Negative Positive
Title: Entertaining Crime Fiction
Review: Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper because of the horrific experience of having his penis amputated by sadistic British nurses in a dirty London hospital. Here is a stunningly terrifying description of what he went through and how it rendered him impotent and with a lifelong need to murder women. By the way there is no actual proof for anything described (though none of his wives or mistresses specifically denied it). Now that we have these facts let us draw some further conclusions to prove his guilt....For example, Jack the Ripper was in a certain borough on a given date and although correspondence indicates that Sickert was out of the country who's to say he wasn't lying?Are you convinced by these arguments? Good. Neither was I. The case is most definitely not closed.Having said that I enjoy Patricia Cornwell's fiction including this book.
Is the review positive or negative? 