Connect with us

Published

on

Who was Jack the Ripper? Was it Aaron Kosminski? George Chapman? Walter Sickert? Bigfoot? Spring-Heeled Jack? There is no shortage of theories about the identity of the infamous Whitechapel ripper, and no shortage of books written about it. Unfortunately, no amount of sleuthing will ever unveil the mask because the crimes happened 133 years ago, making it kind of hard to track down a, now, very dead serial killer.

Most true crime readers already have an idea who they believe Jack is though, as do the many authors who write about him. If you pick up enough of these “unmasking” books you’ll find a lot of them share one major flaw- the inability to bend, or rather, arrogance. These authors are so positive in their theories that they’ll refuse to listen to anyone that may offer a counterpoint. Russell Edwards of Naming Jack the Ripper is no different, and it’s the one dumbbell that weighs down his otherwise compelling analysis.

Jack the Ripper, also known as the Whitechapel Murderer, and sometimes The Leather Apron, was a serial killer who murdered and mutilated an estimated number of five women in the Whitechapel district of London in 1888. The first serial killer in history to be heavily followed and obsessed over by the media, Jack the Ripper may be gone but he continues to live on in folklore, pop culture, and in the minds of millions to this day. This man who murdered five women so horribly has made himself immortal by simply remaining a mystery.

Jack’s crime spree officially started on August 31, 1888, and ended 70 days later on November 8, 1888. Only a few months forever cemented in history. It’s not at all a surprise that Jack wasn’t caught as criminal investigations back then relied almost entirely on eyewitness statements. You either had to be caught in the act or seen by someone you knew in order to be properly identified, and the Ripper case had neither of those. There was also the issue that was 1800s police work, it wasn’t exactly that professional. Ironically, this is the only reason Naming Jack the Ripper even exists because back in the 1800s, it was apparently okay for policemen to take accessories off dead bodies and gift them to their wives as Police Constable Amos Simpson did on the morning of September 30, 1888, when he allegedly took a shawl from one of the Ripper’s victims.

(By the way, Amos Simpson’s wife did not appreciate this particular gift. She took one look at that thing and said, “are you nuts? Why would I want a dead woman’s bloody scarf?!” and made him put it in the closet. I don’t actually know what he did with it but point is, she didn’t want it, so fellas, don’t be cheap. Just buy your girl a scarf.)

Advertisement

Naming Jack

Naming Jack the Ripper is not the best “unmasking” book out there, but it is one of the most convincing. That is something I will praise this book on, Russell Edwards is good at making you believe him.

Edwards is a Ripper fan down to his very core and he writes his “evidence” with a clear passion for the subject. You’re moved by his earnest desire to find Jack’s identity and he’s not too bad of an investigator either. Published in 2004, Naming Jack the Ripper started all from a rumor about a mysterious shawl that may or may not be a piece of evidence in one of the world’s most famous unsolved criminal cases of all time. It’s the Kentucky Fried Mouse of true crime circles.

Supposedly the shawl had belonged to Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes and that she’d been wearing it the night she was murdered. According to the story, it was removed from her body and then passed down through the family of Amos Simpson. Generations later, it was handed over to Scotland Yard’s Black Museum where it sat in a dark room until it was finally sold to Edwards at an auction.

Honestly, I’m surprised this shawl isn’t more famous. Whether or not it actually belonged to Eddowes, it’s still connected to a case so famous it has its own fandom. Despite being debunked by experts, the Ripper letters have continued to live on in importance, yet this simple shawl gets the cold shoulder.

An ominous piece of true crime history, the shawl’s shadowy presence among those who believe its story is only amplified by the dark reddish stains that defile it. If it actually did belong to Eddowes, and if she really was wearing it that night, and if those stains really are her bloodstains, then that makes the shawl the only existing piece of physical evidence regarding the Ripper case. Edwards had no doubt though. He runs hard with all these “what-ifs” and sets out to unmask the Ripper, and before the book even ends, he has his man.

“He is no longer just a suspect. We can hold him, finally, to account for his terrible deeds. My search is over: Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper.”Russell Edwards, Naming Jack the Ripper

Naming Jack the Ripper goes into great detail about this mission that Edwards bestows on himself and I will say, it makes a compelling case. For one, Edwards has clearly done his research. He dives deep into the history of Jack and his victims, as well as the Whitechapel area, discussing the social issues of the time along with the economic struggles and how they possibly resulted in the birth of Jack. Even if you don’t agree with his final verdict, I suggest giving Edwards’ book a try for these sections alone. He lays out the case in a neat linear fashion and hands over every tiny detail that was available at that time.

Advertisement

Then comes the unraveling. He ties everything around the shawl. No matter how far he might steer away, he eventually goes back to Eddowes’s delicate fashion piece that’s older than everyone’s grandmother. It’s understandable why Edwards clings to it so desperately though, it is the whole basis for his case, and through it he offers something that most “unmasking” books do not have- DNA. This is of course, debatable, but using the shawl Edwards finds “proof” that it belonged to Eddowes and that Jack was a pervert as he apparently ejaculated on the fabric. Using these light traces of blood and sperm, Edwards matches the DNA to Aaron Kosminski who was a suspect back in 1888. The rest of the book then does what it can to connect the dots with Kosminski taking the shawl’s place as the book’s centerpiece.

Aaron Kosminski

Verdict

I really liked this for its persuasive power and the historical details it offers, which is what a book like this is supposed to do. It’s meant to persuade you and Naming Jack the Ripper certainly does its best. However, the riveting journey of the shawl as it’s tested for DNA and connected to numerous persons in history becomes a slog when Edwards comes bouncing back into the picture with a big, non-subtle sign that might as well say “I’m a Hero!”

If anything lowers this book’s rating for me it’s how much Edwards insert himself in the story. Naming Jack the Ripper is 10% the case, 30% the shawl, and 60% Edwards talking about himself. It takes you out of the narrative, away from the shawl, and into the Edwards home office where you can see him making a Charlie Kelly “Pepe Silvia” type conspiracy chart with a picture of the shawl pinned at the center. It reminds me of Steve Hodel’s Black Daliha Avenger where everything is somehow framed to be about the author. Edwards even connects the streets of Whitechapel to himself by recounting the years he spent walking through them as a college student having a connection with the city.

If you can ignore all that, it’s a very good read. Whether you believe everything Edwards presents, it’s hard to ignore everything he offers which in my opinion, makes this book a successful, not to mention fun, endeavor. 3.5 out of 5 stars (3.5 / 5)

Advertisement

Rachel Roth is a writer who lives in South Florida. She has a degree in Writing Studies and a Certificate in Creative Writing, her work has appeared in several literary journals and anthologies. @WinterGreenRoth

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Book Reviews

Monastery Series 7: a Book Review

Published

on

Hello again dear readers. Today we are looking at yet another instalment of Monastery. Once again, I’ll be eating my words. Every time I think the story can’t get any crazier, it does and you’ll understand why soon enough. Without further ado, let’s go!

Plot

We start with quite a tension point in the story (then again, it is always tense nowadays). Rocky’s been abducted and the gang is at a loss for words or motivation, all except Thomas, that is. At this point, all they want is to get Rocky back, even if it means abandoning the search for truth. I can appreciate how Thomas is now a foil not only to those hiding secrets but also to his cousins. Without him, there is no story as far as I’m concerned. However, there were some moments where even I thought he could’ve been a bit more tactful around others’ emotions.

We also see that at least for the time being, Rocky is safe. His POV is so well done I wanted to pull him out of the page and give him a big cuddle. Unfortunately, it looks like he’s yet another collateral damage of the family’s mess. 

Advertisement

Speaking of mess, Cassandra and Francis reach a fascinating opposing point. She’s concerned Francis is showing no remorse over killing George Turner, or over killing an innocent dog. Could Albert please ask around if there is a special circle of hell for people like him? It’s interesting how Cassandra, no matter how messed up she is, still has some sense of right or wrong. As for Francis, someone needs to take that gun off him ASAP as he’s all too happy using it.

As we all predicted, the Nicole-David-Fred love triangle finally blew up, and boy, how did it. Erica goes full-on scorned woman and drugs Nicole. She then parades her in the middle of Monastery for everyone to see in a wedding dress. Threatening to pour acid on her face is just an added touch to the terror.

Although this turns out to be just a mind game on Erica’s part, we get some insightful character revelations. Nicole’s reasoning for toying with the two guys becomes more understandable, although I still cannot excuse it (and I’m speaking as someone who actually likes Elena Gilbert). I think she could use some therapy to sort out the trauma inflicted by her dad’s affair. At this stage of her life, she shouldn’t end up with either guy. David is also at fault and I think he should work on making it up to Fred. If he and Nicole sail off into the sunset now, it would leave a bad taste in a lot of reader’s mouths. Then again, if Fred does decide to take her back, it would be his choice. Something tells me this ordeal is far from over. 

We end series seven of Monastery with Thomas receiving yet another blow when his dad betrays him and destroys all the progress of their investigation. So much for trusting family, or authorities for that matter. What is going to happen now?

Advertisement

Overall thoughts

I said a lot of my thoughts while discussing the plot of the episode. As usual, Monastery is full of of drama, mystery, and outright terrifying things to keep us on our toes. The one plot thread I am holding in my hand just waiting to see where it leads me is Madam Witch. Her very fairytale-like deal with Cassandra implies she owes her one of the grandkids. Not to mention the implication that Henry has some kind of special powers. I can’t wait to see how that ties into what happened to Albert. The next part can’t come out soon enough!  5 out of 5 stars (5 / 5)

More thoughts from the author:

1. Something I talked about before in another article about Monastery a little but something that I picked up on in this episode. Cassandra, although definitely not perfect, still seems to uphold some kind of morality within her. Such as how horrified she is when Francis doesn’t feel bad that he killed George. Was this something you considered when writing these characters, someone who’s not afraid to get their hands dirty but still has some kind of empathy vs someone who doesn’t?

Absolutely – that is my favourite type of character! Who doesn’t love an anti-hero with a grey moral compass, but a moral compass nevertheless? Cassandra is capable of the most atrocious acts, but she always has her family’s best interest at heart – or what her idea of their “best interest” should be.

Interestingly enough, we’re slowly learning how Francis is the result of Cassandra being the way she is, and he himself certainly blames her for much. Francis only has his own interest at heart… yet he killed George because of what the old creep had said about Cassandra! Again, grey area.

2. The whole Erica scene is genius on many levels. I actually got a couple of questions in regards to it. One – were you always going to pull the whole ‘none of the torture devices were real’ trick on the readers to toy with their emotions or were you thinking of doing it for real but backed out? Two – I thought the way the town’s residents acted was very fitting of the story and of modern society. What was your intention with having seemingly everyone witness the ordeal?

Funny, I cannot remember whether that mini-twist was always part of the equation, but I concluded that I didn’t want Erica to be hated or irredeemable – I wanted to make it more about the lesson being learned than the payback.

As for the townspeople witnessing the whole thing, there were three reasons I did it: a) the satire, because, has mentioned in previous Q&As, Monastery is a satire of small-town life, and we all know small-town folks love a good scandal; b) the humour, as I went all out in making an over-the-top situation even more over-the-top; and c) plot convenience because, as that all goes down, Francis is shooting up the Keane house and I didn’t actually want any neighbours to know and call the cops as it wouldn’t serve his arc… at this point.

3. The one storyline that I’m still wondering as to how it will tie into everything is Madam Witch and the whole first-born son hints that are very fairytale-like. Are we meant to take it as an allusion to the paranormal in this story (such as the seances they had in the previous episode) and that more is coming? As it is not outright stated since the murder mystery is the forefront with the town not really caring there’s a werewolf roaming around.

There will be a paranormal twist to the murder mystery and how it’s covered up, I promise – after all, one mustn’t forget that Cassandra owes Madam Witch – but we don’t know what she owes her for.

Advertisement

As for the werewolf, hmm… Been a while since he’s made an appearance, has it not? Wouldn’t it be a darn shame if one of our protagonists came face-to-face with him in the next episode?

Continue Reading

Book Reviews

Our Hideous Progeny Review: Frankenstein’s Dinosaur

Published

on

“It was a grey and foggy March day when we brought it to life at last. I had expected there to be thunder, or at the very least some rain; I had expected that on such a momentous occasion, Nature would be obliged to provide us with a fitting backdrop.” – pg 2, Our Hideous Progeny by C.E. McGill

Our Hideous Progeny is C.E. McGill’s debut 2023 novel and unofficial sequel to Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Like certain aquatic reptiles, McGill is already making a splash with Our Hideous Progeny being named a Best in Fiction Book of 2023. It had been on my to-read list since its release, but I’d been stalling until I read the original Frankenstein. With Poor Things and Lisa Frankenstein (both absolutely bizarre movies about women containing multitudes) hitting theaters, I finally caved and did my required reading.

Our Hideous Progeny follows Mary Sutherland, a 19th century descendant of Victor Frankenstein, striving to be a scientist. However, she is stopped by social mores, her husband’s poor decisions, and her family background. When she finds Victor Frankenstein’s journal, she sets out to not just create life, but to create a dinosaur. 

As a note, reading Frankenstein isn’t a prerequisite to enjoy Our Hideous Progeny, however it enhanced the experience. Whereas Frankenstein is about the aftermath of his experiment, Our Hideous Progeny is about the lead-up. Both contain similar themes of hubris and men defying God rather than taking responsibility for their actions. However, the focus on different moments in the experimentation provides a fresh recontextualization. Additionally, motherhood is the lens through which Our Hideous Progeny views the original story, providing additional nuance to this continuation of the narrative.

Advertised as a feminist, queer, and gothic tale about an ambitious woman in science, Our Hideous Progeny hits all those marks. However, some of those descriptors are more prevalent than others. To me, the story reads as mostly historical fiction with a splash of sci-fi and a hint of queer romance. As a queer woman in science, I really liked the book! The prose had a distinct voice that made the experience more immersive. I never doubted Mary’s voice or the time period. The characters were compelling, though in a way where I couldn’t wait for some of them to get punched. 

Advertisement

I did struggle to reopen the book at times. Mostly, this was due to a fatigue of terrible people making terrible decisions. In this way, Our Hideous Progeny sometimes felt like a 19th century r/AmITheAsshole post, in which you just want to scream at the poster to leave her husband. The situations and writing were believable and entertaining, however, emotionally draining for the mental state I was in while reading. Also, I did expect a bit more dinosaur than was present, (it is finalized at the end and not the beginning) but it wasn’t a book-ruiner for me.

I would absolutely recommend Our Hideous Progeny to those who are a fan of Frankenstein, historical fiction, and science history. Additionally, if you like angry and smart female main characters it would be a good choice too. Check out McGill’s interviews, essays, and more here!

4.6 out of 5 stars (4.6 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Book Reviews

Walnut Ridge Review: Aliens, Angels, and Taco Bell

Published

on

“One of the Angels walked past the group meeting room. It was not, of course, a real angel in biblical terms. It was a visual approximation of an angel, and that’s what they liked to be called, Angels” – pg 1, Walnut ridge by Dan Scamell

Walnut Ridge is the debut weird science fiction novel by Dan Scamell. The publisher, Dead Star Press, is based out of Phoenix and committed to “unpretentious indie publishing”, with a specialization in weird speculative fiction. A press that had long been on my radar, I was excited to review an advanced reader copy of Walnut Ridge ahead of its March 20, 2024 release!

Walnut Ridge follows a group of people trying to come to terms with a world post-alien takeover. Unlike most end-of-the-world stories, these aliens have promised utopia. As long as you’re converted into goo! The residents of Walnut Ridge, a pre-goo processing facility, must accept utopia or be left on Earth alone. Will they be granted access to the promised land? Or will they become eternal outcasts? Watch Scamell’s promo trailer below!

Video promo for Walnut Ridge from Dan Scamell’s YouTube Channel

In its simplistic form and wacky story, Walnut Ridge‘s plot and prose are reminiscent of an early Vonnegut novel. Through this, Scamell showcases the difficulties of navigating the human brain and the contradictions of human belief, behavior, and intentions. Overall, I enjoyed the plot and character arcs, with the last half of the book being particularly gripping. The plot was original, refreshing, and interesting. Aliens taking the form of angels isn’t a new concept (Ancient Aliens has entered the chat), but the way it’s executed is a creative spin. Likewise, the pop culture references aren’t overdone and play a clear role in the story. Where Walnut Ridge shines in its originality, is the almost entirely internal conflict against the backdrop of a utopia.

While Walnut Ridge reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut, I didn’t consider the prose quite as witty and humorous as I would expect from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, and a touch more explicit. This is worth mentioning for those trying to determine if Walnut Ridge is the right fit for them. The plot is spot on as something that could come straight from Vonnegut or Douglas Adams, however.

Advertisement

Scamell has described Walnut Ridge as an allegory for addiction and recovery. As someone without that personal experience, I found the characters hard to relate throughout the first half of the book. The self destructive behavior of those living in Walnut Ridge was frustrating to read. At several moments I wanted to shake the main character, Leo, and tell him to grow a spine. Other characters I wanted to shake and tell them to grow up. It is not lost on me that similar frustrations can be felt by family and friends of those going through addiction. I still haven’t decided if I like the execution of the allegory or not, but Scamell certainly left me with a lot to ponder.

I would recommend Walnut Ridge to those looking for weird speculative fiction with a positive spin. Those who have previously overcome addiction may also be particularly drawn to this story. Consider preordering Scamell’s debut novel now!

3.7 out of 5 stars (3.7 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending