What do you think?
Rate this book
Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation
There have been countless attempts to solve the brutal murders committed more than 100 years ago by Jack the Ripper, but this most famous of British criminal cases finally benefits from a clear, professional eye to analyze the evidence with all the benefits of modern investigative techniques. Casting aside the rumors, fantasies, and urban legends which have haunted this case for so long, Trevor Marriott produces some startling results—while it has long been accepted that Jack the Ripper killed only five women, Marriott believes there were up to nine victims. Most astonishingly of all, a previously unconsidered suspect who also committed murders in America and Germany has been firmly put in the frame. All previous theories are refuted in what may possibly be the final word on the Ripper murders.
368 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2005
18 people are currently reading
184 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 34 reviews
September 4, 2014
Trevor Marriott needs to teach a "How To Make Friends and Influence People" seminar. I'm totally joking.
He ends his book by alienating pretty much anyone who might have been interested in his theories, including 1) ALL (a word he uses far too often - and mistakenly, to boot) Ripperologists of every persuasion and 2) EVERY member of modern law enforcement.
There are worthy aspects to his book. I know some readers have criticized the fact that Marriott "pads" his short contribution by quoting at length from the testimony of doctors, law enforcement officials, and witnesses at the inquests into the deaths of both the "Macnaghten Five" canonical victims and several others who may also have been Ripper victims, but I found these primary sources to be fascinating and very worthwhile reading.
What is more, I agree with his logic in theorizing that several of the non-canonical five likely were Ripper victims, while Elizabeth Stride (one of the five) may well have not been a Ripper victim. His reasoning behind discounting the Ripper letters as authentic and investigating merchant seamen as possible perpetrators of the Ripper's crimes also makes good sense. (Despite what Marriott claims, he is not the only investigator/author in history to do any of these things, however.)
Other claims he makes fail to persuade. His theory that organs were taken from Chapman and Eddowes not at the scene of the crime, but in the mortuary, hinges on the notion that the Ripper did not remove organs from any other crime scene. This falls apart when one takes the missing heart at the Mary Jane Kelly murder site into consideration. His theory that Catherine Eddowes dropped a cut-off and bloody swatch of her own apron at Ghoulston Street before her murder is both counter-intuitive and completely devoid of supportive evidence.
Marriott blithely dismisses almost all of the current list of "most likely suspects" -- although, strangely enough, he doesn't ever address James Kelly at all, a startling omission -- and uses the excuse that for many of them, there is simply not enough known about them to have an informed opinion. (This has changed as new records have come to light and been made public in recent years.) Bizarrely, he then calls for the end of research and speculation about these suspects, despite the fact he has just complained of a lack of information about them! His own pet suspect, German seaman Carl Feigenbaum, feels heavily forced, especially as Marriott blames him for murders with very different methods and victims over three continents. In addition, much of the evidence he finds suggestive can be traced only to one source.
Must frustrating of all, Marriott claims to have discovered a previously unknown source, but he keeps its details (including provenance and current whereabouts) secret. This might be acceptable in detective work (though somehow I think not), but it is not in scholarship, where transparency is policy. To put it another way, "I know something you don't know" usually translates as "I made something up."
There's enough in Marriott's work to make it worth reading, as long as it is not the only source on the Autumn of Terror that one reads. If nothing else, it makes a reader appreciate the far more rigorous (and humble!) scholarship on the subject that's currently being produced.
He ends his book by alienating pretty much anyone who might have been interested in his theories, including 1) ALL (a word he uses far too often - and mistakenly, to boot) Ripperologists of every persuasion and 2) EVERY member of modern law enforcement.
There are worthy aspects to his book. I know some readers have criticized the fact that Marriott "pads" his short contribution by quoting at length from the testimony of doctors, law enforcement officials, and witnesses at the inquests into the deaths of both the "Macnaghten Five" canonical victims and several others who may also have been Ripper victims, but I found these primary sources to be fascinating and very worthwhile reading.
What is more, I agree with his logic in theorizing that several of the non-canonical five likely were Ripper victims, while Elizabeth Stride (one of the five) may well have not been a Ripper victim. His reasoning behind discounting the Ripper letters as authentic and investigating merchant seamen as possible perpetrators of the Ripper's crimes also makes good sense. (Despite what Marriott claims, he is not the only investigator/author in history to do any of these things, however.)
Other claims he makes fail to persuade. His theory that organs were taken from Chapman and Eddowes not at the scene of the crime, but in the mortuary, hinges on the notion that the Ripper did not remove organs from any other crime scene. This falls apart when one takes the missing heart at the Mary Jane Kelly murder site into consideration. His theory that Catherine Eddowes dropped a cut-off and bloody swatch of her own apron at Ghoulston Street before her murder is both counter-intuitive and completely devoid of supportive evidence.
Marriott blithely dismisses almost all of the current list of "most likely suspects" -- although, strangely enough, he doesn't ever address James Kelly at all, a startling omission -- and uses the excuse that for many of them, there is simply not enough known about them to have an informed opinion. (This has changed as new records have come to light and been made public in recent years.) Bizarrely, he then calls for the end of research and speculation about these suspects, despite the fact he has just complained of a lack of information about them! His own pet suspect, German seaman Carl Feigenbaum, feels heavily forced, especially as Marriott blames him for murders with very different methods and victims over three continents. In addition, much of the evidence he finds suggestive can be traced only to one source.
Must frustrating of all, Marriott claims to have discovered a previously unknown source, but he keeps its details (including provenance and current whereabouts) secret. This might be acceptable in detective work (though somehow I think not), but it is not in scholarship, where transparency is policy. To put it another way, "I know something you don't know" usually translates as "I made something up."
There's enough in Marriott's work to make it worth reading, as long as it is not the only source on the Autumn of Terror that one reads. If nothing else, it makes a reader appreciate the far more rigorous (and humble!) scholarship on the subject that's currently being produced.
June 26, 2013
Asinine book in which the author appears to ignore easily-discoverable facts that conflict with his sweeping statements that the Ripper did not take organs away, as none were found to be missing at the scene of his final canonical victim's murder (absent heart grows fonder... or is at least worth a proper mention!), and bizarrely ruling out one murder in the Double Event for reasons that would be refuted had he looked into the instance of a witness who disturbed the Ripper at his work (look for this instance of a man called, in an anti-Semitic tone, 'Lipski' by someone possibly watching out for the killer).
All this aside, and I can acknowledge that perhaps my own opinions conflict with the author's, thus rendering the previous paragraph anti-panegyric, the author's suspect, on which he purportedly closes the case, couldn't speak English and, with a little burrowing, can be practically proven to be innocent of the Whitechapel killings. The author types various facts that clearly contradict with his views, and never follows them up, so blinkered is his investigation.
That the Ripper was a merchant seaman is certainly possible. That he also committed fictional crimes across the world is nonsensical, although actual murders in America, such as Old Shakespeare's, can be linked. The only interesting and likely observation that could be gleaned from this book was that the bloody apron found beneath graffiti could have been used hitherto by the victim to wipe menstrual fluid. As it is, this book would not be good enough for such a purpose. The transcripts from the time also make this worth reading for truly die-hard Ripperologists, but then they can be found elsewhere, with ease, and not besh@*ted with this author's comically bad investigative skills.
All this aside, and I can acknowledge that perhaps my own opinions conflict with the author's, thus rendering the previous paragraph anti-panegyric, the author's suspect, on which he purportedly closes the case, couldn't speak English and, with a little burrowing, can be practically proven to be innocent of the Whitechapel killings. The author types various facts that clearly contradict with his views, and never follows them up, so blinkered is his investigation.
That the Ripper was a merchant seaman is certainly possible. That he also committed fictional crimes across the world is nonsensical, although actual murders in America, such as Old Shakespeare's, can be linked. The only interesting and likely observation that could be gleaned from this book was that the bloody apron found beneath graffiti could have been used hitherto by the victim to wipe menstrual fluid. As it is, this book would not be good enough for such a purpose. The transcripts from the time also make this worth reading for truly die-hard Ripperologists, but then they can be found elsewhere, with ease, and not besh@*ted with this author's comically bad investigative skills.
September 1, 2015
We all have those family members who like to lumber you with things once they find out about your interest.
Well this book came from my aunt when she found out about my interest in forensic psychology. Supposedly I need to become an expert in the criminal world – mainly I need to be able to recite the heinous acts of countless individuals across history.
Okay, maybe she did not put it like that but it sort of felt that way when she handed me numerous books on the topic.
Still, despite the fact that such a thing can be viewed as being exceptionally weird, the books she gave me were all interesting reads. This one included. It is educational (even if it is not the kind of topic you would want to teach at school) and an interesting read.
Whilst not my usual I rather enjoyed reading the details of this book.
Well this book came from my aunt when she found out about my interest in forensic psychology. Supposedly I need to become an expert in the criminal world – mainly I need to be able to recite the heinous acts of countless individuals across history.
Okay, maybe she did not put it like that but it sort of felt that way when she handed me numerous books on the topic.
Still, despite the fact that such a thing can be viewed as being exceptionally weird, the books she gave me were all interesting reads. This one included. It is educational (even if it is not the kind of topic you would want to teach at school) and an interesting read.
Whilst not my usual I rather enjoyed reading the details of this book.
February 4, 2020
As much as a professional police officer view is welcomed the author continues to label all the victims as prostitutes. In the case of Elisabeth Stride he opens the chapter calling her prostitute but later following witness statements it's established she lived with a man in a sort of permanent relationship.
Anyone interested in Jack the Ripper I very much recommend reading "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold. Delivers the biography of the canonical five and does a pretty good job recreating the economic and social conditions of the time and certainly dissipates the "prostitute" myth. She does not go into the identity of the killer, but her job on this case is far more valuable that the mere speculation all other authors do.
Anyone interested in Jack the Ripper I very much recommend reading "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold. Delivers the biography of the canonical five and does a pretty good job recreating the economic and social conditions of the time and certainly dissipates the "prostitute" myth. She does not go into the identity of the killer, but her job on this case is far more valuable that the mere speculation all other authors do.
July 16, 2015
Wow, Trevor Marriott has no lack of self-esteem. What he does appear to lack is humility. His attitude toward basically everyone else involved in the Whitechapel murders over time adversely impacts what could otherwise be a very interesting book.
Marritt spends quite a bit of time examining the actual coroner's inquests from the canonical victims and some of the non-canonical ones as well. I really enjoyed this part, because the time was speaking for itself and he wasn't running his mouth about how dumb profilers are and how Real Cops don't trust them. I haven't seen this kind of examination, although that might simply be because I get tired of the Whitechapel murder books telling the same story over and over again. (I picked up this one because I'm concurrently reading Paul Cornell's The Severed Streets and that has Whitechapel as a focal point.) I found his exclusion of one of the canonical victims interesting, alhough I'm not entirely sold on his reasoning.
Marriott does look at a few things that I haven't seen addressed before: the idea that it might be a sailor or merchant seaman responsible for the murders. A more congenial author could have made me enjoy this section more, but after the fifth "no one has ever done this before!!" self-congratulation I got tired of it. Still, this part of the book is fascinating if you have the ability to overlook the ego. I also found his summary of cases that were Ripper-like in other places fascinating. I'd love to see someone else pick up these cases and examine them.
I give this three stars. It could have been so much better, and I really wish it had been!
Marritt spends quite a bit of time examining the actual coroner's inquests from the canonical victims and some of the non-canonical ones as well. I really enjoyed this part, because the time was speaking for itself and he wasn't running his mouth about how dumb profilers are and how Real Cops don't trust them. I haven't seen this kind of examination, although that might simply be because I get tired of the Whitechapel murder books telling the same story over and over again. (I picked up this one because I'm concurrently reading Paul Cornell's The Severed Streets and that has Whitechapel as a focal point.) I found his exclusion of one of the canonical victims interesting, alhough I'm not entirely sold on his reasoning.
Marriott does look at a few things that I haven't seen addressed before: the idea that it might be a sailor or merchant seaman responsible for the murders. A more congenial author could have made me enjoy this section more, but after the fifth "no one has ever done this before!!" self-congratulation I got tired of it. Still, this part of the book is fascinating if you have the ability to overlook the ego. I also found his summary of cases that were Ripper-like in other places fascinating. I'd love to see someone else pick up these cases and examine them.
I give this three stars. It could have been so much better, and I really wish it had been!
December 15, 2011
How many books have now said they identify the identity of jack the ripper? Although the author raises a decent suspect. His evidence is no more valid than any of the
Other theories on who Jack the Ripper was. This book falls short of its claim.
The beginning was boring yet interesting. It was neat to see how inquiries took place back then. However much of the info was repeated. This was of no fault by the author.
The second part I really didn't get. Anyone who reads books on JAck the Ripper and/or true crime is aware of how different police work cases now.
What I most have problems with is how the author goes through and dismisses the known suspects to date. His reasoning is no more sound then theirs was. In fact his biggest reason for dismissing subjects is his idea that the organ removal was done later and not by the killer. Though certainly possible I think it shoddy police work to suppose this and base so much on that idea without proof. The author also dismisses one suspect because to be the killer he would have had to change his MO, yet he later states that his own suspect did change his MO. So how can both be true. That is not the only occurrence in the book of things like that.
The book ends up being yet another collection of facts of which nobody knows for sure about murders in a time when police work and evidence collection was shoddy at best. I think it bad pice work for anyone to say they can prove anything.
Other theories on who Jack the Ripper was. This book falls short of its claim.
The beginning was boring yet interesting. It was neat to see how inquiries took place back then. However much of the info was repeated. This was of no fault by the author.
The second part I really didn't get. Anyone who reads books on JAck the Ripper and/or true crime is aware of how different police work cases now.
What I most have problems with is how the author goes through and dismisses the known suspects to date. His reasoning is no more sound then theirs was. In fact his biggest reason for dismissing subjects is his idea that the organ removal was done later and not by the killer. Though certainly possible I think it shoddy police work to suppose this and base so much on that idea without proof. The author also dismisses one suspect because to be the killer he would have had to change his MO, yet he later states that his own suspect did change his MO. So how can both be true. That is not the only occurrence in the book of things like that.
The book ends up being yet another collection of facts of which nobody knows for sure about murders in a time when police work and evidence collection was shoddy at best. I think it bad pice work for anyone to say they can prove anything.
September 15, 2016
Olen lukenut tämän aikaisemminkin ja tuolloin annoin kaksi tähteä. Kirjassa on kuitenkin hurja mielenkiintoisia juttuja, yli puolet kirjasta koostuu alkuperäisistä coronerin haastatteluista, joita kuka tahansa ripperologi lukee ilokseen. Trevor Marriottin omat teoriat ovat ihan mielenkiintoisia, mutta täynnä aukkoja ja epäloogisuuksia.
August 28, 2016
Garbage! Badly written by a man with a huge ego.
February 14, 2023
This book follows the usual format of any book on "Jack" - lay out the details of the crimes including as is usually the case with consideration of exactly whom was or was not an actual victim of Jack.
Then there's the obligatory overview of suspects so the author can discount theories other than their own, made easier in this case since the author considers several of the more outrageous and easily discard-able suspects.
The author provides what can be at times a convincing case for their theory however there are several instances where the author makes sweeping assumptions or illogical conclusions.
He is far from the first individual to have suggested the basic aspects of his theory as he claims he is; although he is the first I've read that has put the level of work required into developing it beyond a concept and to the point of being able to propose a specific suspect which is commendable.
The author displays high level of self importance and ego which suggests that his "investigation" was only ever going to produce a result that was consistent with his theory and detracts from the arguments made in favour of the the theory.
Then there's the obligatory overview of suspects so the author can discount theories other than their own, made easier in this case since the author considers several of the more outrageous and easily discard-able suspects.
The author provides what can be at times a convincing case for their theory however there are several instances where the author makes sweeping assumptions or illogical conclusions.
He is far from the first individual to have suggested the basic aspects of his theory as he claims he is; although he is the first I've read that has put the level of work required into developing it beyond a concept and to the point of being able to propose a specific suspect which is commendable.
The author displays high level of self importance and ego which suggests that his "investigation" was only ever going to produce a result that was consistent with his theory and detracts from the arguments made in favour of the the theory.
November 19, 2021
Reasonable.
I think any book relating to the Jack the Ripper crimes could be considered interesting.
The victims are discussed, followed by an analysis of prime suspects and there likelihood of having committed the crimes outlined and disputed. The author puts forward his own conclusion as to the possible perpetrator. This is interesting but still in my mind needs fluffed out more and really fleshed out, if at all possible, to prove/disprove and add further weight to his proposed view as to a suspect.
And there is too much bravado and self congratulation and trumpet blowing.
I think there are better books on the subject. Books that offer up primary sources in much greater depth and then allow the reader to draw their own personal conclusions/theories - free from being led/swayed by others. This is not to say his insights on his suspect are not interesting to say the least and if new research/evidence throws more light onto this suspect it would be highly intriguing.
I think any book relating to the Jack the Ripper crimes could be considered interesting.
The victims are discussed, followed by an analysis of prime suspects and there likelihood of having committed the crimes outlined and disputed. The author puts forward his own conclusion as to the possible perpetrator. This is interesting but still in my mind needs fluffed out more and really fleshed out, if at all possible, to prove/disprove and add further weight to his proposed view as to a suspect.
And there is too much bravado and self congratulation and trumpet blowing.
I think there are better books on the subject. Books that offer up primary sources in much greater depth and then allow the reader to draw their own personal conclusions/theories - free from being led/swayed by others. This is not to say his insights on his suspect are not interesting to say the least and if new research/evidence throws more light onto this suspect it would be highly intriguing.
May 2, 2022
Strange how some of the murders were dispelled as by the same person I.e. Jack the Ripper where others in America and Germany were included despite a totally different MO. I’ve read a lot about serial killers and they tend to stick to the same MO. Think the author was fixed on it being a sailor due to a description from a witness in one of the cases. Many of the witness statements are also dispelled from his investigation as they didn’t match up to other witness statements or couldn’t have been true. Bit arrogant at the end saying the case is closed considering most of the “evidence” he provides is circumstantial like the killer “could have been in Germany” or “could have been in America”. Nobody knows who did the Whitechapel killings and I’m afraid this doesn’t convince me to his conclusion.
November 29, 2017
The narrator for this was horrible. His voice was dull and did not change or influx based on anything he read. Couldn't you be excited once, man? It seriously affected my rating.
But it was informative and in the end, I appreciated the thesis that Marriott examined and researched. It was a theory that I had never heard before, nor had I heard so much detail about the Whitechapel murders before either. So this was an informative book, though the audio presentation was lousy. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I'd read it physically. It was a decent breather between heavy books, so I can appreciate it for that. And I liked reading something dark and horror like in protest to leaving October.
But it was informative and in the end, I appreciated the thesis that Marriott examined and researched. It was a theory that I had never heard before, nor had I heard so much detail about the Whitechapel murders before either. So this was an informative book, though the audio presentation was lousy. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I'd read it physically. It was a decent breather between heavy books, so I can appreciate it for that. And I liked reading something dark and horror like in protest to leaving October.
November 19, 2018
I've read a lot about Jack the Ripper over the years, it's been one of my fascinations. In doing so I've come to the conclusion that no-one will now solve the mystery of who "he" was and if anyone did it would make no difference. In this book the author, a former police officer, rehashes much which has already been written, quotes coronial transcripts at length and in almost the last few pages comes up with a fairly original theory which may or may not hold water. As insubstantial as his evidence appears to be and as impossible as it is to prove, the only real question left is, "Why bother?" As for me, my days of Ripper research are finally over.
June 3, 2018
a very interesting book , gives out all of the evidence and lets you come up with your own conclusion. as far as i can remember i was a bit disappointed with the miss leading title as the author does not come up with any conclusions on whom it may be.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 1, 2024
This is a pretty decent addition to the ever expanding books that are "investigations" into Jack The Ripper case. It is interesting the way Marriott goes about his treatment of the events but the reveal lets it down I think.
April 16, 2018
Fascinating!
April 30, 2021
An interesting read. Disproving some of theories and bringing to light some new.
January 19, 2022
Good read, hopefully author can uncover more evidence. It may take a while
October 28, 2022
Nothing new here! Except the suspect.
January 19, 2011
I'm not really interested in Jack the Ripper (I was persuaded to try this book) so that might colour my review.
It was well laid out but the first part was quite boring because it reproduced the accounts of the coroners' reports into the deaths. That was quite tedious, although I think it would interest someone with a real interest in these crimes who hasn't seen that info before (I've no idea how well published the coroners reports are).
Then there was a chapter in which Trevor Marriott described how the modern day police would have investigated the crimes. I didn't really see the point of that unless it was to show how police methods have developed since Jack the Ripper's day. Even so, I don't see the point of explaining how DNA, fingerprints and other forensic techniques would have been used had they existed, because they didn't exist when the murders were committed and we can't go back in time.
Despite the claims of the book it didn't "solve" the crimes at all, although he came up with an interesting theory about who the perpetrator might have been. I can't comment on whether the theory is a radically new one, because I only know of the "traditional" suspects, and I know enough to know that people who take an interest in Jack the Ripper have come up with theories and new suspects which I don't know about.
Overall, I have to say that this book didn't make me change my view that it is too late to solve the Jack the Ripper crimes and we will nenver know for certain who it was.
It was well laid out but the first part was quite boring because it reproduced the accounts of the coroners' reports into the deaths. That was quite tedious, although I think it would interest someone with a real interest in these crimes who hasn't seen that info before (I've no idea how well published the coroners reports are).
Then there was a chapter in which Trevor Marriott described how the modern day police would have investigated the crimes. I didn't really see the point of that unless it was to show how police methods have developed since Jack the Ripper's day. Even so, I don't see the point of explaining how DNA, fingerprints and other forensic techniques would have been used had they existed, because they didn't exist when the murders were committed and we can't go back in time.
Despite the claims of the book it didn't "solve" the crimes at all, although he came up with an interesting theory about who the perpetrator might have been. I can't comment on whether the theory is a radically new one, because I only know of the "traditional" suspects, and I know enough to know that people who take an interest in Jack the Ripper have come up with theories and new suspects which I don't know about.
Overall, I have to say that this book didn't make me change my view that it is too late to solve the Jack the Ripper crimes and we will nenver know for certain who it was.
January 21, 2012
I would like to preface this review by saying that if you do not like very graphic and detailed descriptions, with some pictures, of crimes, then this is not the book for you. I first became interested in Jack the Ripper in high school after I read a book about the subject. I was fascinated and horrified by what happen, and I guess part of the appeal is wondering why in the heck someone would do something like this. I've seen the Patricia Cornwell special that she did in the late 90s, and while it was interesting, I don't believe the mystery could be tied up in that complete a package like she made it out to be.
In this book the author, a former Detective in London, breaks down the murders into manageable chunks that makes everything easier to understand. The five "canonical" murders as he calls them, are discussed in detail which includes the actual court proceedings, along with four additional murders which may or may not be attributed to the Ripper. The second part describes the possible motives for the killer, the evidence, the Ripper letters (which the author basically says were all manufactured by journalists of the day), a list of eleven suspects that the author doesn't believe did the murders and a final suspect that he believes committed not only the 5 canonical murders, but also at least 6 others all over the world. I thought it was a very well done book. 4 stars.
In this book the author, a former Detective in London, breaks down the murders into manageable chunks that makes everything easier to understand. The five "canonical" murders as he calls them, are discussed in detail which includes the actual court proceedings, along with four additional murders which may or may not be attributed to the Ripper. The second part describes the possible motives for the killer, the evidence, the Ripper letters (which the author basically says were all manufactured by journalists of the day), a list of eleven suspects that the author doesn't believe did the murders and a final suspect that he believes committed not only the 5 canonical murders, but also at least 6 others all over the world. I thought it was a very well done book. 4 stars.
April 8, 2013
I have read a good many books investigating these crimes... I find the subject fascinating and have done since my early twenties... I think the lure is that they will never be truly solved... I recently went to see a lecture by the author and I bought his book on the back of that... Like all other researchers into this subject he has his pet theory... And like all the rest it can and does throw up some interesting aspects of the case that can neither be proved or disproved... I liked the style of this though as unlike other authors on this subject he states his theory but still allows you to make up your own mind... The one area I think he may have made a good and valid point is that the organs that were claimed to be removed by Jack The Ripper could actually have been removed not at the scene of the crime but later while the victim lay waiting on the post mortum, by either a student or greedy morgue attendant, sold or kept as a grisly souvenir... It is certainly an explinantion I hadn't considered until he raised it and it makes a lot more sense than the killer being able to perform "surgery" in the pitch black Victorian streets of London with just a knife and no or poor lighting to help him... As for his conclusion that Jack was a seaman able to come and go easily it again is very plausible... A good read and a good addition to my Ripper collection...
March 27, 2014
What I liked about this book was it has the original transcripts from the inquests into the ripper murders with statements taken by witnesses, doctors and the police.
Marriott goes on to discredit many theories because they have been based on hearsay, circumstantial evidence and conjecture. However he fails to realise that not only is his own theory based on all these things it is also so full of holes it borders on useless. Marriott States that because conviction can be reached in the UK now based on circumstantial evidence he has enough information to convincingly out Jack the Ripper. I completely disagree, gut feeling (which is pretty much all Marriott has to go on) is not enough.
The one theory he did bring to the table that seems possible is that the organs were removed at the morgue. However, I once again disagree with his other theory that states that the intestines were not removed but simply popped out when the victim was being mutilated. Conveniently Marriott doesn't find it necessary to have this approved by a medical or forensic specialist.
So all in all and distinctly average book.
Marriott goes on to discredit many theories because they have been based on hearsay, circumstantial evidence and conjecture. However he fails to realise that not only is his own theory based on all these things it is also so full of holes it borders on useless. Marriott States that because conviction can be reached in the UK now based on circumstantial evidence he has enough information to convincingly out Jack the Ripper. I completely disagree, gut feeling (which is pretty much all Marriott has to go on) is not enough.
The one theory he did bring to the table that seems possible is that the organs were removed at the morgue. However, I once again disagree with his other theory that states that the intestines were not removed but simply popped out when the victim was being mutilated. Conveniently Marriott doesn't find it necessary to have this approved by a medical or forensic specialist.
So all in all and distinctly average book.
April 9, 2016
Trevor Marriott is an investigator who uses modern technology to look again at Jack the Ripper's crimes. He looks at each victim and provides the reader with inquest transcripts, then goes through many of the suspects. Marriott adds a few victims to the list of five traditionally believed to have been killed by the Ripper. He discusses whether or not he believes each one is or is not a victim of the Ripper. For each suspect he looks at, he outlines why he believes they did or did not commit these crimes. He believes he has solved the mystery.
It was a very good book and well researched. There were times that I lost focus a bit, but the good thing is that he provides a bulleted list at the end of each chapter outlining what he thinks are key points. Personally, I don't think they'll be able to ascertain for sure who Jack the Ripper was. But it's always interesting to read the theories.
It was a very good book and well researched. There were times that I lost focus a bit, but the good thing is that he provides a bulleted list at the end of each chapter outlining what he thinks are key points. Personally, I don't think they'll be able to ascertain for sure who Jack the Ripper was. But it's always interesting to read the theories.
October 5, 2013
With chapters broken (mainly) into victims and suspects, this account is not for the squeamish. I hate to admit this but the first parts that dealt with the victims felt like a chore to get through. One can read only so many autopsy reports.
The second have of the book was worth the investment however. Trevor Marriott did a remarkable job listing reasons that dismiss previous Ripper suspects.
Marriott's new theory that the Ripper was a merchant seaman named Carl Feigenbaum who was captured after attacking a woman in New York in 1894, is the most plausible of all Ripper suspects to date. Carl Feigenbaum's own lawyer even suspected him of the Whitechapel murders.
Is this conclusive - hardly but it's the best theory I've heard so far.
The second have of the book was worth the investment however. Trevor Marriott did a remarkable job listing reasons that dismiss previous Ripper suspects.
Marriott's new theory that the Ripper was a merchant seaman named Carl Feigenbaum who was captured after attacking a woman in New York in 1894, is the most plausible of all Ripper suspects to date. Carl Feigenbaum's own lawyer even suspected him of the Whitechapel murders.
Is this conclusive - hardly but it's the best theory I've heard so far.
February 10, 2017
A Jack the Ripper suspect I've never heard of before! That bit was good. I even agree with some of his reasoning and think certain things, like lend credence to his theory. His writing style was rather tedious, however, and it certainly felt as if he was lecturing the readers about how much better he was than every other researcher out there.
On the whole, I'd say read it if you're actually interested in Jack the Ripper, if you don't really know anything about him, pick a more general book.
On the whole, I'd say read it if you're actually interested in Jack the Ripper, if you don't really know anything about him, pick a more general book.
January 24, 2016
Not bad at all, aside from the small fact that the author does not, as he promised he would on the cover, name who he thinks is the killer. The first half of the book goes back over the basic facts of the case, and the meat of the author's interpretations do not start until very late in the text inded. I have to say he provoked some serious thought and gave me a taste of just how few of the vast number of possibilities in this case were really ruled in or out properly by the authorities of the day.
June 9, 2018
I was rolling my eyes after reading the first couple of sentences. Marriott was happy to say one thing, say the total opposite a few pages later and then go back to his first opinion later in the book. He jumps to conclusions, can't see the obvious and just...ugh. I had to read this pretending it was a work of fiction. He finally raises some good points in the last section of the book but by that time I had already decided the author wasn't really reliable.
January 25, 2011
An interesting take on the Jack the Ripper case, although some of the transcripts from the inquests become a little repetitive. I liked the contrasts drawn between how such a case would be handled now and the way policing was done in the 19th Century and the author has some intriguing ideas about the murders and the murderer.
March 6, 2013
Offers nothing new to the whole thing but is a good introduction to the murders for a beginner. Trevor Marriott writes in a concise and easy style that allows the work to drift along nicely. I know that we will never know who the Ripper was, and this offers some intriguing evidence as to who he may have been, but it does not do what it says on the tin: "Identity at Last!"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews