Far too much time was devoted to the reading out of coroner's notes verbatim. Instead of ' the witness described the man as looking like a sailor or dock worker' we're treated to an endless list of coroner's questions and one word answers.
The conclusions drawn by the author were far reaching in the extreme. I could understand the reasoning behind the conclusion that the Ripper was a merchant seaman;that was sensible and feasible. However, to state that two crimes were positively linked because they were both unsolved is not even circumstantial evidence and then to state that the whereabouts of such and such was unknown at a certain time so he could have been in London was bizarre, so could thousands of other men. The author dismisses the FBI profile, but then uses it to suit his suspect, discounts certain individuals on the basis of age but then dismisses the barriers to age.
Took far to long to get to the authors analysis which then jetted off in one direction making random assumptions on the way.
Finishes the whole piece with a dig at modern day policing and ripperologists who are apparently all deluded and obsessed.
Black Dahlia Avenger Steve Hodel
Over pronounced each and every word. Clear is one thing but this was like something out of My Fair Lady
It's okay to summarise the Coroners court evidence,once the scene has been set and it is clear that the information comes from reports
Report Inappropriate Content