I am often asked to recommend a book about Jack the Ripper. My answer is always Phillip Sugden’s Complete History. First published in 1994 this is a masterclass of quality research presented in a readable narrative. It persuaded historians to take the topic seriously, with the forthcoming Routledge Handbook showcasing the growing interest of professionals across many disciplines. However, although unsurpassed, it is showing signs of age.

Research in the last thirty years, fuelled by the internet, has considerably added to our knowledge of the events and people involved. Whilst few of the growing band of armchair detectives apply the same level of professional scrutiny to the sources, they have made discoveries about the victims and suspects that challenge some of Sugden’s statements and conclusions.

Like many writers Sugden was obliged to favour a suspect. From those named by official sources, he opted for George Chapman, qualifying his concerns with a “not proven” verdict. This is difficult to justify from the available facts. All suspects, by default, must be considered not guilty. Nobody has uncovered sufficient evidence to challenge this and it is increasingly unlikely that they ever will.