Rating: 
Summary: Not a gorey, gorey book.
Review: I thought this might be too much for me, but was amazed by the science used in researching everything about The Ripper. Think people should check this out, because at first glance you might think it is a detailed account of how he killed people. It was amazing about the paper trail they were able to follow after so many darned years. Highly recommend.
Rating:
Summary: I'm with Patricia
Review: I attended University in London, and a friend and I used to walk the East End at night. I've been on the Jack the Ripper walk with my students many times. I agree with Shelley Lyon's review: it's obvious that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I know that many people make their livelihood from this mystery. But after reading this book with its meandering, always interesting content, I'm convinced. Jack the Ripper joins the Dauphin, Anastatia and Salley Hemmings as another history mystery that's solved. Great work Patricia!
Rating: 
Summary: An Interesting Read
Review: Patricia Cornwell presents a well researched book, attempting to solve murders that occured over 120 years ago. Given the time that has passed, her evidence is pretty shaky, and she makes some conclusions that are reaching, to say the least. However, because she offers evidence exonerating other popular suspects, in the end, I don't see any more plausible conclusion.
Rating: 
Summary: Reasonable Doubt remains....
Review: I have been a fan of Cornwell's for a long time, although I have dispaired of late how far the quality of the Scarpetta novels has fallen from the earlier books. Still I respect her forensic knowledge and was looking forward to this book.It doesn't quite live up to its promise. While Cornwell makes a very interesting case against her suspect, in a modern court she could maybe get an arrest warrant but would by no means be assured a conviction. I concede that given the gap of time and the lack of DNA evidence from her long-since cremated suspect, perhaps no one could do better - but where in the beginning of the book she seems to acknowledge those shortcomings, by the end of the book she is speaking to the reader as though the case is closed, when all she has done is given you (however compelling) circumstantial evidence. She also blatantly refuses to address the cases against several other suspects that have persisted through time, but with a case as lacking in "the smoking gun" as hers is, she would have been more persuasive if she'd spent more time examining how she ruled out these other men. Be forewarned that there are a lot of gruesome and graphic details which - while facinating and certainly not gratuitous - are tough to read. Not more gory than one of her Scarpetta novels, just perhaps more difficult to stomach because they aren't fictional. Still, despite these reservations, I would say that anyone who has a deep interest in Jack the Ripper shouldn't neglect this book - some of the theories and factual details presented are very persuasive, and coupled with other sources of information I'd think this book would have a useful place in any study of that subject.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed
Review: I would love to see the evidence and Ms. Cornwell's theory written by a better non-fiction writer. Unfortunately, a good theory is destroyed by overstating it's certainty, "backing it up" with innuendo and conjecture, and presenting it in a haphazardly written structure that is neither chronological nor logical. I think that there is a very good chance she has the solution to the mystery. She also brings a fresh modern criminally educated perspective on the case and makes numerous excellent observations - such as the content and tone of the Ripper letters is more important than the handwriting. But this book is so poorly organized that by the middle you really feel that she "has it in for this guy" and has gone way outside the bounds of solid detective work; that she would be capable of manufacturing additional evidence, as required. A better and more logical outline would have presented her findings in a way that would have made them more relevant and convincing. I confess that I have never read one of her novels, but am confident that she has a lot to learn about writing non-fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: Thank goodness she's not a policeman!
Review: This is an absolutely infuriating book. I am not quite through reading it, and am not sure I'm going to be able to hang in there until the end. The only reason I've read as much as I have is that so much research has gone into it, and the results of that research is often fascinating. But the conclusions Cornwell draws are something else again. Any halfway competent historian would die of shame before writing such a book, and no decent member of the police would think it presents sufficient evidence for an arrest, much less a conviction. For example: A woman dies in Durham. There is a racecourse in Durham. Sickert loved racing. There is no proof that Sickert was not in Durham on the day in question. From all this, we are supposed to infer that Sickert, aka Jack the Ripper, murdered a woman in Durham. Give me a break! There is no reason to suppose the Sickert was in Durham and no reason to suppose that the presence of a racecourse had anything to do with the murder. The connection between all these little facts is only Cornwell's head. The entire book is like this, with isolated pieces of information put together in a way that suggests there is a connection when, in fact, there is no reason to suppose so. And much of what she writes assumes that the reader accepts (1) that Sickert had a genital deformity that rendered him impotent and (2) that many, and perhaps even most, of the so-called Ripper letters were written by the Ripper himself. The evidence is against her on both counts. For whatever reason, Cornwell made up her mind that Sickert was the Ripper, and when she couldn't find conclusive DNA evidence to support her view, organized all her other information in such a way as to convict him by innuendo.
Rating:
Summary: Ouch!
Review: I really enjoy her mystery novels, and I thought I would like this book as well. I was very disappointed. Many of her points only work if you're willing to go waaaaaaay out on the limb with her, and accept a bunch of "possible" clues, including a host of extra Ripper victims not usually associated with the case. Plus, the book was very disorganized, with no rhyme or reason to how it was arranged. There's a chapter at the end that seems to be more of an afterthought than anything, and should have been towards the beginning during the discussion of other victims. In addition to that, she often goes off on tangents bemoaning the modern forensic methods that were unavailable at the time. Pages are wasted discussing how easily these murders would have been solved if they happened today. Well, duh! I thought it really could have been better, she raises many interesting issues. But, by the time I'd waded through the poor construction of the book, and then her iffy proofs, I wished I could have just gotten the time I spent reading it back...
Rating:
Summary: Is Kate Scarpetta Savvier than Her Creator?
Review: I could not give this book one star because I really admire someone who goes after a theory they way Cornwell goes after this one. Having survived the theories about Frances Tumblety, Maybrick and even Lewis Carroll(Really that one is weaker than the one against Sickert)I am always up for another stab at the game of who is Jack. However, I really wish it had been Kate on the quest and not Cornwell herself. I'm sure Kate would have realized that the people in Britain had seen an American with deep pockets coming. I have no idea how much she was taken for in purchasing all her ripper (and Sickert) memorabilia but I'm sure it was a packet. At least it's tax deductible and she can problably sell it on eBay if she gets tired of it for more than she paid. Second point, I think this book is disorganized, but I think it is deliberately disorganized. The easiest way to pad a weak case is by muddling in a lot of other stuff. The more you can distract the reader with extraneous points, the less they can recognize the weak points of an argument. Finally, I think that there was an interesting idea at the center of this case. It just got lost in the author driving the point home about Sickert. On one hand,It might have been very interesting if Cornwell had written a book about her actual search for information, the qualifications of her experts and how they worked. On the other she might have turned it into a compelling piece of fiction. As it is, the book sort of drags in the middle but it's readable if the reader doesn't mind rolling her eyes occasionally
Rating:
Summary: Fairly Convincing
Review: I went into this thinking I wouldn't buy any of it, having heard Cornwell's theories debunked by several "Ripperologists." It seemed like a stretch to base the idea of Sickert's guilt on some similarities in his doodling & sketches on the letters the Ripper sent to police. But after having read the book, I'll admit she paints a pretty convincing argument. Sure, she definetly jumps to some very big conclusions at times, as if she didn't have quite enough evidence to support her theory, but there are also enough interesting details to leave me mostly convinced. I'm sure no one will ever conclusively solve the Jack the Ripper case, but it's interesting to read people's theories.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Mystery Solved?
Review: "Who is Jack the Ripper?": the greatest true crime mystery ever, and this book tries to convince the reader that the mystery has been solved. Quite a persuasive case is made that Sickert is the fiend who haunted Whitechapel. More than anything, his violent paintings and drawings are the most persuasive evidence, one is even titled "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom". More conclusive DNA evidence would have thoroughly swayed me to the author's opinion. I have always loved to read any material related to the Ripper, so of course this book was a must. I still prefer to believe that conclusive evidence of who the Ripper really was has either never existed, or has been destroyed, either by time or by choice.
| 
