Negative Positive
Title: A "Circumstantial" account of Jack The Ripper
Review: At first, I was excited to read this account because I have been such a fan of the case. However, upon conclusion of the last page, I was still asking the question, "Who Dunnit?"As a few other reviewers have already noted, Ms. Cornwell bombards the reader with a more circumstantial "evidence" like similar handwriting and watermarks used by Sickert, and an overabundance of verbiage. The closest she comes to any type of proof is a few traces of mitochondrial DNA on an envelope which does not even lead back to Sickert himself. She seems to spend most of her time with quotes such as "Sickert most likely was here..." or "Chances are Walter Sickert used the same...". It appears she felt more of a need to prove to us her knowledge of foresnics rather than prove the case.
Is the review positive or negative? 