So, as a newcomer wanting to get a solid, objective grasp on the case; which book would you recommend? I first and foremost want to read the facts rather than various theories.
Robert and Whitechurch have already provided two of the best, but for a nicely illustrated introduction you could do worse than Jack the Ripper/CSI: Whitechapel by John Bennett and Paul Begg.
I would also invest in an historic OS map from here:
Three reference books which I think are essential for specialized knowledge :
Scotland Yard Investigates By Evans & Rumbelow
And Capturing Jack The Ripper By Neil R.A Bell
The story of the police investigation into the murders.
Letters From Hell By Keith Skinner & Stewart Evans
The letters written to the police, press, and on occasion, to private citizens allegedly written by the Ripper
************************************************** ******
For a generalized overview of the Case, these two will work :
The A To Z Of Jack The Ripper Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, and Martin Fido
For general use I think it's hard to beat The Complete History by Sugden. I also think that Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Evans & Rumbelow gives a great contemporary feel.
The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott is a book to read once you have a fair knowledge of the Autumn of Terror which makes you reassess what you think you know.
Like many, I'm also a sucker for suspect books.
The best ones of these I've read in no order are:
Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect by Rob House
The Lodger: Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper By Stewart P. Evans & Paul Gainey
The Trial of Jack the Ripper by Euan Macpherson
Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth by Bruce Paley
and
The Secret of Prisoner 1167 by James Tulley.
What makes Sugden stand apart is that he covers the subject in detail while keeping it flowing. I doubt there is one superfluous paragraph.
Best Wishes,
Cris Malone
______________________________________________ "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."
Comment