Negative Positive
Title: Sorry, case still open
Review: Cornwell adds the artist Walter Sickert to a long list of Jack the Ripper suspects, but does little to prove her case. Sure, she has a fairly impressive pile of circumstantial evidence, but none of it, by itself, is at all convincing. She goes out on several limbs (the rather benign guest book at the end, which is owned by Cornwell. How's that for conflict of interest!), and leaves Sickert dangling from a noose she so eagerly wants him to fill. Some of the "evidence" is so speculative, her case would have been stronger if she left it out. The book takes the form of Cornwell playing prosecutor, agressively cross-examing a witness who is not alive to respond. In addition, the book is so poorly organized and so full of digressions that it is difficult to read. On the other hand, her descriptions of the East End of London, while derivative of other works, are well done, informative, and compelling.
Is the review positive or negative? 