I did like the book, just not the writing. I knew very little about Jack the Ripper before this book, I did learn a lot. I thought the facts and theories in this book were fascinating and for the most part very compelling. It dragged in some parts and was very, very repetitive. The basic theory is that Jack the Ripper was in fact a woman. When the known evidence is revisited with this possibility in mind, it does seem like a strong possibility.

<3
This was a father/son project for the author and the reverence he holds for his father and their time spent together made a huge impact on me. There are parts of the book when you want to roll your eyes at the author, but he is clearly very passionate about the subject and I'm a sucker for family projects. Very sweet and endearing undertone to the investigation.

Much of the evidence they reinterpret to support their theory makes sense. I was surprised. I rarely felt like the facts were being over-interpreted to fit their ideas. When it didn't make sense, he admitted that. I learned so much about not only the Jack the Ripper case, but society in the late 1800's, early medicine and medical care, and surprisingly women's health rights.

3
Stop complaining about other theorists. I don't care what they had to say about this case. If I did, I'd read their book instead. I felt like the author took every possible opportunity to take a swipe at another Jack the Ripper author. Really? Really? Stop. No one cares.

The book got very repetitive and was hard to follow at times. They did not go chronologically but more in order of how the author uncovered his theory. Interesting idea to organize this book, but it was very confusing at times.

tl;dr

Intriguing theory that Jack the Ripper was a woman. Gets repetitive, but is supported by compelling evidence.