Negative Positive
Title: Not all that convincing
Review: When I picked this book up I thought that it would be fascinating, if a tad morbid, to learn a bit about the Ripper murders. After slogging through Cornwell's book however all I feel is certain is that there isn't actually much left to know. Little to no evidence is left to examine, police reports and other key papers have long since disappeared, and forensic examination performed by the doctors and policeman was woefully insufficient to build any kind of case against a suspect. Yet Cornwell persists in arguing that Walter Sickert, a painter and student of Whistler, was the true identity of Jack the Ripper. She sounds definite in her opinion, but I fail to see how such specious reasoning could convince anyone else. All in all 'Portrait of a Killer' is an unsatisfying read. The reader comes away with scant information about the killings other than that it was a forensic nightmare, and no more of an idea who Jack the Ripper was than they had when they began the book.
Is the review positive or negative? 