Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing, yet difficult to follow
Review: Having just finished this book, I am convinced that Ms. Cornwell "got her man." In light of my belief, almost all of the evidence presented is circumstantial and her supposition based upon coincidence but as is stated in the book, coincidences don't routinely occur without reason (or something to that effect). Ms. Cornwell presents ample alibis for other suspected Rippers, effectively discounting many alternate theories to the killer's identity while bolstering her case against Sickert.Saying that, I did find this book somewhat disjointed and difficult to follow. Ms. Cornwell jumps from victim to victim, chapters are not in chronological order and a timeline is difficult to establish. At one point during this read I was tempted to get out a pencil and paper to visualize the crimes and the concurrent location of Sickert. I was also disappointed in the unexpected "blunt" ending of the book. The way it ended left me expecting another chapter when I turned the page. How surprised was I to find the author's acknowledgements! I plan on reading this book again to see if my opinion changes. If you are into forensics (as is in vogue these days) you will probably enjoy this book despite its organizational difficulties. The process is fascinating and her theory is quite plausible. Give it a shot, you may enjoy it.
Rating: 
Summary: Use it as a reference book, not a novel
Review: Patricia Cornwell's attempt to pinpoint Jack the Ripper is presented in this novel. However, this account is somewhat presented as a reference novel; that is, this book goes through historical material and heresay. What "Portrait of a Killer" is not is a historical fiction novel that takes you through the events as if it is 1888 and you are able to see Scotland Yard unfold with Sickert as Jack the Ripper. If you're looking for an entertaining historical-based fiction novel, this is not it.
Rating:
Summary: But is it true?
Review: I found the book interesting reading, but not powerful science as the other reviews would indicate. Rather than take my word on some of the issues, you might like to read what a DNA specialist says about some of the flaws of Cromwell's DNA evidence: "Neither History Nor Science" By Terry Melton
_The Scientist_, Volume 17, Issue 3, p.16 (Feb.10 2003) ...
Rating:
Summary: What A Mess!!
Review: I've read several other reviews and just had to throw in my 2 cents worth. I too re-sold my book, which is something I have never done with a brand new book before. Sure I lost money, but I also lost several hours reading!! I've enjoyed the author's fictional books and couldn't wait to read this one. How disappointing! Disjointed, full of conjecture, information notated under photos that was never mentioned in the text, with a totally lousy ending that kind of petered off. The book felt unfinished, like that of a pre-teen writer who had to turn in a book report on Monday morning and wasn't quite done. (I've been there, so it was easy to recognize.) I was unfamiliar with Walter Sickert and would have really appreciated seeing at least one picture of his work to realize what a talented artist he was and why he was famous. Maybe he was Jack the Ripper, but Patricia Cornwell's argument was absolutely unconvincing. I think she's damaged her reputation with this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Waste of Money
Review: I got a headache before the first fifty pages.
By the ,,,, next ten I know I was wasting my time
I hope you find much better Books to buy and read
Rating:
Summary: Case Closed? Not Even Close!
Review: This book was filled with speculation, unsubstantiated rumors, unsupported suppositions and pure conjecture. Cornwall owes the family a big apology.
Rating:
Summary: DISAPPOINTMENT
Review: I was thrilled to get another Cornwell book, and especially a Ripper one! My sister and I have read every single Cornwell as soon as we can get our hands on it; in fact it has become a contest to see who gets it first. Unfortunately, I won this one! Since I am a teacher, I automatically notice grammatical errors. In fact, if there are too many, I actually get stressed out. (I guess it's because I want to go get a red pen.) They distract me from the flow and comprehension becomes more of a task than the leisurely relaxation I seek out in a book. I deduced that the editing crew who usually works on her books must be different, or too stressed themselves. Of course, they could possibly just have been bored! The book may be of interest to psychology students, if they look past the repetitiousness. I am hoping my sister, a nurse in the psych dept. of the local hospital, gets some enjoyment from it. I quit forcing myself to read it, even though it is by my favorite author, Patricia. I will just re-read an old one, in anticipation of another. FICTION PLEASE!
Rating:
Summary: A one star book only.
Review: So many assumptions, from such little factual basis, made this book a very difficult read. I expected much more . A very disappointing book that, sadly, I cannot recommend. The book seemed disjointed, unorganized in its thought process, it just did not flow and was, frankly tough to finish. The pictures were interesting but could have been tied in with the text to make their reference much easier. Like the authors fiction, hope she gets back to it.
Rating: 
Summary: Patricia has almost nailed the ripper
Review: I really enjoyed this book. Patricia has got the right person, I believe. She just doesn't have enough proof to conclude her case.
I have read many books and articles, and watched numerous crime programmes that deal with forensics and in particular, criminal Profiling. Indeed, this book refers to one particular trait of this type of Killer that made an impression on me with regard to solving the ripper case: trophy taking. We know that body parts were removed in certain of the killings. As Patricia shows, Sickert was a very intelligent man and we would never expect him to be foolish enough to keep tangible proof that would link him to the crimes, not even at the turn of the 20th century. He was brazen enough to create artwork that "explored" the killings in a way that he could easily explain away as professional curiosity if he was ever confronted. I believe Patricia needs to look deeper at his art - indeed, within his art, when (or if) this book is updated. Ancient Egypt could be the final link for Patricia to prove Sickert was the killer.
Did you know that in Europe - from the middle ages until late Victorian times - the remains of ground up mummies were used for Fertiliser, fuel, medicinal purposes and, more interestingly, by artists, as paint pigment. I believe the name of the pigment was called "Mummeia", mummy brown, or something similar. I heard about the latter two uses on a late-night BBC radio 4 programme, last year. The programme claimed that many famous artists did use this particular pigment. Reference is also made in several books too, including: Colour: travels through the paintbox, by Victoria Finlay.
Sickert almost certainly knew of this pigment and may even have used it himself.
Moving on slightly, I believe it is perfectly feasible that Sickert could have created his own pigment in the same way, ie using dried-out, ground-up human remains (his trophies), rather than blood. That way he would be able to have his trophies around him, for him to enjoy, but with no risk of him being discovered. I don't know whether DNA is recoverable from this type of pigment, but if it is, Patricia's team might be able to match the DNA to the bodies that are buried in London. I know it is a long-shot, but it is a possible way to link the victims to Sickerts work: the work is his, he created it and perhaps he used his "tokens" within it? We know that not all the bodies had parts removed from them, so it should narrow the field down to a few potential DNA matches. Also, the date on a particular painting might have a relationship with a specific murder that was committed closely before the painting was produced. At the very least, Patricia might be able to show that there are human remains in his work, something else to add to the "circumstantial" evidence against Sickert.
Rating:
Summary: Pat the Joker
Review: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed made me laugh so hard that I cried, so I had to give the book at least 2 stars. I don't know if Cornwell came up with her art critiques by herself, or if it was one of her "Team" (incidentally, her impressively large Team takes up just over two pages worth of solid credits). Either way, the "evidence" she derives from reading meaning into Walter Sickert's art is absurd. For example, in Sickert's sketches, what Cornwell describes as a "crouching, frightening-looking man who is about to spring on a woman", I see as a crouching, frightenED-looking man tip-toeing *away* from a woman. But even if Cornwell's unconvincing analysis of Sickert's art as depicting terrible violence is correct, so what? As Cornwell herself explains later in the book, the Ripper murders "made the covers of tabloids" and "artists rendered sensational, salacious depictions of the murders". So ... perhaps Jack the Ripper was not *one* artist, but many! One very enjoyable aspect of this book is that it is an account *of* a celebrity, written *by* a celebrity. This is a rare treat indeed! Cornwell the celebrity belongs to the inner-sanctum of wealthy and well-connected crime writers, and she wanders through her book buying up artefacts and pieces of "evidence" that most people would be happy just to look at in a museum. She is also something of a namedropper, and clearly loves trotting out technical terms just for the sake of it (for instance, Sickert's studio "would not have eluded the scanning electron microscope, the ion microprobe, the x-ray diffractometer, or thin-layer chromotography" - if *only* his crimes had been committed 100 years later!) One thing I do admire about the book is Cornwell's vivid recreation of time and place. The historical information about London's East End in the 1880s is detailed and intriguing (although I have no idea how accurate the information is). At the end of the day, I find speculation regarding the identity of Jack the Ripper about as useful as arguments over the identity of the person who may or may not have written Shakespeare's plays. Afterall, *someone* did the deeds. Someone with certain skills and character traits, who lived at a certain time in a certain place. Someone who is dead. Someone whose work we'll never see the likes of again. Does it really matter *who* that someone was? It makes no difference to me.
|
