What do you think?
Rate this book
Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer
Does the bloody trail of Jack the Ripper finally lead to America?
This headline-making book offers convincing proof that the serial killer who terrorized London in 1888 was, in fact, an American. Spurred by the startling discovery of a letter written by a Scotland Yard inspector, two veteran police investigators have traced the shadowy movements of a self-styled
"doctor" from St. Louis who had a criminal record spanning both sides of the Atlantic. Two decades after the Ripper's murderous spree, Inspector John George Littlechild, then retired, laments in his fateful letter: "to my mind a very likely [suspect] . . . was an American quack named Francis
Tumblety. . . his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme." Littlechild expresses dismay that Tumblety, who was in custody only briefly, was ever granted bail, enabling him to flee London-just as the murders ended. The Littlechild letter, printed in this book, provides
crucial details either overlooked by police officials at the time of the investigation or later suppressed because they would reveal the same officials had allowed their prime suspect to slip through their fingers.
Sifting through the entire historical record and their own surprising discoveries, Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey have created a true-life detective story that will fascinate all readers of Arthur Conan Doyle, Wilkie Collins, and Charles Dickens. Vividly evoking the mean streets of Victorian London
and the wave of terror that swept the city with the Ripper's grisly crimes, they convincingly paint a portrait of history's most infamous serial killer.
This headline-making book offers convincing proof that the serial killer who terrorized London in 1888 was, in fact, an American. Spurred by the startling discovery of a letter written by a Scotland Yard inspector, two veteran police investigators have traced the shadowy movements of a self-styled
"doctor" from St. Louis who had a criminal record spanning both sides of the Atlantic. Two decades after the Ripper's murderous spree, Inspector John George Littlechild, then retired, laments in his fateful letter: "to my mind a very likely [suspect] . . . was an American quack named Francis
Tumblety. . . his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme." Littlechild expresses dismay that Tumblety, who was in custody only briefly, was ever granted bail, enabling him to flee London-just as the murders ended. The Littlechild letter, printed in this book, provides
crucial details either overlooked by police officials at the time of the investigation or later suppressed because they would reveal the same officials had allowed their prime suspect to slip through their fingers.
Sifting through the entire historical record and their own surprising discoveries, Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey have created a true-life detective story that will fascinate all readers of Arthur Conan Doyle, Wilkie Collins, and Charles Dickens. Vividly evoking the mean streets of Victorian London
and the wave of terror that swept the city with the Ripper's grisly crimes, they convincingly paint a portrait of history's most infamous serial killer.
320 pages, Paperback
First published July 4, 1996
9 people are currently reading
190 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 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 10, 2017
A very informative book and the only book that I have read on the case so far.
May 12, 2019
An excellent view of one the most credible suspects in the Ripper Murders. Well-researched, unbiased, and non-preachy. The authors were willing to adapt their theory and opinion based on the presented evidence, some of which is highly difficult to come by.
My only criticism is that the book spends a lot of time going over the facts before even mentioning the name of the suspect, simply referring him prior to this as "The Littlechild Suspect"
My only criticism is that the book spends a lot of time going over the facts before even mentioning the name of the suspect, simply referring him prior to this as "The Littlechild Suspect"
October 8, 2019
I was looking forward to insights on Francis Tumblety, who has become a much-discussed suspect in the unsolved Jack The Ripper (JtR) case from 1888. What spurred Tumblety's 'candidacy' was the 1993 revelation of the so-called Littlechild Letters of 1907. A Chief Inspector for Scotland Yard, Littlechild worked on the Whitechapel murders. Long after retirement, he corresponded with others interested in the case, and fingered Tumblety for the crimes. All of that is fascinating stuff, involving early Ripperologists, old-book dealers, and long-lost accumulations newly surfaced.
In fact, the authors give a duly comprehensive survey of the entire JtR story. The East End/Whitechapel setting and milieu, the victims, witnesses, the crimes, the police response, the suspects and attendant theories, and a few chapters on Tumblety himself. In a book of twenty chapters, with over 250 pages of text, we don't get to the Littlechild letters until chapter 15, which names Tumblety for the first time. Only the last four chapters are allotted to him. Since the book's subtitle specifically alludes to Tumblety (unless there's room for Cream--bad pun, but he's another American suspect), why must we wait until the end of the book to find Tumblety?
Admittedly, the very first chapter, which is one of the best, gives a very succinct and pithy account of President Lincoln's assassination. Why Lincoln? Because Tumblety, cooking up pseudonyms like batches of cookies, gave himself a name that had been connected with accomplices to the 1865 assassination. But we're plunged into the East End thereafter, and leave Tumblety for about twenty years.
In short, then, this is a good general resource for Ripperologists, but Tumblety is more-or-less a caboose on a long train of thought. That said, although the book's well-written and structured nicely, there's a bit too much biographical info on Littlechild, and not nearly enough on dear old Tumblety. Littlechild is here as a source of information; he's pretty much the inspiration for this book. But he's hardly that interesting personally, other than as a dedicated professional, going about his business. We're not getting him on the stand; so, I'll stipulate to facts such as he was born, educated, trained, etc. What was interesting was his input on Oscar Wilde's 1895 debacle, and the Stanford White murder of 1906. I wish there were more chapters on Tumblety; such an eccentric guy is automatically interesting, whether he was JtR or just, well, a quack and con-man.
If you haven't read this one yet, it's worth a look. It may not add anything new to Ripperology per se, but it's a resource in itself. The authors makes good use of quotes, addendums, and an appendix, and they have a good map and photos. If we just ignore the subtitle, then we can't complain much.
In fact, the authors give a duly comprehensive survey of the entire JtR story. The East End/Whitechapel setting and milieu, the victims, witnesses, the crimes, the police response, the suspects and attendant theories, and a few chapters on Tumblety himself. In a book of twenty chapters, with over 250 pages of text, we don't get to the Littlechild letters until chapter 15, which names Tumblety for the first time. Only the last four chapters are allotted to him. Since the book's subtitle specifically alludes to Tumblety (unless there's room for Cream--bad pun, but he's another American suspect), why must we wait until the end of the book to find Tumblety?
Admittedly, the very first chapter, which is one of the best, gives a very succinct and pithy account of President Lincoln's assassination. Why Lincoln? Because Tumblety, cooking up pseudonyms like batches of cookies, gave himself a name that had been connected with accomplices to the 1865 assassination. But we're plunged into the East End thereafter, and leave Tumblety for about twenty years.
In short, then, this is a good general resource for Ripperologists, but Tumblety is more-or-less a caboose on a long train of thought. That said, although the book's well-written and structured nicely, there's a bit too much biographical info on Littlechild, and not nearly enough on dear old Tumblety. Littlechild is here as a source of information; he's pretty much the inspiration for this book. But he's hardly that interesting personally, other than as a dedicated professional, going about his business. We're not getting him on the stand; so, I'll stipulate to facts such as he was born, educated, trained, etc. What was interesting was his input on Oscar Wilde's 1895 debacle, and the Stanford White murder of 1906. I wish there were more chapters on Tumblety; such an eccentric guy is automatically interesting, whether he was JtR or just, well, a quack and con-man.
If you haven't read this one yet, it's worth a look. It may not add anything new to Ripperology per se, but it's a resource in itself. The authors makes good use of quotes, addendums, and an appendix, and they have a good map and photos. If we just ignore the subtitle, then we can't complain much.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 5, 2019
3.75 stars
Evans and Gainey have suggested a "new" suspect in the Jack the Ripper murders. He was an American in London at the time of the murders. Actually, this suspect was not new, but was suspected at the time, as well, but some of the info had been hidden or lost. The book starts in the U.S., then moves to London to describe the murders, the investigators looking for the Ripper, and it also looks at a few of the other suspects. The authors then describe how Dr. Francis Tumblety could very well have been Jack the Ripper. I think it is plausible, but at the same time, I don't really think they'll ever find out for sure who it was, as fascinating as the topic is. There were a few dry parts to the book, which is why I couldn't quite give it a full 4 stars, but I'm impressed with the info they've provided and they even added in a couple of surprises that I didn't expect.
Evans and Gainey have suggested a "new" suspect in the Jack the Ripper murders. He was an American in London at the time of the murders. Actually, this suspect was not new, but was suspected at the time, as well, but some of the info had been hidden or lost. The book starts in the U.S., then moves to London to describe the murders, the investigators looking for the Ripper, and it also looks at a few of the other suspects. The authors then describe how Dr. Francis Tumblety could very well have been Jack the Ripper. I think it is plausible, but at the same time, I don't really think they'll ever find out for sure who it was, as fascinating as the topic is. There were a few dry parts to the book, which is why I couldn't quite give it a full 4 stars, but I'm impressed with the info they've provided and they even added in a couple of surprises that I didn't expect.
October 16, 2020
This is not my typical genre, and I don’t even know where or how the book came to be in my possession, but it was interesting. The extensive research done by the authors is combined with a process of elimination to conclude that an American citizen and “quack” doctor was the infamous killer in London in about 1888. The descriptions of the East End included the poverty and filth, as well as the hopelessness that led so many women to drink and prostitution.
November 2, 2019
Stewart P. Evansin selvitys puoskarilääkäri Francis Tumbletysta oli aikoinaan todella merkittävä, kokonaan uuden epäillyn Whitechapelin rikoksiin kytkenyt teos.
https://anttisorri.wordpress.com/2019...
https://anttisorri.wordpress.com/2019...
Read
November 26, 2023Why do Americans always have to make everything about themselves?
July 8, 2008
Ok....
I'm hoping that other Jack the Ripper books are better. But so far it's been 2 bad books about the most feared killer in history.
First off, Jack the Ripper WAS NOT the first American Serial killer. Because I really don't believe that he was from Rochester, NY and Herman Mufgett (aka H.H. Holmes)was the first American Serial killer. The only link between these two men.... they both started killing in 1888 and were both liked for the assassination of President Lincoln. Odd.
Why don't I believe that The Ripper is from Rochester, NY? Because I grew up and hour and a half away and went to college at SUNY BROCKPORT 20 mins. outside Rochester. If the famed Ripper was from Rochester, it would be sensationalized in a sick and twisted way.
What I do believe. The Ripper was a doc due to the cleanness of the mutilations. I don't believe that he killed twice in one night and should only have 4 deaths on his hands. I do believe that the Kelly slaughter is to his credit and it was a great escalation. I also think that he was either put in an institution or died either by his own hand or someone elses. I don't think that he would have stopped killing, but would have become more brutal (yes, even more so then Kelly). He would not have stopped on his own accord.
This Dr. Francis Tumlety (from Rochester) was never proven to be more then a fraud and a pill pusher. There is no evidence in this book telling you that he really did go to medical school and had a true practice. I do agree that "Is he simply to be dismissed as a liar, a show-off, and a cheat, a promotor of crackpot ideas and fraudulent herbal businesses, a medical freak, a fraud in commerce and politics, an irritant in diplomacy, and a disaster in his family life?"
Why I didn't really like this book. Let's see.... it took 11 chapters to kill 5 prostitutes, Tumlety isn't even mentioned until chapter 15, and it's hard to follow because it bounces around from 1888 to the 1980's and back again. What? I also discredit this book and Tumlety because in one chapter the writers say that he could not be found in America, that he had eluded the police. In the next chapter it tells you about all the odd things that he did here in The States, that he was living under the name Tumlety, and there is even a picture of the hospital where he died.
This book was aweful, don't read it. I'm hoping that the next Ripper book that I'm starting today, Letters from Hell, is much better.
Sorry fokes, The Ripper is not from Rochester.... and this book should not convince you of that. I truely believe that we will never know the true identity of Jack, but that there are tons of theories out there... is was a really bad one.
I'm hoping that other Jack the Ripper books are better. But so far it's been 2 bad books about the most feared killer in history.
First off, Jack the Ripper WAS NOT the first American Serial killer. Because I really don't believe that he was from Rochester, NY and Herman Mufgett (aka H.H. Holmes)was the first American Serial killer. The only link between these two men.... they both started killing in 1888 and were both liked for the assassination of President Lincoln. Odd.
Why don't I believe that The Ripper is from Rochester, NY? Because I grew up and hour and a half away and went to college at SUNY BROCKPORT 20 mins. outside Rochester. If the famed Ripper was from Rochester, it would be sensationalized in a sick and twisted way.
What I do believe. The Ripper was a doc due to the cleanness of the mutilations. I don't believe that he killed twice in one night and should only have 4 deaths on his hands. I do believe that the Kelly slaughter is to his credit and it was a great escalation. I also think that he was either put in an institution or died either by his own hand or someone elses. I don't think that he would have stopped killing, but would have become more brutal (yes, even more so then Kelly). He would not have stopped on his own accord.
This Dr. Francis Tumlety (from Rochester) was never proven to be more then a fraud and a pill pusher. There is no evidence in this book telling you that he really did go to medical school and had a true practice. I do agree that "Is he simply to be dismissed as a liar, a show-off, and a cheat, a promotor of crackpot ideas and fraudulent herbal businesses, a medical freak, a fraud in commerce and politics, an irritant in diplomacy, and a disaster in his family life?"
Why I didn't really like this book. Let's see.... it took 11 chapters to kill 5 prostitutes, Tumlety isn't even mentioned until chapter 15, and it's hard to follow because it bounces around from 1888 to the 1980's and back again. What? I also discredit this book and Tumlety because in one chapter the writers say that he could not be found in America, that he had eluded the police. In the next chapter it tells you about all the odd things that he did here in The States, that he was living under the name Tumlety, and there is even a picture of the hospital where he died.
This book was aweful, don't read it. I'm hoping that the next Ripper book that I'm starting today, Letters from Hell, is much better.
Sorry fokes, The Ripper is not from Rochester.... and this book should not convince you of that. I truely believe that we will never know the true identity of Jack, but that there are tons of theories out there... is was a really bad one.
February 17, 2011
Evans and Gainey do a good job presenting a solid suspect for Jack the Ripper. However, as many Ripperologists before them, they glance over inconvenient truths. I am not sure if anyone has truly rebutted their work, but I do believe that there are holes in their theory. For one, their main suspect may have been a sexual deviant (a homosexual) but this doesn't automatically make him a killer. He was in London during the murders, he was arrested on suspicion of being involved; these are strong facts. However, his behavior in London doesn't match his behavior elsewhere. It seems very uncharacteristic for such a flamboyant conman to hide during his stay in London while he went out of his way to be the talk of the town everywhere else. This means he either set out to kill in London's East End, or, just maybe, he's not Jack.
The story is told wonderfully with the first half of the book summarizing the Ripper's killings, the main theories and suspects up to this point. It was an interesting and quick read. Although I believe the authors rushed too quickly to claim they have unveiled the Ripper, they do a good job at presenting a new suspect who definitely belongs on the list of probables. They also bring up some new views on just how many victims should be attributed to Jack, raising the specter of copy cat killers who may have taken Jack's rampage as an opportunity to wreak some havoc on their own.
I'd recommend this book to fellow Ripperologists and those who enjoy true crime books.
The story is told wonderfully with the first half of the book summarizing the Ripper's killings, the main theories and suspects up to this point. It was an interesting and quick read. Although I believe the authors rushed too quickly to claim they have unveiled the Ripper, they do a good job at presenting a new suspect who definitely belongs on the list of probables. They also bring up some new views on just how many victims should be attributed to Jack, raising the specter of copy cat killers who may have taken Jack's rampage as an opportunity to wreak some havoc on their own.
I'd recommend this book to fellow Ripperologists and those who enjoy true crime books.
January 18, 2016
Not a bad read by any means -- this guy would be very interesting even he were never named as a Ripper suspect -- but I came away wondering why the authors thought they'd proved he was Saucy Jack. There are holes in their case big enough to drive a truck through. The value of this book, for me, was in seeing so much more of the underside of Victorian London, and the weird, weird, weird life of the book's subject. I also greatly enjoyed the well-thought-out debunking of several other celebrity suspects in the Ripper case. Well worth reading overall.
August 6, 2011
This is the best book I've ever read about Jack the Ripper. It investigates a suspect that has been overlooked by most historians. It also give incredible detail as to the crime scenes and victims. Jack the Ripper has become a complete myth, and many facts are skewed or lost in the many books you can read about this subject. This is a must read for anyone interested in Jack the Ripper or serial killers in general.
May 23, 2011
Very interesting read. I don't really believe that the killer was from America and I think that they conveniently "forgot" some aspects of the case, but I think all the theories do that. Overall an interesting theory and it was easy to read.
April 2, 2012
I am fascinated with stories of serial killers and notorious murders and this book was a great depiction of a famous unsolved crime spree. The author leads you down a path of his research and who he believes was Jack the Ripper.
December 15, 2007
Pretty convincing theory....
February 1, 2008
Pretty cool examination of the case. It even ends with Jack the Ripper reportedly dying in St. Louis at a hospital on Page Ave. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold a candle to "Potrait of a Killer".
January 20, 2015
Well researched and written and adds a new suspect to the canon, but the information about his alleged homosexuality contradicts a profile of him as a serial killer of women.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews