Rating: 
Summary: A Very Difficult Read
Review: Although I enjoy her fiction very much, this book is extremely difficult to read. Her thoughts appear jumbled and disjointed. Very difficult to follow. I seriously considered not finishing the book.In addition, although she does provide some interesting information, it is clear the she is overreaching to "prove" the identity of Jack the Ripper. Too much speculation to be of any real worth. However, the photos she provides are intriguing.
Rating:
Summary: sloppy, haphazard and tedious
Review: Who'd have thought it was possible to write a boring book about Jack the Ripper? Tedium aside, none of Cornwell's "evidence" comes close to establishing that Sickert was the killer. She writes that the fact that one letter attributed to Jack the Ripper appear similar to Sickert's handwriting is proof they were written the same man. Of course, the fact that even more of the letters show no resemblence is also proof; she claims Sickert probably used his artist's training to disguise his handwriting. Logically, the most this establishes is that Sickert *might* have been one of the dozens of cranks who sent in letters. Even a spurious Ripper letter found in a bottle is laid at Sickert's doorstep, since he was fond of visiting France and he could have tossed the bottle into the ocean. (Cornwell doesn't let herself be bothered by the fact that Sickert was out of the country for at least two of the murders: she argues that there's no way to prove that he couldn't have slipped back into London without being missed in France.) The most laughable bit of proof is her contention that since Sickert and the Ripper both enjoyed sending telegrams - while, of course, being unable to prove the Ripper did, in fact, enjoy sending telegrams. Conan Doyle and Mark Twain (along with half the population at that time - it was the 19th century version of making a phone call, for crying out loud) also sent a great number of telegrams. Has Cornwell bothered to exclude them as well? The bottom line is this: Cornwell decided that she disliked Sickert so he must have been the killer. That's it. She twisted and stretched every scanty shred of evidence that might point to Sickert, and blithely dismissed everything pointing away from him. I doubt there was a single page without a "possibly," or a "could have" or a "some experts believe." It's full of shoddy research, and shoddy science, and shoddy writing. Don't bother.
Rating: 
Summary: Well, it made some money, didn't it?
Review: This is a book made to generate income. It worked. As a plausible case for the identification of Jack the Ripper, it's lacking. Of course it is. It's a crime novel. It has to return to the excitement and gut-wrenching details; it can't -- it's not allowed to, in this genre! -- linger too long on the science or the law or the history. It already "errs" in that direction too much to be an effective crime novel. And unfortunately too little to be an effective legal or forensic assessment of the Ripper or of Sickert. I think the author, editors, and publishers -- and all the other media folks who jumped on this bandwagon -- played their game very well. And the rest of us can enjoy the ride, remembering that is an amusement after all.
Rating: 
Summary: ONe of the most riveting , frightening novels written
Review: This book was amazing. It details life in Victorian England like no other story written. The evidence all adds up and points to this man Sickert. The story will repulse and intrique you at the same time. Her research is thorough and the case is closed! Jack the Ripper is at rest. A great story. It jumps around a little, but is easy to keep up.
Rating:
Summary: Take another look
Review: You people that wrote reviews...Have you ever experienced art? The whole point is that no one really knows for sure who did the treacherous murders but take this: Some murderers look at murders as a type of art and since Sickert's paintings may create an angle as to how they affected him and his involvement. Obviously he was a very smart man and a talented painter and by the looks of it his attire and tendencies as an individual link him in some way to the murder. Cornwell's account may be far fetched in your eyes but as an artist i think he is a possible candidate.
Rating: 
Summary: An Odd Book In So Many Ways
Review: It is not quite easy to understand how one is expected to take this book. At first, one is expecting a big revelation that lives up to the sub-title, Jack the Ripper Case Closed, but it quickly becomes apparent that Portrait of a Killer has no revelations to impart or, what is even more strange, any no information not discussed in many previous books. DNA evidence is hinted at but never delivered. Despite this, Patricia Cornwell presents all of her vague posturing as proof positive never realizing that just because it is new to her does not, in fact, make it new or, even, proof. To give the book its due, some of the forensic information concerning how the case would be handled today is interesting. Sadly, though, the book is marred by very bad editing as many paragraphs seem entirely unrelated to their neighbours or even to the chapter it is in, and very bad historical research. If a mystery writer were to tackle this time period perhaps Anne Perry would be a better choice as Victorian Britain is quite distorted by Cornwell's attempt at portraying it. I thought this book would be fun in the way some preposterous conspiracy theories can be a secret, silly delight to read. This book never even achieved that level of shameful pleasure. A frustrating, dissappointing book.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry, case still open
Review: Cornwell adds the artist Walter Sickert to a long list of Jack the Ripper suspects, but does little to prove her case. Sure, she has a fairly impressive pile of circumstantial evidence, but none of it, by itself, is at all convincing. She goes out on several limbs (the rather benign guest book at the end, which is owned by Cornwell. How's that for conflict of interest!), and leaves Sickert dangling from a noose she so eagerly wants him to fill. Some of the "evidence" is so speculative, her case would have been stronger if she left it out. The book takes the form of Cornwell playing prosecutor, agressively cross-examing a witness who is not alive to respond. In addition, the book is so poorly organized and so full of digressions that it is difficult to read. On the other hand, her descriptions of the East End of London, while derivative of other works, are well done, informative, and compelling.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell should get rid of her God complex
Review: There was a time when Patricia Cornwell was humble enough to let her stories tell themselves. Her early novels were superbly thought out, written, and edited. Sadly, this is no longer true, even with her Kay Scarpetta books, which have become more and more eccentrically written as time goes on. Perhaps Cornwell has simply lost her touch. I can add little new to earlier reviews concerning the sloppy science and historical research, misunderstanding of British culture, illogical conclusions, and poor editing. This book is not worth the time it takes to read. I will only point out that Cornwell has herself supplied a ready review of this book on page 271. On that page, she finds it strange that a newspaper as reputable as The Times of London would publish such a sophomoric letter as that written by "An Elderly Gentleman." Personally, I find it strange that as reputable a publisher as Putnam would publish such a sophomoric book as this one!
Rating:
Summary: Controversial, personal, angry and riveting
Review: The reviews of this book seem as passionate as the writer herself. It's this passion that carried me through this at-times difficult book. I agree that Cornwell displays terrific arrogance by titling this book "Case Closed." She is presenting nothing more here than her theory. A firmly believed and well researched theory yes, but certainly not definitive. I can see where this would turn readers off. On the other hand, Cornwell's disgust with the crimes and with the public's fascination with the monster that was Jack the Ripper is real, personal and fascinating. She names the victims and fights to make them three dimensional. She portrays the times, mores and situations the victims found themselves in with realism and compassion. She seems intent on avenging them and bringing them justice. Her passion, while laudable, certainly gets in the way of her objectivity. In all, this book reminded me of Oliver Stone's JFK, the film about the crime of the century (perhaps of my lifetime) that I am far more familiar with. While that film has its share of inaccuracies and should under no circumstances be interpreted as a definitive history, it's still an important work about a crime that haunts us still. Likewise, Cornwell's book is a valuable addition to the dialog about Jack the Ripper, his times and his crimes. And those not to be forgotten poor women, with their desperate lives of oppression, deprivation, poverty and finally horrible death. Beware! None of the reviews I've read thus far have mentioned how really grisly this book is at times, even by Cornwell standards. One reviewer actually said he laughed while reading this book. Trust me, I found no laughs in it whatsoever! If you pick up this book, please know that it details crimes of genuine horror.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read
Review: To accept that the case of Jack the Ripper has been closed by this book and the evidence it presents is presumptuous. But I think that a valid argument has been made for Walter Richard Sickert as the killer. Most of the primary source material for the claims are from the 1800s rather than referencing material written and interpreted by intermediary sources. I would have liked to have seen more samples of the Jack the Ripper letters and Walter Sickert's handwriting until I would have been allowed to draw my own conclusions. The other murders mentioned, but not originally attributed to the Ripper, could have been the work of the Ripper or a copycat - I will not comment further on that. What I truly found fascinating was the examination of the evidence with the comparison of how modern forensic science would handle the same evidence interesting in the extreme. It is amazing to see how far science and criminal justice has come in just over a hundred years. This book is not written to transport the reader to the dark, damp streets of London in 1888. This book is written in a way as to allow a 21st century reader interested in the Ripper case a chance to look at the evidence, procedures, and police work of that time. A resident of that era would not realize that the bull's-eye lantern carried by the police and shown in the papers as "beacons of light shining on the victims" were little better by our standards than a flashlight with dead batteries. In truth, I find myself more aware of how dark and squalid the world of Jack the Ripper would have been. We see movies, but they must be lit until we can see what is happening -- when in actually most of the Ripper's victims could probably see no more than a few feet in front of them at the time of their deaths. I suspect to get a true taste of the nights would require one to close a room until it is completely dark then light a single candle, not one with a well trimmed wick, but one that gutters and spits in the melting wax and slightest drafts. Whether or not a case is made does not matter to me. I found this book a fresh look at both a series of old murders and the time in which the occurred. In many ways, the Ripper case is no longer about who did it but the society that spawned the killer and the succeeding generations' interpretations of the evidence and society. It was an excellent read, though it did jar at times in the beginning when the voice of the modern forensic scientist stepped in. But I quickly became accustomed to the intrusion and welcomed the insights it brought. Was Walter Richard Sickert Jack the Ripper? Perhaps. I know that were I on the jury I would be looking very carefully at the evidence present and how it was processed.
| 
