I have a lot of catching up to do and so am almost done with the Cornwell book. Probably, people here are not too keen to read about it once again, but she made one point that I thought was very good. I'll get to that but first I thought Cornwell's writing very competent and engrossing. Her descriptions and ideas about life in the Whitechapel district read very well. Even though Walter Sickert is supposed to be the subject of this work, I sometimes wondered if the author hadn't completely forgotten about him. She didn't manage to make him very interesting for me.
You can't libel the dead, but something goes against the grain with me when it comes to trying an individual for one murder [much less several] within the pages of a book. To suspect someone is one thing, but to prosecute him for 365 pages [off and on] with a verdict of "case closed" is a bit much. Where's the defense? Even a dead man deserves to have his reputation upheld somehow, at least by virtue of a large question mark, lacking absolute proof.
Okay, on to the good point. Cornwell mentioned that there must have been "pints of blood" all over the scenes of the murders--but what about the footprints, a trail of them? Then she tends to dismiss her valid question by saying something like they would have blended into the turf. So, my question is--what was the terrain like regarding the four murders that took place outdoors? Was there not even one good shoeprint to be found, indoors or out? I am only a student Ripperologist at this point, so have patience with my ignorance, please.
Last edited by Aldebaran : 07-13-2016 at 04:17 PM.