Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed

Rating:
Summary: Artist paints London's East End red
Review: Noted artist Walter Richard Sickert (1860-1942) was Jack the Ripper. That's the position taken by author Patricia Cornwell in the first 20 pages of PORTRAIT OF A KILLER. She then goes another 341 pages to prove the point.

Cornwell, otherwise known for her crime novels, has penned an exhaustive, and sometimes exhausting, investigation of the Jack the Ripper murders, which took place in London's East End in 1888. Since the premise of the narrative is that the Ripper was the renowned, German-born, English artist William Sickert, it's also an examination of that man's life, art and presumed psychology. Not to put too fine a point on it, he was a real whack-job. Certifiably psychopathic. Early on, the author asserts that Sickert's rage against the prostitutes he butchered stemmed from a physical inability to have sex, a condition resulting from several (botched) surgeries he endured as a 5-year old to correct congenitally malformed genitalia. Yup, I suspect that would do it.

Cornwell details everything you ever wanted to know about the five murders traditionally attributed to the Ripper: the victims (Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly), the East End environment, the crime scenes, the condition of the corpses as found, and the autopsies. As background, she describes the state of the metropolitan police force of the time, and the reasons it was ill-equipped to find a serial killer, particularly Sickert. Of course, she also reconstructs the artist's erratic and eccentric London lifestyle that caused him to roam the East End, utilizing skills at disguise learned as an actor, in search of victims. Casting her investigative net wider, the author establishes links between Sickert and many of the more than 200 so-called Ripper Letters mailed to the police and newspapers during the period of the murders and the years immediately following. Furthermore, she notes details in Sickert's own paintings and drawings that suggest an up-close and personal familiarity with each individual homicide. He had to have been there. According to Scotland Yard, the circumstantial evidence compiled by Cornwell would be sufficient to place before the crown prosecutor.

Cornwell also makes the case that Sickert continued his slaughters (beyond the traditional five) up to as late as 1907.

Since the conclusion of PORTRAIT OF A KILLER is foregone, the author leaves the most hideous of the Ripper's killings, that of Mary Kelly, until last. Cornwell doesn't specifically say so, but perhaps this was the most gruesome because Sickert was indoors and safe from interruption rather than on exposed streets as with the previous four. He had the luxury of time and privacy to give full vent to his fury. It's a horrific vision.

Though there's no evidence that Sickert ever had a child - certainly consistent with the hypothesis that he was physically unable to engage in normal sex - a story persists that he had an illegitimate son by a Frenchwoman. This is a loose end in Cornwell's narrative - one apparently beyond her ability to resolve at this late date. (Remember, it's her assertion that Sickert's inability to perform sexually was at the root of his violent frenzies.) Otherwise, PORTRAIT OF A KILLER, with its three useful sections of photographs, is a compelling and convincing indictment of the artist, and a must-read for Jack the Ripper obsessives and fans of Patricia Cornwell.

Rating:
Summary: Not enough proof
Review: Although I enjoyed reading the book, I simply did not find the definitive proof that Cornwell promises. One should not subtitle a book "Case Closed" unless one can provide far more proof than what Cornwell has provided. She makes a great circumstancial case, but that is not enough. The things that Cornwell says she sees in Sickert's works were a stretch for me to see. I saw her Diane Sawyer interview before the book came out. In it, she linked Sickert to crimes in Paris. Apparently, Cornwell couldn't cough up enough evidence to support that theory because no French murders were mentioned in the book. An entertaining story, but not the stuff that closes the book on a notorious case.

Rating:
Summary: Book Mis-Named
Review: I am a huge Patricia Cornwell fan. I have all her books. I realize this was a very different project for her to undertake. However, I feel the book should have been titled "Biography of Walter Sickert". I also feel that all the evidence sumbitted was circumstancial. I also found the book to have to much irrelevant information. However, I did find the book interesting but I am not convinced that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I have read other Jack the Ripper books which in my opinion were much more conviencing.

I anxiously await the release of BLOW FLY in October and remain a huge Patricia Cornwell fan.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Thesis Obliterated By Poor Organization
Review: I've read several non-fiction books which I felt inadequately supported the writer's thesis. But, I have never read a non-fiction book where the thesis was lost due to the author's poor organization of the material. Unfortunately, I have now read such a book in Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper Case Closed.

For some obscure reason, Cornwell chose to present the facts supporting her assertion in a haphazard manner. To give an example of this manner, one can look at Chapter Ten , which is titled "Medicine of the Courts". Given this title, one would reasonably expect a discussion about medical evidence presented in the court inquests surrounding the Ripper case. The chapter does indeed start out that way. However, Cornwell diverts off into a discussion of how the painting "Ennui" is further proof of Sickert being the killer, then discusses how Sir William Gull and the Duke of Clarence couldn't be the Ripper, goes back to the medical evidence at the court inquests, veers off to discuss a psychological interpretation for the victims' wounds, and finishes with various definitions for "Jack" and "Ripper". Sadly, the poor organization portrayed in this example isn't unique. Each chapter contains the same convoluted presentation of facts.

Simply put, Portrait of a Killer is a mess. There are some interesting assertions in the book. However, the poor organization not only confuses the reader, it also clouds the evidence to the point that the central thesis remains unproved.

Rating:
Summary: Mystery remains unsolved
Review: With what I would begin?
Maybe with the fact that Patricia Cornwell, crime novelist by heart has made a new book that proves nothing or even gives something so significant that whole mystery would have to be seen in different perspective.

I'm no fan of crime novels even though I have read more than few. The mystery of Whitechurch murders is close to me as I have read almost all possible info about Jack during my life.
As I want to keep this short I will just say that for me Walter is strong suspect. However this has nothing to do with Patricia and his funny little book. Patricia makes complete fool out of herself claiming that she has solved the case. Yes, as everybody else Patricia can point with her finger person that possibly made the murders but...where is the prove?
During the Victorian time Walter could have been convicted to hanging with the info Patricia gave. However so could have been so many other suspects with the things we know now about them. Nowadays nobody would be sent to prison or executed with such evidence that Patricia shows us. Sorry had to say that even though innocent are convicted everyday all around the world.

It's strange that Patricia wants to "give peace" to victims and stop the mythology around Jack and then he writes a book about him? And...isn't innocent man said to be Jack a victim too? I don't see Patricia's logic...
If Patricia would have wanted to stop the myth he would have studied and studied the subject then said that the murderer was just some escaped lunatic that isn't worth of book to write.

Patricia Cromwell surely does write inconsistently and I don't like her writing style and there are way too many "maybes" in this book. However I give two stars because for someone it can be entertaining and also introduces the case to those who never have really read about it.
Actually more fitting name for the book could have been:
"Jack the Ripper - Open case: Portrait of possible killer PART I "

Comes to my mind that Patricia is like prosecutor who tries desperately show that the accused is guilty still knowing that he might have the right man but that the evidence police has given her is deeply lacking so instead of backing the case with cold and hard evidence he makes theories that end up being as good as anyone who has even read some of the information about the subject. She tries convince the jury playing with emotions. "Walter was crippled." "Walter was strange artist." "Just look at him, doesn't he look like Jack?"
Unfortunately even though I agree with those things I can only repeat that there are also other strong suspects.

In the end court rules Walter not guilty and as Patricia looks at him...Possible Jack is smiling at her. Jack the Ripper was just too clever...again.

BTW my name "Jack-Of-No-Trades" have nothing do with the actual Jack and I wish it wouldn't be used as "evidence" against me in Patricias next book about the subject. As Walter I possible was also just joking around with the subject.

Rating:
Summary: jack the ripper 101
Review: Very surprising after reading the her well-organized thrillers - this book is sloppy and you get the feeling she became increasingly disillusioned with her theory as she wrote it. She obviously knows very little about Jack and understands nothing about the artistic soul. After all, a gloomy artist like Sickert would have been fascinated by the case. She doesn't mention that he lived in rooms years after the murders and was told by the landlord that it had been lived in by the Ripper - of course he would paint it! Also, as for the man leaning over the woman in the painting in Ennui - everyone knew the Ripper was supposed to have approached his victims from the back and slit their throats. The only thing she has proved is that the mischievous letter writing Sickert probably wrote a couple of the 600 hoax letters - big deal!!

Rating:
Summary: THIS IS VERY GOOD
Review: I am a regular fan of Patricia Cornwell and, in general, I liked all her work, some more and some less. She is a good writer and a great detective. But what is really amaizing that I was able to understand all the professional information packed so tightly in to her books. Patricia made it simple to understand and to follow.

Now this book is something different. We are talking about one of the classic cases which was never solved and which happend so long ago. Patricia was able to take it a part and to come up with a result. We can argue whether her conclutions are right or wrong but what difference does it make for a book? She convinced me and even that is not important. She presented a case where everything was lost and nothing is solid. There are only little pieces of information and a few clues and she logically put them together. I loved it. What is next, Patricia?

Rating:
Summary: The title: CASE CLOSED???!! WHAT???
Review: Cannot believe that a rich and well suceeded suspence novelist like Patrycia could write such junk, and, worse still, call it CASE CLOSED!

Rating:
Summary: Add another theory to the pile!
Review: Interesting theory but Case Closed? I don't think so! There are some remarkable points made here and should be read by anyone interested in Jack the Ripper. However Patricia Cornwell's policy of, there is no evidence to prove I'm right, but there is no evidence to prove I'm wrong so I must be right, just doesn't cut it, pardon the pun. As far as saying it must be true because the experts said they would arrest Sickert, anyone can find an "expert" to agree to anything. Doesn't mean as much as it used too! So all in all, read the book for a good possibility for who The Ripper was, but don't expect that we've put the mystery to bed just yet.

Rating:
Summary: Sloppy investigation
Review: If you're dead set to get a conviction, you see what you want to see. That's the cardinal sin of a police investigator. At the end of the 19th century there were certainly 5000 psychopaths in London. One of them turned into a serial killer. Others, even most respectable men, shared the dark fantasies acted out by the killer, much like the avid readers of reeky tabloids today. Part of Cornwell does, too. Man is a rather complex animal. The painter Sickert sure had a morbid mind and a faulty character, but that's not enough for a conviction. He hated women, yes, but that was a general characteristic of men at the time, when sex was as filthy and degrading as lust was rampant. A man who uses whores gets to despise himself, usually projecting that selfhate on women. It's still common.

Somehow I expected Cornwell to deliver the final punch in the last chapter, instead everything is thrown into the first half of the book. Then it peters out in ever growing uncertainty.

Take the issue of Sickert's penile defect, his "stump". What proof do we have for that? None, whatsoever. He was operated upon three times, sure. From that Cornwell surmises an amputation, or rather, insinuates it. But the reason for the repeated surgery might be as simple as a continued leakage. If Sickert was incapable of intercourse, shouldn't that at least be hinted at in the correspondence between the wife and her beloved sister? Sickert did in fact marry twice with fertile women.

Sickert reminds me of characters in her novels. It seems to her evil is related to physical handicaps. The crippled turns evil. Psychopaths are born evil (also a recurrent theme in her novels). Still she offers a staggering row of psychological reasons, childhood trauma's of all kinds. She's not very consistent.

Most stunning is her treatment of the Ripper letters. First: all of them cannot be written by the same person. You can manipulate your handwriting, but it's very difficult to change it altogether - you can only change what's apparent to you, part of your style. You can hide it by writing in a childlike way or thorough calligraphy, but most of the letters are written in a off-hand way. Any criminal investigator would try to sort them in two groups - those whose style and content somehow match, and the others. He would then proceed checking if any of the letters contained information only known to the police. Cornwell doesn't.

There's also the possibility that the devious Sickert wrote some of those letters and still did not commit the crimes. A Piries & Sons stationery shows that the writer is not a poor bloke, but if it was mainly used by civil servants, any clerk could be the writer.

The DNA comparison of Ripper and Sickert letters is an anticlimax. It's simply not conclusive. After that setback Cornwell weakens her case by presupposing - without any kind of substantiation - that Sickert was gambling on racetracks (serial killers usually don't, they want control) and sharing with us her hunch, that the wife really "suspected the truth about her husband".

There are comical parts, too, like when she in a painting in the painting "Ennui" discovers a man coming up behind a lady with bare shoulders. With such investigative techniques, she could make a wonderful case against Kokoschka, Gustav Klimt or Grosz. And she complains that Sickert's father had no respect for authorities - as if that would not be a rather healthy attitude for a German in the 19th century. I mean, Sickert's father read Heinrich Heine, too.

The London police was heavily prejudiced when hunting the Ripper, but so is Patricia Cornwell.