Rating: 
Summary: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Review: I admire the intrepid readers who were able to slog through this tedious book long enough to form a conclusion as to whether Sickert was or was not Jack the Ripper. I'm willing to take Cornwell's word for it. Just don't ask me to try reading the book again.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent!
Review: This is an excellent book. The author does an outstanding job at presenting the factual inforamtion she has found and explains at least some of the reason other theories are invalid.
Rating:
Summary: Where's Johnnie Cochran when we need him?
Review: Ms. Cornwell is like a football player who picks up a fumble and runs to the wrong endzone. She is so dogged and myopic in her determination to assert her thesis that she fails to step back and take a wider view. She rarely, if ever, considers that she may have missed the mark. The notion that the artist Walter Sickert was involved in the Jack the Ripper murders is not a new one. (And I'm not giving anything away here-even if you somehow managed to miss the media frenzy that surrounded the release of this book, Ms. Cornwell reveals her theory in its first few pages.) However unlikely, it may even be true-the case has remained unsolved for 115 years and seems certain to stay that way. Of course there are numerous other theories that are equally compelling; but given the lack of evidence in 1888 and today, it is as likely as not that none of the "solutions" that have gained currency over the years is entirely correct. While Ms. Cornwell may be an excellent writer of detective fiction, she is no historian and this attempt at nonfiction is feeble. She too often meanders into extraneous digressions, such as generic discussions of male violence towards women or ruminations on actual cases involving psychopaths who raped and slaughtered women. Often, these have not even a remote relationship to Walter Sickert or the case at hand. She fails to support her stated facts and opinions with footnotes or other reference citations. She frequently makes assertions and expects the reader to believe them, apparently for no other reason than that they fit her theory. For example, there is the business with the watermarks on the supposed Ripper letters and stationary used by Sickert and his wife. Most people who have investigated the Ripper case believe that the vast majority of letters written to the police and newspapers during the investigation were hoaxes. Ms. Cornwell acknowledges this, but says she thinks everyone else has been wrong and that most of the letters were actually written by Sickert, who, as she has already assured us, was the real killer. Her proof: Sickert was a talented artist, so he certainly would have been able to disguise his handwriting. It would have been nice if Ms. Cornwell had heeded the advice given her by an old friend, whom she quotes in Chapter 7: "Never look for unicorns until you run out of ponies." In fact, Ms. Cornwell needs us to make an unlikely leap of faith on this point because her case depends on it. Her murky DNA "evidence" and the watermark "evidence" require the real killer to be the person who wrote specific letters, which, in fact, may have been nothing more than hoaxes. At the end of the day, this book is like a trial, with Ms. Cornwell playing the prosecutor presenting her highly speculative and circumstantial case. Unfortunately, there is no adversarial process-no opposing counsel to raise objections or put up a defense. As the jury, we are asked to convict Walter Sickert based on our faith in Ms. Cornwell's intuition and a paltry collection of uncontested "evidence." This is where the book fails. While her conclusion may or may not be valid, it is impossible for the reader to judge because Ms. Cornwell's arguments tend towards the facile and, lacking the legs to stand on their own, are woefully unpersuasive.
Rating:
Summary: Mitochondrial DNA - Case Closed
Review: If, as Patricia Cromwell states, the mitochondrial DNA found on the stamps of letters written by both Jack the Ripper and Sickert matched - how can there be so many people who don't believe she has proved guilt? Wouldn't that be enough without ANY of the other piles of circumstantial evidence?? I get the feeling from many of these reviews that I read an entirely different book. The one I read was fascinating beyond belief. I wish some real DNA specialists would weigh in on this and explain the likelihood of finding multiple people with matching DNA.
Rating: 
Summary: Assumation and Speculation
Review: As someone who reads many forensic books, I found Portrait of a Killer to be full of Ms. Cornwell's speculation and assumptions. While I understand that she reviewed evidence that is 114 years old, I rather her stick to the facts, which probably would have cut the book in half.
Rating:
Summary: Was she there?
Review: Patricia Cornwell may be a wonderful mystery writer (I've never read her, so I wouldn't know), but she should stick to what she knows - writing fiction. I have done extensive studies on Jack the Ripper and other serial killers and while her "evidence" is quite intriguing, it is fallible.
She believes that she has solved this great mystery as have other, more acclaimed Ripperologists. However, where she errs greatly is by saying that she is 100% absolutely positive and there is no margin for error. Her theory may be correct, but it will only be added to the other Jack the Ripper as a theory.
Cornwell has received scathing reviews from others who have studied Jack the Ripper more extensively and longer than she has. Why should she suddenly have the magical key that everyone's been looking for. Her suspect has been studied before along with countless others - what makes him different in this instance?
She purchased most of his art and reviewed letters sent to Scotland Yard and obtained DNA samples. However, the only thing she was able to prove with this was the fact the her suspect may have sent a letter or two taunting the police. Crime experts over several generations have concluded that the real Ripper only sent maybe one or two letters that the press and police received if any at all.
Read it if you have extra time to waste, but don't take it to heart. There are many other, better books about Jack the Ripper that are more thorough and informative.
Rating:
Summary: If the Jack the Ripper case intrigues you...
Review: I've always been interested in the Jack the ripper mystery, and was very impressed by this book. Because Cornwell's research was detailed and comprehensive, she makes an extremely convincing argument. Over the years many people have claimed to have solved this case, but Cornwell's use of modern forensic tools to identify the ripper had never been attempted before. The fact that her suspect was a very popular artist in England, and never considered a prime suspect before, makes her book all that more interesting. She convinced me.
Rating:
Summary: stretching the point until it breaks
Review: Nearly every paragraph of this book is an astounding revelation-of poor logic, muddied thinking, circumstantial coincidences and forced argument. If Cornwell constructed her mysteries with the same reckless reasoning as we have here, she'd retain few of her fans. The sins here are many, including a complete absence of historical context for Sickert's "sick" art, a strained feminist slant to her interpretation of Sickert's early life, an almost willful misinterpretation of the artwork and an almost insulting disregard for pure common sense. Case in point, just one of many: Cornwell address the commonly held belief that most of the so-called Ripper letters to the police (more than 200) were hoaxes, affirming her belief that most were written by the same person. Sickert, being an artist, found delight in disguising his handwriting in a number of different ways, which explains the variations of handwriting styles in the letters. He often played at being illiterate, misspelling words deliberately, but on occasion wanted to remind the police he was educated and submitted letters with flawless grammar. (We regular folks might think that the variations in style and appearance suggested several different authors, but apparently not.) The logical leaps don't stop there, but they're too many to list here. The most fun a reader can have with this book is to read Cornwell's descriptions of Sickert's paintings and drawings, which she describes as being too-close-for comfort reproductions of the actual murder scenes-and then look at the artwork yourself. A few drawings are included in the book itself, which will make you scratch your head and wonder how Cornwell could possibly have interpreted it in this particular way. (My theory? A big advance from the publisher, but don't listen to a cynic like me.) When you look up the drawings and paintings that are not included in the book, you'll think you've stumbled onto the wrong documents; they're that far from the descriptions. As for Sickert's morbid subject matter, the reader should keep in mind that the Gothic tradition and the Grand Guignol were both extremely popular at this time. It's not unusual that Sickert, a disciple of Whistler and an acquaintance of Beardsly should include skulls, violence and corpses in his work; it would be more unusual for an artist of his background if he hadn't. Check this one out of the library along with a book of Sickert's prints. Better still, find out where Cornwell got her information and dip into "Sickert and the Ripper Crimes" by Jean Fuller, now out of print but worth tracking down, so long as you don't have to buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Sickert's arrogance is matched only by Cornwell's
Review: Firstly, I admire Cornwell for her thorough research and the effort that went into this effort (how much of it really was hers?). Is the book well written? No. Is it conclusive? Of course not and it could never be so I'll give her a break there. This book is interesting as a ripper theory but it proves only that Sickert "may" have written some of the letters. An artist depicting the social scene of the times he or she lived in does not say 'murderer' to me, in fact it is incredibly normal. Martin Scorcese makes violent films about gangsters but I sincerely doubt he went and killed a bunch of people to get the feel for it. My main problem with this book is Cornwell's extroadinary ego! She has stated that she is "staking her career" on this. I don't think so, this is a marketing tool and one so transparent she should be ashamed of herself. Also it is screamingly obvious that the ripper hated women and the endless passages on male psycopaths are preeching to the converted. What is interesting is the thourough contempt she holds for men in general. There is a real thread here, men are either incompetant, impotent, gay, violent, psychopathic, dumb or heinous villains. Indeed in 100 years time she could be seen as Patricia the ripper based on her own disdain and mistrust of men as she seems to think this alone is enough to make a person a violent killer. Why she doesn't even mention Francis Tumblety is a bit fishy if you ask me.
Rating: 
Summary: No case to Close
Review: Patricia Cornwell has earned the Erich von Daniken prize for crime reporting.
|
