Really good and flowing documentary. Wonderfully narrated by Tom Baker with such skill. Micheal Winner presents certain 'chapter' segments. At nearly 2 hours in duration this has plenty of material in it to keep Ripper fans interested. The classic Ripperologists headed by Martin Fido all make a contribution and some of the theories presented by people who you may or not be familiar with...handwriting experts, for example, discuss them so very infamous Jack the Ripper letters. The documentary more or less pins the blame on a guy from Liverpool called James Maybrick. Evidence that is discussed strongly suggests that he was Jack the Ripper; mostly based on matching details in the 'diary' to what was already agreed upon before the diary itself surfaced.
3 Reviews
A fascinating Doc, even for those jaded on this subject
alanpgini7 March 2017
I confess to being a little prejudiced upon seeing the title of this Doc. After all, there have been as many Ripper identity theory shows as grains of sand, and I had watched my share of them. I decided, however, to give this a chance for no particular reason, and I'm glad I did. What was initially startling to me, was that they were talking about an actual alleged diary of the Ripper. I had thought the use of the word diary in the title, was for verisimilitude. I had never heard of this controversy, and this Doc is more than 24 years old. The Doc leaves you to draw your own conclusions at the end. My general feeling is against authenticity, for many different reasons, that I wont give here. This Doc is riveting, and will draw in the viewer, which all good Docs of its kind should do.
My reasons for and against its authenticity are irrelevant. Its for you, the viewer, to decide. Is it authentic? Only you can be the judge. This Doc aired in 1993. In 1995, Barett swore out affidavits, but I wont introduce that here. Those interested in more info about this, and other information on Maybrick, should do a search of his Wiki, and later day info on The Diary of Jack the Ripper.
My reasons for and against its authenticity are irrelevant. Its for you, the viewer, to decide. Is it authentic? Only you can be the judge. This Doc aired in 1993. In 1995, Barett swore out affidavits, but I wont introduce that here. Those interested in more info about this, and other information on Maybrick, should do a search of his Wiki, and later day info on The Diary of Jack the Ripper.
Good Documentary
Michael_Elliott23 July 2018
The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? (1993)
*** (out of 4)
If you're a history buff or into true crime documentaries then you'll certainly want to check this one out as it takes a look at an alleged diary written by Jack the Ripper.
I've seen quite a few documentaries on the Ripper but I had never heard of this diary. I was a bit shocked that I had never heard of it but after reading a few others reivews it seems many others weren't familiar with this. I thought the documentary did a good and honest review of the diary by questioning various items in it and also trying to trace when it was actually written.
A lot of the documentaries that are made today already have their minds made up right at the start. They'll either want to prove or disprove something but this one doesn't fall into that trap. Instaed, it presents the diary as a piece of evidence and then it breaks everything down to try and determine why it could be real or fake.
I thought the honest approach to the subject matter is what made this so fascinating because it plays out like a thriller. Sometimes you feel that this is a legit diary while at other times you feel it must be a fake. By the time the end of the documentary comes you will be able to make up your own mind on what the diary is.
*** (out of 4)
If you're a history buff or into true crime documentaries then you'll certainly want to check this one out as it takes a look at an alleged diary written by Jack the Ripper.
I've seen quite a few documentaries on the Ripper but I had never heard of this diary. I was a bit shocked that I had never heard of it but after reading a few others reivews it seems many others weren't familiar with this. I thought the documentary did a good and honest review of the diary by questioning various items in it and also trying to trace when it was actually written.
A lot of the documentaries that are made today already have their minds made up right at the start. They'll either want to prove or disprove something but this one doesn't fall into that trap. Instaed, it presents the diary as a piece of evidence and then it breaks everything down to try and determine why it could be real or fake.
I thought the honest approach to the subject matter is what made this so fascinating because it plays out like a thriller. Sometimes you feel that this is a legit diary while at other times you feel it must be a fake. By the time the end of the documentary comes you will be able to make up your own mind on what the diary is.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
