Title: Not A Serious Work
Product review: Although Montague John Druitt, a London barrister, was actually named as a suspect near the time of the 1888 murders (by an Assistant Chief Constable), and has been the subject of several major studies (by Tom Culle, Dan Farson, and Keith Skinner), this latest book about him spends much of its time on the details of his cricket matches, rather than on the evidence (or lack therof) against him. Based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's interest in the Ripper crimes, a visit to the Black Musuem of Scotland Yard and a story about the Ripper Leighton attributes to Doyle (but actually written decades later by William Baring-Gould), the author suggests Doyle as a better suspect - the very worst kind of accusation made for sensationalism alone. This adds virtually nothing to our knowledge of Druitt and also makes the error of taking some much-discredited Masonic conspiracy theories seriously.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
