Negative Positive
Title: Proof in the negative
Review: This book is an unorganized list of factoids and speculation. I kept waiting for the punchline, but her "case" falls apart because of her approach of assuming the positive by attempting to prove the negative. Her continual statements such as "I see no reason why Sickert wouldn't have been there. . ." get extremely tedious and increasingly unconvincing. She can't prove Sickert was in Whitechapel by failing to find him elsewhere. She can't prove he wrote the Ripper letters just because he was a talented artist who could have written in many different styles. The only things she DID prove was that forensic science was abysmal and that most people didn't care about the women who were murdered.There is no smoking gun - just a bunch of could've would've should've.
Is the review positive or negative? 