Status Updates From Jack The Ripper: A True Lov...

The analysis of the letter is interesting, particularly the part about writing in blood and the look at the possible authors of the first letter and the postcard. Instead of making wild guesses, the author discusses the evidence rationally and gives evidence for and against certain authors.

Much of the story that the author tries to tell here is conjecture - the evidence is flimsy, incomplete or just not there. There is a lot of 'almost certainly', 'possibly', 'probably' and the like, where the author makes an assumption based on little-to-know evidence.

Two sources on page 76 are listed as Wikipedia. Seriously. Not even the actual page on Wikipedia where the author got the information. Also in this chapter, he makes some very large leaps to tell a story that has no supporting sources. All the evidence appears very flimsy, and while the story is a possible one, without backing evidence there's little to support that it might me more true than any other theory.

I think the title of this book is so bad. Why did they change it from the previous title? Also, it's a bit sensationalist, and on a book about uncovering the identity of one of the victims, and tying it to a killer, I think the first title of this book portrays this better.