yeah, but it was also pretty well proven that he wasn't the killer.
as for Maybrick, I think it's pretty clear that that whole thing was a hoax. he lived well away from the sites and there's no proof to suggest that the killer didn't live right in Whitechapel. even the book that the "diary" was written in was probably bought from a used bookstore in the mid-late 1900s and used. the Maybrick murder was well documented so he made a good villain for someone to use. seems to me to have been too "sane". I don't think the real killer would've been writing the names of the victims in his watch or writing "I am Jack". that's silly. I doubt the killer even referred to himself as "Jack the Ripper".
reply
share