vraagt men zich af: moeten daar nu 43 blz. voor uitgetrokken worden?
Ik zie 2 mogelijke redenen voor de oeverloze opsomming van talloze niet ter zake doende, want overduidelijk valse verdachten en brieven: ten eerste, Lynch wil blijkbaar dat zijn boek een soort referentiewerk voor latere onderzoekers wordt, getuige ook zijn exhaustieve lijst in Ch. 16 van alle op de zaak betrekking hebbende documenten en archieven in de Home Office files en de Scotland Yard files. Uiterst saaie lectuur (ik heb ze overgeslagen). Een 2de mogelijke reden is dat hij op het eind van elk van die twee opsommingen voor de pinnen komt met een (volgens hem) nieuw en (eveneens volgens hem) sensationeel element, dat hij door het contrast met de voorgaande nutteloze uitweidingen zo extra in het zonnetje zet. Of u vindt dat Lynch gelijk heeft, moet u zelf maar uitmaken. Ik alvast ben niet overtuigd.
Nog een uitgebreid en veel interessanter onderdeel van het politieonderzoek zijn de medische verslagen. Lynch onderbouwt hier met name vrij goed zijn overtuiging dat Elizabeth Stride niet door Jack the Ripper vermoord werd, maar door iemand anders. Wel moeten we melden dat de transcripties van de doktersverslagen tweemaal letterlijk en in extenso in het boek verschijnen: eenmaal bij de beschrijving van de slachtoffers in deel 1, en hier nog eens in deel 3 bij het politie-onderzoek. En ook andere lange citaten uit verslagen over verdachten komen herhaaldelijk terug. Zo kan ik ook 350 blz. volschrijven.
Het boek kostte mij maar 3,95 €. Het is wel een erg goedkoop uitgegeven paperback met slap papier en nogal slordige editing (spelfouten, verkeerde woorden, en woordverdubbelingen hier en daar). De foto’s zijn ook klein en niet erg duidelijk. Meestal zijn het portretten van de slachtoffers, politiemensen, en verdachten. Tot daar aan toe. Maar er zijn ook foto’s van sommige van de vele brieven. Deze foto’s zijn zo klein en lichtgrijs, dat je er totaal niets van kunt maken. Een gemiste kans. Zeker omdat foto’s en schema’s van de plaatsen delict veel interessanter zouden geweest zijn dan deze onleesbare brieven. Lynch beschrijft wel vaak de plaatsen, maar hij slaagt er niet altijd in duidelijk te maken hoe alles daar nu precies ineen zat. Met name zijn gebruik van rechts en links is vaak onduidelijk: is het rechts ten opzichte van het slachtoffer, of rechts uit het gezichtspunt van de dader, en dus links van het slachtoffer, aangezien ze tegenover mekaar stonden of lagen? Dit kan toch beter: in het boek van Philip Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, staat wel een mooie schets van Dorset Street met Millers’ Court, de plaats waar Mary Jane Kelly werd vermoord. Nog beter: 30 CGI reconstructies van de plaats-delicten in het boek Jack the Ripper van Paul Begg en John Bennett uit 2017.
Dus de research van Lynch lijkt me erg gedegen (hoewel onvermijdelijk voor een groot deel terugvallend op vroegere werken), maar zijn verwoordingen en de kwaliteit van de foto’s laten toch te wensen over. Zijn gepoch en zijn beweringen over nieuwe elementen kunnen niet echt overtuigen. Het boek geeft globaal wel goed de gekende feiten en omstandigheden van de moorden weer, zodat neofieten een heel goed en gedetailleerd overzicht krijgen. De meer ingewijden zullen misschien toch wat op hun honger blijven.
Een jaar of tien – vijftien geleden las ik enkele werken over Jack the Ripper, de seriemoordenaar uit het Londonse East End, die in de herfst van 1888 vijf vrouwen vermoordde en verminkte. Sindsdien was het stil op dat gebied, maar nu zag ik in de boekhandel de Britse reeks Tales of Mystery and the Supernatural van uitgeverij Wordsworth staan. Eén van de werken was deze Jack the Ripper van Terry Lynch. Deze dateert al van 2008. Ik dacht, waarom de zaak eens niet terug opnemen, en zien of er iets nieuws is ontdekt?
Lynch pakt de zaken heel serieus aan. Dat vind hij ook van zichzelf, want in zijn inleiding stelt hij boudweg dat “I believe I know more about the subject than anyone alive”. Daarmee krijgen de talrijke overleden Ripperologen nog even het voordeel van de twijfel. Maar spoedig volgt de nog stoutere bewering “ I have written the best ever book on the subject.” Oei, daarmee gaan ook de overleden auteurs voor de bijl. Tsja, bescheidenheid lijkt geen vooraanstaande eigenschap van de auteur. Ook niet van sommige anderen, want de passage doet erg denken aan wat Majoor Henry Smith, adjunct commissaris van de City Police ten tijde van de moorden, over zichzelf zei. Quote van Lynch: “Major Smith stated in his Memoirs: ‘There is no man living who knows as much about these murders as I do’, and then proceeded to make numerous errors in his evaluation of the killings.” Zou Lynch deze gelijkenis met zijn eigen introductie echt niet opgevallen zijn?
Ik vind trouwens bijzonder weinig informatie over Lynch, ook niet op de uitstekende websites jack-the-ripper.org en casebook.org, en al helemaal niet in het standaardwerk The Complete Jack the Ripper A to Z van Paul Begg, Martin Fido en Keith Skinner (geüpdated en gedigitaliseerd in 2015). Lynch pocht wel dat hij een nieuw document ontdekt heeft, maar zijn collega-ripperologen zwijgen hem toch liever dood. Op het forum van casebook.org is er één thread over het boek van Lynch, en daar zijn de leden nogal vernietigend, o.a. omdat hij illustraties van hun website zou gepikt hebben... Bij uitgeverij Wordsworth Editions leren we enkel dat hij vermeld wordt als Ripperologist (niet bepaald een openbaring, gezien zijn auteurschap van een boek van 350 blz. over Jack), en blijkt het zijn eerste boek te zijn. Van Lynch is dus aanzienlijk minder bekend dan van Jack the Ripper zelf.
Nu geef ik toe dat Lynch het onderwerp grondig en systematisch benadert. Soms een beetje té. Het boek bestaat uit drie delen.
Het eerste deel gaat gedetailleerd over de slachtoffers en de moorden, maar die zijn al uitgebreid beschreven in vroegere werken. Veel nieuws komt daar niet uit. Wel een goede, nauwkeurige beschrijving.
In het tweede deel wordt er veel aandacht besteed aan een hele stoet verdachten, waarvan de meesten compleet van de pot gerukt zijn, wat Lynch dan als conclusie ook vaak moet vermelden. Moet daar dan echt zoveel plaats voor ingeruimd worden?
Het derde deel gaat over het onderzoek van de politie. Hier wordt eerst heel veel aandacht besteed aan de brieven die tijdens en na de bloedige herfst van 1888 bij de politie en andere betrokkenen toekwamen en die meestal van aandachtszoekers of journalisten kwamen, zoals door vroegere onderzoekers reeds uitgebreid gedocumenteerd werd. Geen enkele kon met zekerheid aan de moordenaar toegeschreven worden. Ook hier vraagt men zich af: moeten daar nu 43 blz. voor uitgetrokken worden?
Ik zie 2 mogelijke redenen voor de oeverloze opsomming van talloze niet ter zake doende, want overduidelijk valse verdachten en brieven: ten eerste, Lynch wil blijkbaar dat zijn boek een soort referentiewerk voor latere onderzoekers wordt, getuige ook zijn exhaustieve lijst in Ch. 16 van alle op de zaak betrekking hebbende documenten en archieven in de Home Office files en de Scotland Yard files. Uiterst saaie lectuur (ik heb ze overgeslagen). Een 2de mogelijke reden is dat hij op het eind van elk van die twee opsommingen voor de pinnen komt met een (volgens hem) nieuw en (eveneens volgens hem) sensationeel element, dat hij door het contrast met de voorgaande nutteloze uitweidingen zo extra in het zonnetje zet. Of u vindt dat Lynch gelijk heeft, moet u zelf maar uitmaken. Ik alvast ben niet overtuigd.
Nog een uitgebreid en veel interessanter onderdeel van het politieonderzoek zijn de medische verslagen. Lynch onderbouwt hier met name vrij goed zijn overtuiging dat Elizabeth Stride niet door Jack the Ripper vermoord werd, maar door iemand anders. Wel moeten we melden dat de transcripties van de doktersverslagen tweemaal letterlijk en in extenso in het boek verschijnen: eenmaal bij de beschrijving van de slachtoffers in deel 1, en hier nog eens in deel 3 bij het politie-onderzoek. En ook andere lange citaten uit verslagen over verdachten komen herhaaldelijk terug. Zo kan ik ook 350 blz. volschrijven.
Het boek kostte mij maar 3,95 €. Het is wel een erg goedkoop uitgegeven paperback met slap papier en nogal slordige editing (spelfouten, verkeerde woorden, en woordverdubbelingen hier en daar). De foto’s zijn ook klein en niet erg duidelijk. Meestal zijn het portretten van de slachtoffers, politiemensen, en verdachten. Tot daar aan toe. Maar er zijn ook foto’s van sommige van de vele brieven. Deze foto’s zijn zo klein en lichtgrijs, dat je er totaal niets van kunt maken. Een gemiste kans. Zeker omdat foto’s en schema’s van de plaatsen delict veel interessanter zouden geweest zijn dan deze onleesbare brieven. Lynch beschrijft wel vaak de plaatsen, maar hij slaagt er niet altijd in duidelijk te maken hoe alles daar nu precies ineen zat. Met name zijn gebruik van rechts en links is vaak onduidelijk: is het rechts ten opzichte van het slachtoffer, of rechts uit het gezichtspunt van de dader, en dus links van het slachtoffer, aangezien ze tegenover mekaar stonden of lagen? Dit kan toch beter: in het boek van Philip Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, staat wel een mooie schets van Dorset Street met Millers’ Court, de plaats waar Mary Jane Kelly werd vermoord. Nog beter: 30 CGI reconstructies van de plaats-delicten in het boek Jack the Ripper van Paul Begg en John Bennett uit 2017.
Dus de research van Lynch lijkt me erg gedegen (hoewel onvermijdelijk voor een groot deel terugvallend op vroegere werken), maar zijn verwoordingen en de kwaliteit van de foto’s laten toch te wensen over. Zijn gepoch en zijn beweringen over nieuwe elementen kunnen niet echt overtuigen. Het boek geeft globaal wel goed de gekende feiten en omstandigheden van de moorden weer, zodat neofieten een heel goed en gedetailleerd overzicht krijgen. De meer ingewijden zullen misschien toch wat op hun honger blijven.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 4, 2023
Whilst I was interested in the chapters about each victim in particular - giving them a name, that's kind of all they were...victims with a name. They weren't expanded on and not given a voice of their own. The author even went as far to debate if they were even a victim of the Ripper. For the most part, the book was dull and written in a nature which doesn't draw the reader in. Most of the book wasn't objective either, with the author voicing their thoughts and feelings on everything from if one of the victims did belong to the Ripper killings to if Jack the Ripper wrote a note to the police. I felt unable to formulate my own opinions. I feel some things were wrongfully dismissed by the author - some letters which were supposedly written by the Ripper were dismissed for the reason that he'd stated in the letters he'd kill again but didn't. Despite the Ripper remaining elusive, it doesn't mean he didn't die before he could kill again or he moved or was imprisoned. One final thing that should have been even looked into was a potential suspect who went by the name of H.H. Holmes. I myself love a good mystery and as humans we are all drawn to the unknown. I also know about H.H. Holmes after his character directly inspired the character James March (played by Evan Peters) in American Horror Story. Whilst parts of this book are interesting, it is not a 5 star from me!
Find my full review on my blog -> https://bookworminglife.com/jack-the-...
Find my full review on my blog -> https://bookworminglife.com/jack-the-...
July 15, 2019
It almost went wrong on page 1. Where the author called Jack the Ripper a genius.
I hate that. Usually the serial killer is not a genius perse, the law enforcement system is just severely lacking. The victims here were all women in vulnerable positions, women unlikely to be taken seriously or well protected by the law.
Still to this day that is how serial killers get away with so much, by preying on the weak and the outcasts. When you hear about a female prostitute murder on the news they always say “prostitute murdered” never “woman murdered” because many people believe your value as a person diminishes by the profession you occupy. And please note here that most prostitutes are forced into that life.
The book was very factual after that and quite interesting, the author tried to puzzle out for himself who the Ripper might have been and comes to 2 conclusions. Really, anyone can say what they will, it’s just speculation, nothing more.
This is the book for you if you want to learn about some facts regarding the Jack the Ripper murders.
I hate that. Usually the serial killer is not a genius perse, the law enforcement system is just severely lacking. The victims here were all women in vulnerable positions, women unlikely to be taken seriously or well protected by the law.
Still to this day that is how serial killers get away with so much, by preying on the weak and the outcasts. When you hear about a female prostitute murder on the news they always say “prostitute murdered” never “woman murdered” because many people believe your value as a person diminishes by the profession you occupy. And please note here that most prostitutes are forced into that life.
The book was very factual after that and quite interesting, the author tried to puzzle out for himself who the Ripper might have been and comes to 2 conclusions. Really, anyone can say what they will, it’s just speculation, nothing more.
This is the book for you if you want to learn about some facts regarding the Jack the Ripper murders.
August 5, 2025
I rarely leave reviews but feel obliged to do so this time. I actually quite enjoyed the book on the whole, and found it quite interesting. However, the author's ego really got in the way. He frequently says that it is the best book ever written about the subject but in my opinion it doesn't provide anything new, and uses a lot of information from other authors and works. He makes his mind up in the first few pages about who he thinks the killer was, and then spends the entire book trying to persuade the reader to think the same, ignoring all facts and evidence that do not fit with his opinion. He also says that all punctuation and spelling errors are not his and are from works that he has quoted, but this is clearly incorrect as there are grammatical mistakes in parts that are written from his pen. In parts the book is very repetitive and it could do with a good editor.
September 26, 2023
3 ⭐️ This book is a good way for people, who are new to Jack the Ripper, to acquaint themselves with the theories, facts and fallacies that exist around this particular topic.
It is an enumeration of what happened to whom, who were suspected of the crime and in which way the Metropolitan Police Department failed to capture the Ripper.
The book is an exposition of Lynch’s ideas about who could be Jack the Ripper and even though he mentions that he wants the reader to make up their own mind, it is difficult to ignore that he tries to steer you in a certain direction.
For readers that are familiar with the subject and theories concerning the Ripper, the book could feel somewhat repetitive.
It is an enumeration of what happened to whom, who were suspected of the crime and in which way the Metropolitan Police Department failed to capture the Ripper.
The book is an exposition of Lynch’s ideas about who could be Jack the Ripper and even though he mentions that he wants the reader to make up their own mind, it is difficult to ignore that he tries to steer you in a certain direction.
For readers that are familiar with the subject and theories concerning the Ripper, the book could feel somewhat repetitive.
October 13, 2021
⭐⭐⭐ The gore and the unsettling bits that are synonymous with these true crimes was anticipated; however, the writing style used wasn't my cup of tea. I've not read a book on Jack the Ripper for comparison, but I may just because of my interest in true crime.
The most digestible parts of the book were the records pulled from interviews with witnesses and police. And of course there is no solid conclusion to the identity of Jack the Ripper, although the author uses their research to narrow down the true suspects list, which was intriguing as well. Stars for the author's research and dedication to the subject.
64/100 2021 Reads
The most digestible parts of the book were the records pulled from interviews with witnesses and police. And of course there is no solid conclusion to the identity of Jack the Ripper, although the author uses their research to narrow down the true suspects list, which was intriguing as well. Stars for the author's research and dedication to the subject.
64/100 2021 Reads
June 27, 2024
As someone who is still a "newbie" in the details of Jack the Ripper's case, this book offered a detailed information about who was the canonical five victims, other possible victims, where the case happened and what the situation at that time. There were also some photographs and illustrations, as well as some of the letters that "allegedly" was written by the murderer.
So I gave it a high rating based on that reason. As to who exactly the "Jack the Ripper" is, the truth is still unknown. But if you already know about the details of this case, this book might be somewhat boring as there's nothing more to read other than basic information.
So I gave it a high rating based on that reason. As to who exactly the "Jack the Ripper" is, the truth is still unknown. But if you already know about the details of this case, this book might be somewhat boring as there's nothing more to read other than basic information.
March 30, 2025
I acknowledge the research the author must've put into compiling all the information on the cases, but it was tedious to get through, and I didn't enjoy it much. the order of the 3 parts and the chapters in general felt wrong to me, and there was so much repetition everywhere. this definitely could've been done better, which should've been the editors job... to me, the author feels very arrogant, and his theories as to who could have potentially done it were kinda misplaced.
June 17, 2023
A fascinating read and good introduction to the topic. I reads like an history thesis paper. I gives a good sense of the life of those living in the East-end of London in 1887-1889. Quite a deprived state of humanity next to the epicentre of the British Empire. It truly shows the leap forward that forensic science brought to the solving of crime and disease.
February 21, 2021
This was one that I would pick up every now and then to read a chapter. I didn't know much about Jack the Ripper and I feel like this is a book you should read if you do. I did learn a lot about the subject, but the writing was quite dry at times.
May 7, 2023
I just Think that This book is so dull and has no interesting chapters. I mean good for the author that they know This much about Jack the ripper. But i mean they could have made it more interesting.
June 25, 2023
This was intense. It was basically a book saying what happened, why did it happen, who did it and how they did it. Also, at the end the author didn't even give his full opinion but just left us with two suspects. Overall, it took me too months to read and the entire thing went over my head 😅
May 5, 2017
I have read better books on the ripper. This has a lot of facts but it lacks narration and the authors opinions about the ripper are as flimsy as those he trashes.
August 11, 2021
This made me genuinely interested in jack the ripper. Very good book, I think might even do some research of my own
August 8, 2022
A fully detailed book about Jack the Ripper.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews