The Diary of Jack the Ripper

This was a truly riveting essay. If only it had been true. I believe that there's still a chance that James Maybrick may have been Jack the Ripper even though the diary was a hoax. ( )

The subject matter and theory is interesting if you have the patience and time to sort out the rampant bias from the facts. Ms. Jackson's one-a-page, unsubstantiated claims (such as, "...which of course, must be false..." Oh really? Why must it? Is there evidence? Where is it?) can be quite maddening and the reader will be forgiven for having spent his/her time doing something else. It's the kind of read that, even if true (and that's a big if), it leaves one with far more questions than answers and additionally, a feeling of having tried unsuccessfully to eat a VERY sloppy joe.

But if you have the time and divinely inspired patience to sort the facts from the opinions, AND read additional works on the subject, then it presents an intriguing, if indulgent, idea. ( )

Boring, biased, and based on a hoax. ( )

Not the most difinitive work on Jack the Ripper, but ok. ( )