Customer Reviews

The Bell Tower: The Case of Jack the Ripper Finally Solved... in San Francisco

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This book is without a doubt the most poorly written and researched book on Jack the Ripper that I have ever read, and I have over sixty volumes on the subject in my personal library. Hard facts are ignored in order to bolster the author's preconceived theory.A series of "Ripper" letters long considered fakes are presented as factual and loose ends are tied to other loose ends, in a willy-nilly fashion, whether they belong together or not. Perhaps the most tawdry scholarship (in a book filled with tawdry scholarship) is the series of totally false "deathbed confessions" which the author would foist upon his readers. This book adds absolutely nothing of value and little of truth to the on-going "Ripper" scholarship. I'm glad I bought it used! It's certainly not worth the full price. All of this is too bad; I did so want it to be a useful addition to my library

Darrell Baker Irvine, California

I've read short accounts of the Emmanuel Baptist Church murders over the years, so I was pleased to see that someone had finally done a full-length book on the crimes. Unfortunately, Robert Graysmith has turned out a sloppy, badly-researched book with a completely unconvincing theory. He piles on lots of atmospheric descriptions of old San Francisco to hide the fact that he has nothing to back up his claim that Theo Durrant was innocent of the murders of Blanche Lamont and Minnie Williams. There isn't a shred of evidence to connect anyone other than Durrant with the crimes. His claim that the church's pastor was the real killer doesn't hold water and the idea that the pastor was really Jack the Ripper is nothing short of ludicrous. Making wild claims is nothing new for Graysmith; the book jacket calls him "the investigator who identified the Zodiac killer". In fact, the Zodiac has never been caught or identified. Graysmith just targeted one suspect, with no more proof than he offers here. A great book could be written about Theo Durrant, unfortunately, this wasn't it. For a much better (if shorter) account of Durrant and his victims, see Dorothy Dunbar's 1964 book, "Blood In The Parlor".

By the time I finished this book I couldn't figure out whether Graysmith believed Reverend Gibson or William Randolf Hearst was Jack the Ripper. He simultaneously showed the newspaper accounts of the day to be, at best, heavily predjudiced accounts of the crimes, and then depended on them for his research. His reconstructed diary of Theo Durrant was the last straw--it was written by a character he had invented! I'm going to avoid Graysmith from now on.

Having enjoyed Mr. Graysmith's analysis of the Zodiac, I hoped to find the same enjoyment in his latest work. Imagine, Jack the Ripper haunting the same streets that the Zodiac would stalk nearly 90 years later. Unforunately, when Mr. Graysmith stepped back in time, he took his writing style into a similar Victorian spin. The overly long history and the tangents involving Hearst do little to press home the case that the reverend was Jack the Ripper. In fact, one loses track that proving this is Graysmith's intention at all. Without the conection to Jack the Ripper, this book would be a wonderful history of the early days of newspaper publishing in San Francisco. However, Mr. Graysmith promises to unmask Jack the Ripper (here on this side of the pond no less) and fails to deliver. In the course of failing this, he also falls short in conveying Mr. Durrant's innocence. The time-line becomes more and more difficult to maintain in one's head and the "stream of conciousness" methos of writing does not work well when one is telling a crime story. I hope that Mr. Graysmith's next work takes place in the high side of 1900.

I am a Jack the Ripper buff, and that is why I got this from the library, but I found it more interesting if I didn't think about the Jack the Ripper subplot. It is written well, and an interesting case. If you're only interested in Jack the Ripper, go elsewhere. But if you're interested in William Hearst, San Francisco in the early 20th century and well-written "true"-crime, this is a great example.

Graysmith's book provides the basic story in more generous detail than anyone else this century, and he should be credited for that, however, as one who is also familiar with the case I was disappointed to see him swallowing the defense's position that Theodore was innocent. Then that business about Jack the Ripper being responsible: Ooo, I cringe. Even Graysmith's title "The Bell Tower" signals trouble, for anyone who's ever seen the newspaper drawings on the story knows there was no bell up there. Crime writer Colin Wilson made the same error. In 1895 the steeple was ominously referred to by reporters as "the place where no bell ever tolled." That's the reason no one bothered to go up there for the ten days that it took to find Blanch Lamont's body. And one last thing, for now, Blanch Lamont's tombstone does not use the "Blanche" spelling Graysmith uses for her name. But don't get me wrong, you should still buy the book. The Durrant case was the most interesting murder story San Francisco experienced at the turn of the century. In fact, it virtually brought this city to a halt.

This book is basically about the "Bell Tower Murders." They aren't really interesting crimes, although the story of the innocent suspect who was convicted and hanged is. Another suspect happens to be a minister from England with ties to Whitechapel, his first name is John, and he is called Jack. This is pretty much Graysmith's basis for "solving" the Ripper's identity. I expected better from Graysmith.

I have read many books dealing with the Jack the Ripper murders; however, I believe that this book does not solve the mystery. Granted, the theory that Pastor John George Gibson (who liked to be called "Pastor Jack") was the Ripper proved to be interesting. Who knows, maybe his roommate in England, Reverend Jesse Gibson <no relation>, did assist him in committing the murders; but, there is just not enough evidence to prove this. The author is way too optimistic in his claim that the mystery is solved.
Also, I found it very frustrating to be reading about the crime and then having the story interrupted with the "De Young vs. Hearst" newspaper battle. I could have done without this; it added nothing to the book.
...
**Overall: The book will give you quite a few hours of interesting reading, but it's disappointing for true Jack the Ripper history buffs**

Graysmith didn't even convince me that there WERE two murders at the church or that the church even existed! If a book purports to be "true crime," please don't make guesses at what the thoughts of the principals might be! Refer to your sources! Use footnotes! Were there any photographs of San Francisco from at or near the time of the murders? If I can see photos of Lizzie Borden and Jack the Ripper's victims elsewhere, why do we just get illustrations (most without source citations) in this book? Evidence of this kind would make the book much more credible and convincing. I didn't pick the book up to read about the newspaper wars, either! The story of the Bell Tower would have been interesting as a novel if the secondary plot lines were abandoned. But if it's going to be written in narrative style, PLEASE tout it as fiction it is!

As always, Graysmith's research is thorough, and while I don't completely believe his "solution" to the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was, he does present a good case for his theory.

It seems, though, from reading this book, that Graysmith originally intended to write a couple of different books and merged them together into this book. A narrative about a dual murder in San Francisco's Mission district is awkwardly interrupted by a retelling of the Ripper murders and an over-long tale of two warring newspapers in the early years of The City. Had he focussed on just one of these stories, instead of trying to merge them into one book, the flow would have been greatly improved and each resulting separate book would have been much stronger.