The Crimes of Jack the Ripper

This is by far the best book that I have read about `Jack the Ripper' and his crimes. Of course, they only total five and I am by no means an expert on the subject. Perhaps that's why I found the book to be of such interest. It simply contains a lot of information about which I was unaware, particularly with regard to the numerous suspects. Three of the previous books which I had read tried to convince their readers that a particular suspect, or suspects, was actually Jack the Ripper and, in the process, introduced a lot of presumed evidence which the reader had no way to verify. The fourth (Uncovering Jack the Ripper's London) took its readers back to the Whitechapel District in the 1880s and walked them through that time and place during the reign of terror. This book went beyond that book and presented a much more comprehensive study of the crimes including a review of 1880s London; an assessment of the crimes, including the autopsy reports; the thoughts of the principle investigators, many reflecting back in their later years; and finally a discussion of the "usual" suspects and Scotland Yard's prime suspects. I liked the way the author presented his material and his fairly consistent objectivity. But I can't say that I agree with all of his conclusions, particularly those concerning James Maybrick and 'Jack the Ripper's Diary.' And I was more than a little surprised when, at the end of the book, he introduced his own, previously unknown, suspect. With regard to Maybrick, I couldn't help but wonder: If I had been a workman in Maybrick's old house and had found the diary, would I have told anyone? I don't really know that I would. And I'm not sure that modern FBI profiling can really be applied to a man becoming psychotic through his addiction to strychnine and arsenic. Furthermore, if the presumed forger of the diary was the scrap metal dealer Michael Barrett, Barrett must surely have been the most remarkable scrap dealer in world history. For besides being able to sell scrap metal he was also a world class expert in the psychotic behavior of the human mind. If he could also write, there must surely be samples of his handwriting for comparison with the diary. That would be more conclusive evidence as to whether, or not, he actually wrote it. Still further, I couldn't help but wonder about the two items, said to be unknown to the public, which were mentioned in the diary. I would also have liked to have heard a little something about the twist in the supposed word 'Juwes' as scribed on the wall (but copied and erased), and 'James' as used in the diary. Simply stated, I'm not convinced that Maybrick can be so easily ruled out as a suspect. But, what do I know? As for the author's introduction of Jacob Levy as a new suspect, previously unknown to the police: I found this to be quite remarkable and a little amusing, especially when he concluded that Levy's death in a mental asylum in 1891 may have been the reason that Scot