Rating: 
Summary: Contemptible slander
Review: Patricia Cornwell seems to have needed to recover some of the cash she spent in her alleged "investigation" of Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Why else would she publish such unfounded trash? Not only is the book poorly written (need a new editor, Patricia?), but the alleged evidence presented is never more than pure speculation from an accomplished fiction writer! The only thing I got from this book was a sincere desire to sue Ms Cornwell on behalf of Mr Sickert for "slander and Libel! I should hope that this book will not be purchased by anyone else so as to deprive the author of any more revenue that may encourage further garbage. I like a good speculation about the identity of "Jack" as much as anyone might, but to offer such flimsy, rambling, accusation about a single person is contemtible and should not be rewarded.
I am not a fan of Walter Sickert. In fact I only had a passing knowledge of him as an artist before reading this book. Therefore, I am not making an attempt to clear his name, only that I would like to add my review to the others that call this book what it is - SHAMEFUL, LIBELOUS, NONSENSE! Of all the good reviews of this work I read they all seem to come from long time fans of Ms Cornwell. I had never read her works before this one and after reading this I shall not waste my time. Perhaps I will entertain the idea of authoring my own investigation into the "Whitechapel murders" and implicate Patricia Cornwell as my suspect. I could easily present at least as much "evidence" against her as she did Mr Sickert as being the culprit!
Rating:
Summary: Bad
Review: Can anyone say "redundant?" Do publishers no longer employ editors? This book is a excellent 25-page paper crammed into a 300-page book.
Rating:
Summary: Case Closed? -- Hardly!!!
Review: This was by far one of the most disappointing books I have ever read. With all the publicity and build-up going around about this book, I was eagerly looking forward to reading it. What a let down! This case is closed ONLY if you buy into theories and circumstantial evidence. The author presented not one bit of hard evidence to support her contention of who the Ripper was. Her book is full of innuendos and possibilities: He could have done this... He was in the habit of doing this... He would most certainly have known this... and so on and so on and so on. I kept reading because I kept waiting for a payoff that never came. Don't waste your time on this one!!!
Rating:
Summary: Not One Shred of Real Evidence
Review: Cornwell's attempt to name the person who was "Jack the Ripper" fails miserably. She does not have one shred of real evidence to back up her theory. My recommendation is that she stick to fiction. Oh, wait! That is what this book is!
Rating:
Summary: Shameful and Farcical!
Review: ln its critique of this book, the NY Times pointed out that the author violated every principle of valid research in her
simplistic endeavor to "prove" her absurd theory. Shockingly, the reviewer also detailed the many, many inaccuracies in this book, including the "stating of possibilities as facts, based on nothing but her intuition". The reviewer proves that Ms. Cornwall's book is both sloppy and insulting.Ahh, wouldst the publisher have been as thorough in its research! Did they just simply accept the book as irrevocable truth? Shame on them!
Rating:
Summary: The Worst Book Ever Written - Case Closed
Review: I've had an interest in Jack the Ripper for the last couple of years, and when I found out that Ms. Cornwell was going to be investing such a massive amount of money and "scientific study" into determining who the killer was, I was ecstatic. What a great idea for a fiction writer to do right? Unfortunately, I was caught up in the tremendous amount of hype that surrounded this book and failed to see the glaringly obvious flaw: this was a FICTION writer. This fact becomes painfully clear on the first page of the book. "Portrait of a Killer" would make for a somewhat decent work of fiction. It would make for a mediocre "historical" fiction novel based on a real event. As a "non-fiction novel, it is absolutely horrible, and definitely the worst non-fiction book I have ever read. I've never read a Cornwell novel before, but it seems that she is trying to use real people to create fictitious characters. Walter Sickert is the man she is convinced held the secret identity of Jack the Ripper. Cornwell's entire premise for this book is that she would be using the scientific method, and more interestingly, DNA analysis, something that has never been done on the Ripper case. When her DNA analysis and scientific studies fail, she STILL uses the unconvincing results to try to draw definitive conclusions that Sickert was the killer. The DNA "evidence" that is Cornwell's main link to Sickert and the Ripper, is actually mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA. This type of DNA is actually very common, and is shared by anywhere from 1-10% of the population. Furthermore, Cornwell cannot even state with certainty that the DNA she tested was even Sickert's. How does she explain away all of the eyewitness alibis Sickert had for 4 or the 5 murders, placing Sickert in Paris at the time? She doesn't, she simply ignores them. Her ENTIRE book is based on a wide amount of circumstantial evidence that doesn't even come close to being "scientific." Most of the letters she attributes to the Ripper have been widely recognized as hoaxes by the Ripper community. From reading her book, one would think that Cornwell had some sort of personal vendetta against Sickert, as she attempts to portray him as an insane psychopath. What does she use to support this claim? Mainly Sickert's sickening tendencies to take walks at night or paint! Cornwell failed mmiserable with "Portrait of a Killer." She attempted to spend 1 year stepping into a completely unknown field. A field that has been explored by people studying the Ripper and the evidence for decades. Her only advantage over other authors on Ripper books was her budget and access to Ripper documents and testing laboratories. However, when this fails to turn up a single bit of conclusive evidence that Sickert could even possibly be the killer, Cornwell loses her ground and proceeds to recede back to what she does best: writing fiction. Even if her evidence proved without a doubt that Sickert was the killer, the book is so horribly written and jumps around so much, there is no way I would ever recommend it to anyone else.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fabulous Book
Review: As a university professor who teaches required classes for history majors on methods of inquiry and analysis, I am constantly on the lookout for books that utilize specific methodologies and present original theses. Since many of my students will never teach or go to graduate school, I like to suggest the kinds of careers that they might seek with a history degree--investigative reporting is one of them. I have a particular interest in Victorian Society because my great-great-grandmother may have been stalked in Whitechapel by the Ripper on her way home from work as a domestic servant. Although I am not a "Ripperologist," I have spent time in my classes dealing with themes of poverty, prostitution and violence against women in 19th century England, subjects that Corwell discusses with sensitive accuracy.
My assessment of this book is that it represents an outstanding and reasoned attempt to prove what a number of historians have suspected for some time but have lacked the scientific evidence to prove: that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. To do this, Cornwell, a forensic scientist as well as a mystery writer, utilizes her own expertise and that of others to analyse medical information, DNA evidence, handwriting, police reports, diaries, letters, railroad schedules, ink, paint, stationary production and distribution, finger prints and art. At every point, she anticipated objections to her arguments and her conclusions and met them head on. I found the latter to be very nearly convincing and her sources to be impeccable and I challenge anyone to do a better job or to produce a compelling counter thesis.
Rating:
Summary: This book IS NOT speculation!
Review: Portrait Of A Killer is not a book about Particia Cornwell or her writting abilities. This book chronicles the real life forensic findings that Walter Sickert was, in fact, Jack The Ripper regardless of how well or poorly this book was written. As far as the flow of the book is concerned, any rational, unbiased mind can follow it. Patricia lays out all the pertinent background facts and information before expanding on each of the murders; in order to help the reader to see why certain key clues are relevant and how they relate to the lives of Sickert and his victims before and after the murders.
Where a reader sets him or herself up to fail is in the attitude in which they approach this book, material, evidence. If the reader has read the graphic novel "From Hell" (by Alan Moore and Edie Campbell), or seen the film of the same name and similar basic principle, he or she may be more inclined to be too swept away by the romantic notions that they suggest and not be able to appreciate the time, effort, and intuitive fortitude that went into this new work on an old mystery. This is unfortunate. What evidence more than expert handwriting analysis, artistic technique evaluation, and a very apparent motive will suffice for these skeptics would undoubtedly be the excavation of Sickert's parent's graves for further DNA testing.
Rating: 
Summary: Scott Cassidy's Good Ol' Review
Review: The great detail involved in Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer makes it a worthwhile book to read. The facts were all there to believe entirely that Walter Sickert, the supposed "Jack," murdered these 19th century English prostitutes. However, the book doesn't allow much room for making an educated guess on who the murderer is. The book is somewhat biased in that sense, but the author was able to back up any assumptions with clear, logical evidence. The book is an enticing, titillating thriller, but unlike other murder mystery stories, this one is entirely fact, thus increasing the excitement of the reading process. The gruesome pictures of the four dead women, as well as Sickert and his family, could make a statue bend over in queasiness. The detail of the women's sufferings are graphic, but to a point that makes you feel for them but not pity them. It is a great book and especially good for fans of notorious murderers and the crimes they committed.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of an author's ego
Review: To quote the author herself, "It is sad that men whose lives and careers were touched by the Ripper cases would spin theories almost as baseless as some of those offered by people who weren't even born at the time of the crimes." Patricia Cornwell case is as baseless as those she criticizes. It offers little more than an ego trip, with occasional salacious details, often unrelated, to keep the average reader titillated. She offers little of substance to prove her case. Rather, she starts with an assumption, not even original to her, and warps facts to fit her hypothesis. And the book is not even well written. It is poorly organzed and jumpy.
|
