Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter

I first read Shirley Harrisons 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' in 1993 and was completely intrigued. Here for the first time was something concrete against someone thought to have been the Whitechapel murderer. Evidence that seemed to be more than circumstantial and to my utter surprise everyone seemed to revolt against the very idea. Instead of reading what the book had to tell with an open mind, people automatically claimed it to be a hoax, bashing everything the author implied. Then recently I read the 1998 updated version of the same book, which included new evidence and more information that had come to light during further investigations. Then I bought and read this book by Paul Feldman. Its been the most expensive Ripper investigation to date. Many years, money and effort has gone into proving the provenance of the diary as well as the watch. And I say provenance because thats what the author is trying to prove ... the origins of the diary as well as the watch ... where it came from ... who had it and how it could possibly have been passed down the family tree. Still today no one has conclusively been able to prove that the diary or the watch is fake. People jumped on the band wagon when Michael Barrett 'confessed' to having supposedly forged the diary. Anyone with half a brain have since realised (as the author did) that this could not possibly have been true. All the evidence he gave to support his 'confession' was immediately and unequivocally disproved. And as I have read some of the reviews posted, many have not read the book properly, because if you had you would soon realise that Barrett does not possess the skill to have produced that document. Although Paul Feldmans writing style is not the best around, this book makes it hard not to become a believer ... or at least someone who is willing to consider the possibility that the diary (and perhaps even the watch) is not a fake ... and that James Maybrick may well have been the Whitechapel killer. Why people are so vehemently against the idea that Maybrick could have been The Ripper I dont know. It seems strange that many would rather accuse men with a lot less evidence stacked against them, than seriously consider a man who could clearly have been guilty. Perhaps its a matter of egos ... who knows? This book, to me, was well worth the read. I was highly impressed with all aspects of the author and his teams investigations. I also appreciated the fact that questions raised by the diarys detractors were all answered in a concise and logical manner. This investigation was no cover up. Well worth a read!

Feldman's hypothesis is convincing and well-written. Kudos to Feldman, a non-author and not a "Ripperologist" for being able to piece together all the pieces of this complex story. An all-around great book.

A very informative book. Paul and his dedicated team of researchers were always fighting an upward battle. Convincing critics who find it easier to cry 'Hoax' rather than take the time to consider the explanations given is not an easy job. Reading about the Maybrick descendants, their secrets, their sometimes unwillingness to talk, and seeing the likeness in their photos was enough for me. An honest book that gives all perspectives satisfying any questions the inquisitive reader might have.

For me, this book was a long-awaited follow-up to the original "Diary of Jack the Ripper". It may not quite live up to the promise made in the title of being the "final chapter", but it should move Maybrick to the top of the list of those suspected of being Jack the Ripper.

For what it's worth, I think that the Diary is real and that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. History will owe those who brought the Diary to the public's attention a debt of gratitude. However, there is a lot of contentiousness in the field of "Ripper Studies", and a flaw in the book is that Feldman can't quite bring himself to rise above responding to the abuse that he has received from professional Ripperologists. He would have been better off simply allowing his research and the research of those on his team to speak for itself. But it's a very impressive job which does show how many of the KNOWN elements of Maybrick's life dovetail nicely with the theory that he wrote the Diary and was indeed the Ripper. The Diary itself is a very impressive document that largely stands on its own, and I've never quite understood how, in the absence of any real proof of forgery, it could be flatly disregarded by so many. The book is worth the price simply for the photographs in front of page 147 that show a "match" between James Maybrick and the Daily Telegraph picture of "Jack" published on October 6, 1888. Also, the geneological research of the Feldman team shows links between Maybrick and the Ripper as well as their/his present-day descendants. Some meat is added to the existing bones of the Diary's provenance, though the provenance of the Watch, while just as tantalizing in its implications, becomes somewhat murkier. The biggest problem is handwriting. Feldman produces no known sample of Maybrick's handwriting that matches with that of the diary or of the "Dear Boss" letters that Maybrick takes credit for in the diary. He finds one ancient Maybrick correspondence that resembles one questionable Ripper letter. Otherwise, he is reduced to arguing that an individual'shandwriting can vary from sample to sample and that Maybrick's own handwriting varied greatly, particularly when under the influence of arsenic. He is also reduced to relying on the opinion of a graphologist who performed a character analysis based on the handwriting in the diary. Graphology is a suspect science, which was used to incorrectly identify Anna Anderson as Russian princess Anastasia. Set against this though is the enormity of the task that Diary critics have. The contents of the Diary FORCE them to argue that the Diary and the Watch are modern forgeries -- post 1989 -- rather than ancient ones and so they are reduced to impugning the character of those own the Diary and the Watch and who brought them to the public's attention. By introducing his readers to these people through interviews and biographies, Feldman shows them to be of sound moral character. Their story that the Diary was first discovered in the mid 1940's and rediscovered in 1968 or 1969 is buttressed by their character. More research needs to be done by independent analysts of the Diary, of the watch, of James Maybrick, and generally in the field of handwriting analysis. My prediction is that history wil