I'm currently reading this book and as a new addition to the forums here I can say I'm not overly impressed by it.
For instance he claims to have killed Martha Tabram with a scalpal and a Malayan dagger, yet the coroner's report suggests a pen knife was used for one wound only.
I also find it a bit glib and vague, particularly when names and locations that could be used to verify his claims are glossed over with a "to protect" kind of disclaimer.
I have yet to read anything in the book that was not common knowledge, or that couldn't have been gleaned from information available at the time. I'm about halfway through now and am, to say the least, dubious
For instance he claims to have killed Martha Tabram with a scalpal and a Malayan dagger, yet the coroner's report suggests a pen knife was used for one wound only.
I also find it a bit glib and vague, particularly when names and locations that could be used to verify his claims are glossed over with a "to protect" kind of disclaimer.
I have yet to read anything in the book that was not common knowledge, or that couldn't have been gleaned from information available at the time. I'm about halfway through now and am, to say the least, dubious
Comment