Rating: 
Summary: Portrait of a Creepy Guy ... And No Solid Proof
Review: I'll have to join the chorus of others who have already made the point that, while interesting, Ms. Cornwell's book falls far short of "closing the case" on the Ripper murders. She makes some interesting points, but relies far too much on coincidences, similarities, and "well it _could_ have happened like this."For me, by far the most interesting aspect of the book was its description of the living conditions in the poorer parts of London in the 1880s. Life was truly "nasty, brutish and short" for the lower classes in England then, and their suspicion -- even hatred -- of the police certainly contributed to the slipshod investigation of the crimes. The primitive forensic tools of that era didn't help either! So, overall, I'd give the book a marginal "thumbs up" -- but with the caveats already noted.
Rating: 
Summary: If Only It Were Fiction
Review: I wasn't so much disappointed as shocked by this book. Maybe poor Ms. Cornwell is so used to writing fiction, that not being able to control the facts of her case, to write what she wanted, and tie up the neat ending she'd decided on when she typed "Chapter 1" into her computer made her crack. Certainly I wasn't shocked by the long, long passages on watermarks; I wasn't even shocked by the no-holds-barred descriptions of the disgusting life suffered by people living in the East End of Victorian London-- which incidentally I thought were the best part of the book. Few books on Jack the Ripper are so honest about the misery that drove Jack's victims to the desperation of street prostitution. What I was shocked by were occasions of outright dishonesty from a writer I had once admired. To begin with, Cornwell never lets on that Sickert has been connected with the Ripper murders before. In 1990 a woman named Jean Overton Fuller wrote a book called Sickert and the Ripper Crimes. Fuller, like Cornwell, detects shadows of the Rippers victims in many of Sickert's paintings, and like Cornwell, assumes that he must have committed the murders, not seen photographs of the bodies, or illustrations in the papers. Also, as far back as 1947, Sir Osbert Sitwell wrote that Sickert persistently spoke of knowing the identity of Jack the Ripper, because he once rented a room, which he landlady told him she had previously rented to a veterinary student who was Jack the Ripper. Apparently the landlady regaled Sickert with stories of the student's comings and goings, and Sickert loved to listen. More damning though, she states things such as this, on page 33: "With rare exceptions they [the Ripper's victims] were in their late thirties or early forties." The Ripper had five victims, according to the police at the time, four of whom were in their forties, and one of whom was twenty-five. Cornwell writes the word "exceptions" as plural, because she has added to the total murders outside the accepted provenance of Jack the Ripper, that she alone believes Sickert committed. Then on page 121, she states "if Sickert had seen [victim] Mary Ann at the mortuary, her eyes would have been shut by then, just as they are in her photograph." I couldn't believe it. I flipped through the illustrations in the book wondering whether I could trust my memory. Cornwell had included a copy of Mary Ann Nichols' mortuary photograph, but it is so vague, I could barely discern a face. The eyes were two black lines, and I could not fairly judge whether they were open or closed. I picked up a book ten years older than Cornwell's book, The Jack the Ripper A-Z. This book also includes Nichols' mortuary photo, and it is the same photo, with a half-circle tear on the right side. In the much clearer print of the photo in A-Z, Nichols' eyes are CLEARLY OPEN. Cornwell lied. She lied, to make a point; a point that Sickert once made a sketch of a woman resembling Nichols as she lay dead, but with eyes open. Cornwell claimed Sickert must have seen Nichols dead before the mortuary worker closed her eyes, as though Sickert were incapable of imagining her with open eyes. Then she published a deliberately vague photo in order to cover up the fact that Sickert may well have seen a photo of Nichols with her eyes open. I would not go on like this if it were one instance in a nearly 400 page book, but it's not. When Cornwell is not outrightly insulting the reader by condescendingly introducing background information as though the reader grew up in a hothouse, then she is slyly insulting by assuming the reader cannot question or double-check anything she says. And it may simply be that as a fiction writer she is too accustomed to writing in a vacuum, where the reader must accept everything she says. Maybe she intends no malice, and is just lousy at non-fiction, and should go back to novels, which she does well. I hope, I hope. I hope not, as another reviewer said, that this is all because she owns many Sickert paintings, which would go up in value if people believed he were Jack the Ripper.
Rating: 
Summary: Not convinced from page one
Review: Having never read a Ripper book before this one I was not sure what to expect. What I didn't expect was a biased conclusion on who the the Ripper was from almost page one, based on flimsy and circumstantial evidence from the start of the book. The author tried to convince and convict from an early point in her book that Walter Sickert was the murderer of the East End London women who had the musfortune to cross his path in late Victorian London. Evidence is circuital at best and far reaching at the worst; there is not a shred of direct evidence linking Sickert to the crimes he is accused of. If one eliminated the "could haves", "might haves","possiblys" and "maybes" this would have cut the book in half; having never read this author before I sincerely hope this is not her best effort.
Rating:
Summary: Huh?
Review: I had never read a Patricia Cornwall book before and never will again. This was one of the most poorly written books I have ever come across.
I bought this book after having seen Ms. Cornwall on a television special and I found her theory very intriguing. While I still find the theory intriguing, the book was anything but.
There is no logical structure to the book. She wanders aimlessly through the murders, sometimes chronologically, sometimes not. She includes only three Sickert paintings, although she discusses many, and those three paintings are printed in a muddied sepia tone and barely discernable. She writes, over and over again, about the lack of forensic science available to the police at the time and then goes into excruiting detail about what they MIGHT have done if they had the proper tools.She is constantly equivocating and making random generalizations. She does not cite any sources.
She states that she is staking her reputation on this theory. I believe it is her writing style that should ruin whatever reputation she may have.
Don't waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting for a read, but take it with a grain of salt.
Review: I remember studying Jack The Ripper in high school, and I never took much of an interest in the case. To be frank, the only reason the case endured for so long is because of the brutality of the killings, and the fact that the killer was never caught. It seems that when less is known, the more people are interested. This book is perhaps the most detailed account I have read so far, and definitely the one with the most opinionated narrative. Patricia Cromwell has dedicated much of her time to researching the Jack The Ripper killings, and has drawn her conclusions in this book. She makes some interesting points, like the DNA sample from an envelope, as well as attempting to debunk popular beliefs (like the copycat ripper letters). But being a natural skeptic, I am not wholly convinced of her findings. She presents a lot of theories, a few conincidences, and a big conspiracy reaching to top levels of government. I won't spoil it, but it makes for some interesting brain candy. However, much of her research reveals nothing that has not been said before. A BBC documentary made in the early 80's drew similar conclusions. Don't expect any revelations while reading "Portrait of a Killer". Patricia Cromwell is a good author, and I have enjoyed her other writings. "Portrait of a Killer" is well written, easy to follow, and engaging. But it didn't set my mind on fire like I hoped it would. While it is Cromwell's opinion and research that is the basis for the book, and it has sold well based on hype alone, she has not really "solved" the case. Good mainly for a casual read.
Rating:
Summary: Dull
Review: I have listened to a lot of Patricia Cornwells books.
I could not believed she wrote this one. I have the
unabridged version and I was never so disappointed in
a book. There have been other books that I didn't care
for but this one drags out to much and is borning.
I know a lot about watermarks on paper or handwriting that
I don't think I need to know. Everytime I changed the
cassett, I kept thinking it had to get better, but it
didn't. She jumped around so much it was hard to keep
up with who she was talking about. I belive the painter is probably the killer. I have read several books on Jack
the Ripper and most of them at least kept my interest,
not this one.
Rating:
Summary: Case Not Closed
Review: All this book did was convince me that Walter Sickert was a creepy guy. There is no evidence that concretely links Sickert to the Ripper murders. It's a pretty heavy blame to lay on someone without anything more than circumstantial evidence.
Rating:
Summary: sending letters does not make you a murderer
Review: I almost didn't get this book because of the bad reviews. Mrs. Cornwell did a good job in telling her story and in giving her views. I think she has proved that Sickert probably sent several of the ripper letters. However, sending a letter and taunting the police seems like a sick joke Sickert would enjoy playing. As far as him being the Ripper that's a joke. I suggest picking this book up if you can get it for a buck or two. However, if your wanting the straight story you won't find a better book than - The Complete History of Jack The Ripper by Philip Sugden. By the way, Mrs. Cornwall has been buying Sickerts paintings. If she can make people believe this man was Jack the Ripper - what an investment.
Rating: 
Summary: Riveting...an important piece of history
Review: After reading through the reviews here of people who "take issue" with the evidence, who say the author "hasn't proven" her case, who complain the book is "hard to follow," and so on, perhaps a fair statement would be: WHAT A BUNCH OF WHINERS! The book was, in fact, well-written and not hard to follow at all. (If you want to know one of the key reasons the justice system is in shambles in this country, just remember that these kinds of you-owe-me-more-evidence-than-that people end up on juries). Poor Walter Sickert, his reputation maligned...those poor Sickert relatives...please. Cry me a river. Perhaps they can explain the DNA links, his writing Ripper letters to the police and media, the unholy resemblance between images he painted and some of the Ripper's victims, and how he told people he knew the Ripper's identity (but "forgetting" it later, despite his famed photographic memory). Take a look again at the dead faces of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddows, and Sickert's paintings. WHAT PART OF THIS IS TOO HARD TO GRASP? Think about his Ripper Bedroom picture. (How would he know?) WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? I don't even consider myself a Cornwell fan, having only read one of her prior fiction works. I do know she's done her homework here--and then some. Actually, there was a young man here in Colorado (Ft. Collins) who was tried and convicted of murdering a woman on seemingly less evidence that Cornwell has for Sickert. The young guy had "telegraphed" and "recounted" the crime with his drawings, even though there was no direct physical evidence against him. (Folks: When people draw pictures of victims and details that only a killer would know, who does that then make the killer?) Not to be rude or anything, but the maligning this book is taking is ridiculous. It's a good, solid (harrowing) read, and something history should remember.
Rating:
Summary: Not For Everyone
Review: In this book, America's bestselling crime writer solves the case on Jack the Ripper that has baffled experts for more than a century. Although Patricia Cornwell is an amazing writer, you must have some interest in forensic science and/or crime to read and thoroughly enjoy this book. It's a bit slow-paced at times but the author is just giving you plenty of background information for you to better understand the investigation of Jack the Ripper. She gives you so many details on everything that are conducive to you feeling like you are in the East End of London back in the 19th century. Patricia uses her extensive knowledge of forensic science to present the hard evidence on who the psychopathic killer was, who remained unknown for over a hundred years. With her skills of criminal investigation and as a number-one-bestselling author, Patricia produces an amazing book which is compelling as well as authentic.
| 
