Rating: 
Summary: Just not very good
Review: I am an attorney with a background in editing, so I am familiar with investigative techniques as well as what constitutes good writing. I also have an interest in this area, but have concentrated mostly on reading books that either present information objectively (i.e., do not put forth a theory about the identity of the Ripper) or reproduce the original file materials still in existence. In my opinion, this is not a well-researched, well-written, or objective book. Ms. Cornwall suffers from the same problem that many of the Ripper authors do--she starts with a pet theory, a pre-conceived solution, and then sees the evidence the way she wants to see it in order to "prove" her theory. What has she proved? Well, if you can follow her badly presented explanation of DNA evidence and how it works, she has proved only that Sickert may have written some of the Ripper letters. Not much of a payoff for a book subtitled, "Case Closed." Still, it would have been a worthwhile read if it had been organized better. The book felt like it was rushed into production. I was quite disappointed, since I had read a couple of the Scarpetta novels and was looking forward to at least a decent read, which I didn't get.
Rating: 
Summary: And the verdict is......
Review: I gave this book four stars because of Patricia Cornwell's excellent writing style. She is very smart, of course, but writes with a smoothness little known in this genre. She certainly does provide convincing tidbits about Jack the Ripper, enough perhaps to make some people believe her choice of killers did it, but I had to think about reasonable doubt. So long after the infamous crimes, it is inevitable that Ms. Cornwell would be unable to collect enough physical evidence, even in conjunction with Scotland Yard, to prove her case. If I were a juror, I would have to plead not guilty. There is more than reasonable doubt, and some of her "facts" (for want of a better word) are definite stretches. In my heart, she almost has me convinced, but there is still that little bit of "almost" hanging around that insists this case is not closed. Having read most, if not all of Ms. Cornwell's books, I'm more on the believer side, as she is indeed an excellent forensic pathologist, usually in the person of Kay Scarpetta. I also thought that she gave Scotland yard an unfair shake, considering what they had to work with back then, often it sounds as though she blames the nearly unsolvability of the case on their shabby police work, when in fact, they simply did not have today's technology. She also balances this at point with some commendations for Scotland Yard, but I ended up feeling she was not pleased with their work back in the Jack the Ripper days and thought that even with little technology, they could have done better. It's your turn to be the juror.
Rating:
Summary: Good technical book
Review: This book reads more like an "Unsolved Mysteries" on A&E rather than a novel. I bought this for my wife - and she really enjoyed reading it. If you are interested in Jack the Ripper - and would like to read about specifics of the case - including autopsies, etc - this is a book for you.
Rating:
Summary: Who do you think you're kidding?
Review: Until now I've been a big fan of Patricia Cornwell and her Kay Scarpetta novels - but this book is [not good]. The only reason I read it through to the bitter end was to see if it could really get any worse - and it did. I have never come across so many examples of "may have", "possibly", "perhaps", "could have", "no reason why not" in a single book and, on this showing, I would hate to be on the receiving end of Patricia Cornwell's notion of "conclusive evidence"! However, more than the fact that the book is entirely unconvincing, it's extremely badly written and put together. In places it seems almost thrown together at random. In short, it's one of the worst books I've ever read: a complete waste of time and money.
Rating: 
Summary: FBI & Scotland yard expertsfound Sickert worthy of scrutiny.
Review: The author asked Scotland Yard's John Grieve about this book, and his reply was as follows: "I would immediately put Sickert under surveillance to try to find where his bolt holes were, and if we found any, we would get search warrants. If we didn't get any more evidence than what we've got now, we'd be happy to put the case before the crown prosecutor." FBI profiler, Ed Sulzbach, stated: "There really aren't many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence a coincidence is just plain stupid." Always go to people who are qualified to speak about a subject--like the two above. Anyone else here or elsewhere may have an opinion about this book, but such "opinions" may or may not have anything to do with reality. If you're still skeptical, the book is at the library.
Rating:
Summary: Forcing me to give this a whole star is a sin
Review: When this book was first released, Cornwell was plugging it on 20/20. I happened to catch the show, and watched the interview. And I must say...I laughed quite heartily at what I heard. Watching her talk as if she were the first person to build a case against Walter Sickert was hysterical. Theories that Sickert was Jack the Ripper have been floating around for over a century...how very innovative of her to jump on the bandwagon. Her claim that the evidence she's collected would be enough to make the Victorians cry "Hang him!" may be true. But consider that when a man named Squibby, who was wanted for nothing more than a petty assault charge, was seen running from a policeman in 1888 Whitechapel, one man cried "Jack the Ripper!" and before you can say "Bob's your uncle," there was a lynch mob, foaming and screaming for Squibby's blood. Despite police efforts to calm the mob and inform them of their mistake, they still howled "Lynch him! String him up!" So you see, getting those Victorians to cry "Hang him!" would be a very easy thing to do. Now, convincing ME...that's not so easy. Why? Because I know too much about the Ripper case to be taken in by this claptrap. The Ripper letters that she based the whole of her research on were BOGUS. Though they were signed Jack the Ripper, they were not written by the killer. In fact, the ONE letter that was most likely real WASN'T signed Jack the Ripper at all. Why didn't she test that one, instead of testing letters that every Ripperologist in the world regards as frauds? Maybe because if she had, she would have come up with no "evidence" to link Sickert to the murders, and this preposterous best-seller of hers would have never seen the light of day. All in all, the unoriginality of Cornwell's theory, coupled with the overwhelming lack of evidence to support her overblown, self-agrandizing claim that she's solved a case which has remained open for nearly 115 years, make for a wholly uninvolving and repugnantly arrogant reading experience. Don't believe the hype. Cornwell essentially knew nothing about Jack the Ripper before she undertook this project. And so, even setting inaccuracies and outright deceit aside, this just isn't a good or competent Ripper book on ANY LEVEL. Pick up Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper" (AKA "Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook") instead. At least he knows his facts.
Rating:
Summary: Cold Case Investigation at its Best
Review: If you like the Cold Case show on the A&E channel, you will thoroughly enjoy Patricia Cornwell's evidence on the cold case of Jack the Ripper. But--though she presents very hard circumstantial facts to persuade the reader that artist Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, Ms. Cornwell also presents rather lax circumstantial facts relating to other murders that may or may have not been the work of Sickert. This could leave the reader scratching his or her head as to "why?" All in all, it was a very enjoyable book even though it was on the technical side, but you wouldn't expect anything else from Ms. Cornwell. The circumstantial evidence she discloses is well documented and well versed. It is a shame she was not at the O.J. Simpson trial-the verdict might have been different. I will be glad when Ms. Cornwell gets back to the Scarpetta saga; but in the meantime, I thoroughly enjoyed this current book of her.
Rating:
Summary: The Ego is Evident in the Title of the Book
Review: I am no fan of Ms. Cornwall's; in fact, I dislike her work and her persona. I am, however, fascinated by Jack the Ripper, so, grudgingly, I gave this book a cursory glance, and was not surprised in the least, given the arrogance displayed in the title, that it fell far short of the statement: Case Closed. The world has waited all these years for P. Cornwall to come along and solve the case, (or so we are supposed to believe...)single-handed, well, not quite, in fact, not even close. It takes skills far beyond her grasp to ever have a resolution to this famous case, and buying the paintings of an artist connected to the actual killer (no, big surprise, it was NOT Mr. Sickert)does not a solution make, especially one worthy of the statement "case closed."
She takes the loosest of circumstances, many, if not most, completely unsubstantiated, and cobbles them all together into her own personal vilification of Walter Sickert, who has NEVER been considered a viable suspect, and now certainly will not be for anyone who reads this venomous and wholly inaccurate fabrication. It is a glaring example of an author's popularity going to her head and force-feeding her own opinions based on evidence as substantial as wet Kleenex, to her "public", bestowing her largesse on the populace. The one even remotely viable discovery was a DNA test of envelope glue used by the Ripper and some DNA found in Sickert's overalls...of course, if you read "The Final Solution" by Stephen Knight, that will be explained, for Stephen Knight's book actually puts many pieces together, in a far more coherent way, than does this mendacious and fallacious work of fiction. Happy and content with her own delusions, Ms. Cornwall can laugh all the way to the bank with her personal, vitriolic diatribe of Mr. Sickert published; one can only thank God she was not around in the 1880s, for she would have started a witch hunt to rival those of Salem in her blind zeal to punish her own victim, Walter Sickert; fortunate too, that he is not around to see her destruction of his works, which were more original and far more impressive than anything she will ever produce in her lifetime. One matching watermark, on a Ripper letter, and that of Sickert's stationer father, do not a conviction make...nor does the shredding on canvases convince anyone that she has in fact come even remotely close to being able to state: case closed.
Rating:
Summary: Ok...so the case isn't closed
Review: Even Patricia Cornwell admits that the case isn't closed when it comes to Jack the Ripper but she does come up with some hard and convincing evidence that Walter Sickert could have been Jack the Ripper. Most convincing to me is his art as well as the fact that she is able to make me see how THE RIPPER doesn't necessarily need to be a surgeon as one theory suggests. I believe Patricia is on the right track and look forward to hearing more when she is able to get more of the test results back.
Rating: 
Summary: An Irresponsible Piece of Pseudo-Journalism
Review: This book was an somewhat enjoyable tumble through the dark side of these horrible crimes. I've never had an opportunity to learn much about them, but it's always fun to place yourself in the seamy side of Victorian London once in a while. Unfortunately, that's about all I can say on the positive side. "Case Closed"? How can someone who purports to be something of an expert in forensic science make such a claim based on what she presents? I kept expecting Cornwell to drop some bombshell pointing to Sickert as the Ripper, but it never came. The so-called "evidence" was interesting, but far from dispositive. This is especially dramatic in the matter of DNA. If there is one thing that can blow the lid off an old case like this one, it is this use of this extraordinary new technology. But once again, no bombshell. Far from it. Nuclear DNA (the most decisive) was unrecoverable, and MT DNA was inconclusive. I was especially angry that Cornwell seemed to mislead the reader by inferring some significance into the fact that a couple of genetic markers were found in both the Ripper's and Sickert's MT DNA. She of all people should know that this is essentially meaningless. It's not unlikely that my DNA would have a correlation of that magnitude. But I assure you, I have an solid alibi. The book read far more like an "In Search Of..." episode on UFOs than a hard hitting piece of criminal journalism. Cornwell often admits to the speculative nature of her conclusions, but there it just too much of it to merit the book's subtitle. This left me feeling a little "had". Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed for her. I am not a reader of her fiction, but I had understood her to have a reasonably good reputation for "getting it right". I feel she has damaged that reputation with this book.
|
