Casebook by Richard Jones

[HelenaWojtczak]

2009 book, but I only just got sight of it.


On p40 he says that Chapman was the first on Macnaghten's list of three suspects -- see pic.

And then on the page about Druitt he (correctly as we know) claims that Druitt was the first, as well.

BTW Page 42 has an extremely large and noticeable typo right in your face KOSMINKSI -- see pic.

Publisher Andre Deutsch, and the book is only 64 pages.

Helena

Here are links to images of the pages.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...40enlarged.jpg


http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../kosminksi.jpg

[John Malcolm]

Hi Helena,

This is much more than just a book. It has lots of facsimile documents (not the first of it's kind- that honor would go to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner's Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders PRO packet), it's profusely illustrated and it's beautifully produced as well (despite the KOSMINKSI gaffe, etc.). I highly recommend this and the Richard Jones/Sean East book Uncovering Jack the Ripper's London. These are two of my favorite (and generally uncontroversial) books on the subject, although my "Top 10" list is getting very crowded. I anticipate the John Bennett/Paul Begg book that's in the works will easily bust into that too.

[Hunter]

That is strange. I have a 2009 edition and it has all three Macnaghten suspects in order with Chapman on page 44. It starts off with "George Chapman, born Severin Klosowski, qualified as a junior surgeon in Poland in 1887." It mentions nothing about Macnaghten.

This book (and it does have some gaffes) is the best book to hand to friends when they ask about your interest in this subject. Folks' attention spans, initially, are usually short. They like a concise read with a lot of pictures and this book fits that bill better than any other I know. It has inspired more than a few to move on to more detailed books and become more than just casually interested in the case.

[John Bennett]

It's a jolly nice book and a great introduction to the case.

I think I'm right in saying that Richard wrote this with GCSE History students in mind - therefore it is concise, visually attractive and the added facsimiles add to the source material that the students have to become acquainted with.

JB