Negative Positive
Title: Not convinced from page one
Review: Having never read a Ripper book before this one I was not sure what to expect. What I didn't expect was a biased conclusion on who the the Ripper was from almost page one, based on flimsy and circumstantial evidence from the start of the book. The author tried to convince and convict from an early point in her book that Walter Sickert was the murderer of the East End London women who had the musfortune to cross his path in late Victorian London. Evidence is circuital at best and far reaching at the worst; there is not a shred of direct evidence linking Sickert to the crimes he is accused of. If one eliminated the "could haves", "might haves","possiblys" and "maybes" this would have cut the book in half; having never read this author before I sincerely hope this is not her best effort.
Is the review positive or negative? 