Negative Positive
Title: Interesting but very unconvincing
Review: Patricia Cornwell tries hard to separate herself from the usual run of Ripper books. And, she has some interesting conclusions to offer: usage of DNA testing on possible Ripper letters and the introduction of a possible new bit of evidence with the guest book of an inn in Cornwall.However, none of it is all that convincing. Her DNA testing may show that Sickert actually wrote a hoax letter, but it's a long step from there to calling him Jack the Ripper. The watermark evidence is interesting, but not conclusive at all. Her art analysis shows that Sickert was interested in death, nothing more.Ultimately, there are a number of independent sources that place Sickert in France during September of that year, quite possibly including all of October.Much of this seems to be the case of someone picking a suspect and doing their best to prove he was the one, rather than reviewing all of the information available.
Is the review positive or negative? 