How many murders did Jack the Ripper commit? Did he even exist or were the brutal slayings connected merely by geography? Who
really sent the 'Dear Boss' letters? What goes on in the minds of those ghouls who stare transfixed at that last, appalling photograph of Mary Kelly and her mutilations (discovered by Donald Rumbelow, fact fans) in something akin to religious ecstasy? Was Prince Eddy the Monster of Glamis?
Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde: fiction or dramatic reconstruction?
Lord Froggy and James Doig have already posted some covers on the
recent finds thread, and there have been a phenomenal amount of author's who've claimed to identify the Ripper down the decades (usually to have their pet theories slashed to pieces on publications by fellow Ripperologists whose own books have received the same treatment).
Some, uh, 'favourites' to get things going.
Stephen Knight - Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution. A bizarre, extremely convoluted conspiracy nailing Sir William Gull, John Netley and Walter Sickert as the Ripper trio, galvanised into action over a pathetic blackmail plot by the Whitechapel prostitutes who've learned of Prince Eddy's "secret marriage".
The Final Solution has been discredited as a factual work by just about every big hitter on the Ripper scene, and Knight hardly helps himself with his fluid approach to 'facts'. In short; totally unbelievable and my absolute favourite.
Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner - The Jack The Ripper A To Z: (Headline 1991, 1994, 1996, 2007?). A new edition was announced for 2007 but i'm not sure if it happened? Whatever, it's always best to get the latest edition of the
A-Z to catch up on the state of play as new theories are forever joining and falling off the bandwagon, and you want to keep abreast of the more plausible/ most rubbish ones. And doesn't that 'Free Admission to the London Dungeon with this book' enticer look like it somehow
belongs on the cover?
Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund - The Mammoth Book Of Jack The Ripper (Robinson, 1999; new edition 2008). The first edition. The second replaced certain items with, in my opinion, slightly less essential essays and didn't contain anywhere near as much amusing bitching. Use in conjunction with the
A-Z, and you've a fabulous introduction to the murky world of the Ripper authors, if not the Whitechapel Butcher himself.
Leonard Mathers - The Mystery Of Jack The Ripper: Cited as the first 'Ripperologist' (
Mystery ... was first published in 1929), Mathers' finger-pointing at the mysterious 'Dr. Stanley' has been loudly pooh-poohed by Donald Rumbelow and the curmudgeonly Melvyn
The Bloody Truth Harris who accuse him of peddling fiction. From this you might assume that Mr. Mathers' book reads like an exciting pulp novel (see also Knight's
The Final Solution which virtually invented the Michael Slade approach to crime-writing), and you'd be right, but it's also very well researched given the means at his disposal. Later commentators, notably Dennis Meikle in his excellent
Jack The Ripper: The Murders & The Movies (Reynolds & Hearn, 2002), argue that Rumbelow & Co., have done this eminent Australian journalist a huge disservice. Who knows? I love his book and that's all that matters to me.
Donald Rumbelow - The Complete Jack The Ripper: Bit of a dilemma with this one. The Star editions have the ace fancy dress fun & games covers, but the later Penguin (ditch-water dull packaging: i swear they do it to show off how serious and important the content is) is updated and includes more of Rumbelow's thoughts on Ripper fiction which you'll most likely want to read (Robert Bloch's
Night Of The Ripper gets an awful coating).
J. E. Brewer - The Curse Upon Mitre Square: A wonderful piece of tosh rattled out by Brewer even as the murders were being committed. Brewer blames it all on the unquiet spirit of Brother Martin, a mad monk who in 1530, mistakenly murdered his sister on the altar steps of Holy Trinity Priory to curb his lustful thoughts. According to Brewer, the man committing the Whitechapel Murders is just the latest hapless soul to be demonically possessed by the maniac. Doesn't make it into the pages of the
A-Z, so presumably the authors are trying to dismiss it as fiction.