Customer Reviews

Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter

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

 

 

For what it's worth, I think that the Diary is real and that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. History will owe those who brought the Diary to the public's attention a debt of gratitude. However, there is a lot of contentiousness in the field of "Ripper Studies", and a flaw in the book is that Feldman can't quite bring himself to rise above responding to the abuse that he has received from professional Ripperologists. He would have been better off simply allowing his research and the research of those on his team to speak for itself. But it's a very impressive job which does show how many of the KNOWN elements of Maybrick's life dovetail nicely with the theory that he wrote the Diary and was indeed the Ripper. The Diary itself is a very impressive document that largely stands on its own, and I've never quite understood how, in the absence of any real proof of forgery, it could be flatly disregarded by so many. The book is worth the price simply for the photographs in front of page 147 that show a "match" between James Maybrick and the Daily Telegraph picture of "Jack" published on October 6, 1888. Also, the geneological research of the Feldman team shows links between Maybrick and the Ripper as well as their/his present-day descendants. Some meat is added to the existing bones of the Diary's provenance, though the provenance of the Watch, while just as tantalizing in its implications, becomes somewhat murkier. The biggest problem is handwriting. Feldman produces no known sample of Maybrick's handwriting that matches with that of the diary or of the "Dear Boss" letters that Maybrick takes credit for in the diary. He finds one ancient Maybrick correspondence that resembles one questionable Ripper letter. Otherwise, he is reduced to arguing that an individual'shandwriting can vary from sample to sample and that Maybrick's own handwriting varied greatly, particularly when under the influence of arsenic. He is also reduced to relying on the opinion of a graphologist who performed a character analysis based on the handwriting in the diary. Graphology is a suspect science, which was used to incorrectly identify Anna Anderson as Russian princess Anastasia. Set against this though is the enormity of the task that Diary critics have. The contents of the Diary FORCE them to argue that the Diary and the Watch are modern forgeries -- post 1989 -- rather than ancient ones and so they are reduced to impugning the character of those own the Diary and the Watch and who brought them to the public's attention. By introducing his readers to these people through interviews and biographies, Feldman shows them to be of sound moral character. Their story that the Diary was first discovered in the mid 1940's and rediscovered in 1968 or 1969 is buttressed by their character. More research needs to be done by independent analysts of the Diary, of the watch, of James Maybrick, and generally in the field of handwriting analysis. My prediction is that history will point its finger at Maybrick and say, "He's the one" and this will be due in no small part to Feldman, Shirley Harrison (who first produced an edited version of the Diary, with commentary), Feldman's team, and those who assisted and cooperated with them. But that debt of gratitude will not be paid in our lifetime because of what still remains unknown or questionable and because of the contentiousness that surrounds "Ripper Studies" today.

For me, this book was a long-awaited follow-up to the original "Diary of Jack the Ripper". It may not quite live up to the promise made in the title of being the "final chapter", but it should move Maybrick to the top of the list of those suspected of being Jack the Ripper.

A very informative book. Paul and his dedicated team of researchers were always fighting an upward battle. Convincing critics who find it easier to cry 'Hoax' rather than take the time to consider the explanations given is not an easy job. Reading about the Maybrick descendants, their secrets, their sometimes unwillingness to talk, and seeing the likeness in their photos was enough for me. An honest book that gives all perspectives satisfying any questions the inquisitive reader might have.

I first read Shirley Harrisons 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' in 1993 and was completely intrigued. Here for the first time was something concrete against someone thought to have been the Whitechapel murderer. Evidence that seemed to be more than circumstantial and to my utter surprise everyone seemed to revolt against the very idea. Instead of reading what the book had to tell with an open mind, people automatically claimed it to be a hoax, bashing everything the author implied. Then recently I read the 1998 updated version of the same book, which included new evidence and more information that had come to light during further investigations.

Then I bought and read this book by Paul Feldman. Its been the most expensive Ripper investigation to date. Many years, money and effort has gone into proving the provenance of the diary as well as the watch. And I say provenance because thats what the author is trying to prove ... the origins of the diary as well as the watch ... where it came from ... who had it and how it could possibly have been passed down the family tree. Still today no one has conclusively been able to prove that the diary or the watch is fake. People jumped on the band wagon when Michael Barrett 'confessed' to having supposedly forged the diary. Anyone with half a brain have since realised (as the author did) that this could not possibly have been true. All the evidence he gave to support his 'confession' was immediately and unequivocally disproved. And as I have read some of the reviews posted, many have not read the book properly, because if you had you would soon realise that Barrett does not possess the skill to have produced that document.

Although Paul Feldmans writing style is not the best around, this book makes it hard not to become a believer ... or at least someone who is willing to consider the possibility that the diary (and perhaps even the watch) is not a fake ... and that James Maybrick may well have been the Whitechapel killer.

Why people are so vehemently against the idea that Maybrick could have been The Ripper I dont know. It seems strange that many would rather accuse men with a lot less evidence stacked against them, than seriously consider a man who could clearly have been guilty. Perhaps its a matter of egos ... who knows?

This book, to me, was well worth the read. I was highly impressed with all aspects of the author and his teams investigations. I also appreciated the fact that questions raised by the diarys detractors were all answered in a concise and logical manner. This investigation was no cover up.

Well worth a read!

Having read several recent ripper books, I found this to be as close to the answer, than any of the others, although, further research needs to be done to prove that the diary is genuine. Mr Feldman puts his points across very well, however I am still not convinced re the watch.

It would also have been helpful if the diary was also published within the book for those who have not had the benefit of reading it in detail.

Having said that, I for one am sure that it will be hard to distinguish anyone else, other than James Maybrick of being Jack the Ripper.

In"JACK THE RIPPER-THE FINAL CHAPTER" author Paul Feldman makes his case for the Maybrick"Ripper Diary" being not only authentic but written by THE man who was THE Jack the ripper.I have mixed feelings about this claim,but I am willing to consider it as being possible,which is something that many ripper"experts" refuse to do..While I do not fault Feldman,and others in the pro-diary camp for insisting that thier candidate for the designation of THE Jack the ripper,cotton broker(and himself a murder victim?),James Maybrick as possibly being the real deal,I do fault Feldman for writing this sleep-inducing book as"proof".
For one thing,the book is a 385 page refutation of the "ripperologists" who are critical of the diary and doubt its authenticity..A book about Jack the ripper OUGHT TO BE ABOUT JACK THE RIPPER,and not page after page of complaints that those who disagree with Feldman and company are unfair.Furthermore the bulk of this volume,when not answering diary critics(often unconvincingly)is one long and rather boring look into the family tree,legitimate and otherwise,of ripper suspect James Maybrick..
No concrete proof is given that actually links the bulk of these people to Maybrick,and even less proof is given to support his role as being THE Jack the ripper..Instead we are subjected to page after page after page of mind-numbing speculation,family gossip,and extensive,if ultimately pointless research into every Maybrick,or Maybrick wannabe that the author could find records about..
All of this adds up to nothing concrete..Sure,Feldman is convinced,but he has had a financhial stake in the diary from the outset,and despite the controversy about the diary being authentic,Feldman has managed to parlay the whole thing into a money-making deal for himself..Given the fact that very little that is contained in"Jack the ripper-The final chapter" is very interesting,Feldman has nonetheless gotten a modest best seller out of the book..The volume is NOT the"final chapter" in the ripper mystery..I daresay that,after more than 100 years,there may never be any real"final chapter" naming the killer and providing proof positive that he is indeed THE man responsible for the whitechapel murders of 1888..
If you are looking for a fast-paced well written account not only of James Maybrick as Jack the ripper but speculative"proof" as to why this is so then look elsewhere..If,however,you want to plod through countless pages of old records,tape-recorded gossip,all of which are recounted in a dry-bones style then by all means buy this book.

Feldman's hypothesis is convincing and well-written. Kudos to Feldman, a non-author and not a "Ripperologist" for being able to piece together all the pieces of this complex story. An all-around great book.

Not being a Ripper enthusiast, I had a very hard time plowing through this book. There's evidently a lot of good research behind it, but it's hidden beneath the taunting of the Diary doubters. The whole tone seems to be to whip up the folks who already agree with him. Folks who believe the Diary is a hoax won't be persuaded by this book, and people like me who have no prior knowledge of the controversy aren't likely to be convinced by Feldman's ranting.

Feldman points to an ink test to prove that the diary was not a modern forgery, and the test demonstrated that the manuscript was written in 1921, plus or minus 12 years. Okay, the text was written no later than 1933. It also demonstrates it was written NO EARLIER than 1909. That 20 year gap between the earliest possible date of creation, and the death of Maybrick is rather conclusive. So far as Feldmans assertion that there are details that no one but the killer could have known - this is pure rubbish. The strength of the book (such as it is) is in the research of the lineages. The watch is laughable, and would have been best left out of the book. The book is interesting, but hardly a solution.

Paul Feldman certainly works hard to prove his thesis that Liverpool merchant James Maybrick wrote the infamous Diary and that this gentleman was the Whitechapel Murderer. Regrettably, the author's style and methodology leave a great deal to be desired. The writing is poorly directed and tilts at the wrong targets. Much of the argument is facile and lacks credibility. Some of the theorising is interesting, but overall there are so many red herrings that the theory has no credibility. Written in the 'train of events' style beloved of many novice writers, the book is unpleasant to read and not a little insulting in places. Ideal as a primer on how not to write a true crime book.