In the evening of August 30, 1917 a prostitute is discovered in the same locale and murdered in the same manner as the Ripper victim 29 years earlier. She even has the same initials as the other victim. Several witnesses report seeing a figure in top hat and long coat hastening along the alleyways who seems to vanish. This prompts Scotland Yard to summon Prof. John Darnell to investigate.

He quickly makes a sequence of deductions, which were quite obvious to me but were met with amazement by the veteran detectives of the Yard. The inspector in charge is the son of the commissioner who received the original letters from the Ripper. He stubbornly refuses to even consider any reference to the earlier case despite the glaring similarities. Then, he reverses himself and is accommodating to the extreme. There is even a sequence where Darnell proclaims the killer to be left- handed but agrees the wounds conform to a right-hander.

A Sgt. Catherine O’Reilly is partnered with Darnell. There is a hint of jealousy between Darnell’s wife and the sergeant but it is never developed. One day there are catty remarks, later the two share confidences. McCarver creates the O’Reilly character but never tells us about her, not even a phrase to clarify her position on the force. That a women’s branch of the police was formed in 1914 due to the manpower shortage from World War I is not general knowledge and to fail to tell us that fact may cause the reader to wonder at his credibility.

George Bernard Shaw enters the scene and within a few paragraphs it is obvious what his role will be in the case. His portrayal is accurate but the biographical details are presented quite awkwardly. The author assumes that the reader will be familiar only with his play “Pygmalion” and even then must painstakingly tell the plot.

Too many times we are asked to suspend our disbelief to make this an enjoyable read. One character from a previous book has done something odious enough to receive a death sentence but we never know why. McCarver prefers to have Penny Darnell, the sleuth’s wife (don’t expect any description or character development here) mention his name, shudder, and remember when he held a knife on her. When he escapes we have no idea how dangerous he is, maybe he grew tired of her whining and petulance.

There were several inconsistencies throughout most notably a woman who is described as a widow on one page and once she is murdered her husband is interviewed. How exactly does one get married after death? Is this a reversal of the “till death doth we part” vow? How does the murderer seem to disappear? Who knows? That plot detail is forgotten or maybe it simply vanishes. Too bad the rest of this tale can’t do the same.

This was my first encounter with this man who “ specializes in debunking the supernatural” and he just appeared on the page. The only background given were frequent allusions to the previous book in which all apparently was explained. However where he works, why he has such a reputation, or even his physical description are absent. I realize the author doesn’t want to retell old tales but I knew more about the Ripper case than I ever learned about the principle character of this series.

--Jane Davis