Rating: 
Summary: Where's the Science?
Review: Apologies to all you Patricia Cornwell fans, but I find this to be the worst book to have been written on Jack the Ripper - and the book's subject aside, from a structural point of view, it is a badly written book by any standards. Bearing in mind her background and vast forensic experience, I do not know how Ms Cornwell can justify claiming to have solved a hitherto unsolved case when she puts forward absolutely no evidence beyond her own suppostions, which are based on considerable experience admittedly but which remain shakily founded suppositions, none the less. Add to this that Ms Cornwell is, anyway, not the first person to have connected Sickert to the Ripper killings. I am not, at the best of times, a Patricia Cornwell fan but I bought and read this book with an open mind, believing that she might, indeed, have finally solved the Ripper murders. The book was an enormous disappointment and has certainly not persuaded me to reconsider her offerings in crime fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: interesting but tedious
Review: Patricia Cornwell does a good job presenting the evidence against Sickert, the man she believes is Jack the Ripper. However, it was very hard to get through this book. She builds a convincing case, but the text itself is very dry. I felt at times like I was reading a textbook. It will pick up at certain parts and before you know it, you have read 2 or 3 chapters. Then it will take a week to get through the next chapter. I felt myself reading lines over and over again because it completely lost my interest. I was stuck on page 170 for days. I think she could have summarized more in areas such as the chapter on the letters and the types of paper used. Overall, I think she does a great job in portraying the evidence in many different aspects of a criminal case, (motif, opportunity, letter/writing profiles, personality traits, the inner workings of the psychopathic mind, etc.) although I think it would have been much more interesting and enjoyable to read had she wrote it in the form of a crime novel from the perspective of Dr. Kay Scarpetta, as was her original intention. The book does however, leave you knowing more than ever about the life and times of Jack the Ripper and how it was to live in London during that depressing time in the history of England.
Rating:
Summary: CASE CLOSED?
Review: Patricia Cornwell's highly publicized and rather controversial look at the infamous Jack the Ripper killings is an interesting book into which the author has obviously poured countless hours of hard, painstaking research and leg work, and that, combined with the writer's evident sense of justice, is to be much praised and admired. As a thoughtful examination of one possible angle on the Ripper murders the book largely succeeds; as the airtight posthumous indictment it is supposed to be, however, it comes up short.Cornwell makes several highly questionable decisions in making her case. She relies heavily on some rather tenuous DNA from the time of the killings, evidence which in this scenario is far too thin for the emphasis the author attempts to hang on it. Her analysis of the suspect's psychological makeup and actions during the period in question are composed largely of speculation and guesswork, devoid of the kind of hard evidence I had hoped to discover. Cornwell's confidence in the numerous "Ripper Letters" the police received at the time is hard to swallow, and requires some highly unlikely--though admittedly not impossible--legerdemain on the part of her suspect. Most disturbing is that Cornwell seems to have chosen this suspect very quickly after looking at the Ripper case file, and one has the feeling she has then simply rearranged much of the available information to suit her own presupposition. That her suspect was at least eccentric and may have had some glaring personal deficiencies is hardly debatable, but that does not automatically make him a serial killer. As a literary work Cornwell's book suffers from a pair of serious drawbacks. First, the arrogance with which she approaches the case is nearly embarrassing. She shows no respect whatsoever for others who have published theories on the infamous Whitechapel slayings, and very little for the police who actually worked on the case at the time. Cornwell's apparent disdain for those who have gone before her is annoying and frequently distracting. Second, the book is badly organized and heavily padded, as the author jumps from one train of thought to the next in no recognizable pattern so as to frequently leave the reader backpedaling to try to catch up, a problem exacerbated by the fact that the book is about a hundred pages too long. Many of Cornwell's personal commentaries and historical notes are repeated over and over to no obvious purpose. A tighter, more pointed text would have benefitted the author's case immensely. Despite its glaring weaknesses, "Portrait of a Killer" is a commendable book in many respects. I would certainly recommend it to Ripper buffs, students of Victorian England, or mystery fans in general. If the author's evidence is not irrefutable, it is at least thought-provoking, and evidently Ms. Cornwell continues to follow up on some of the evidence as we speak, so perhaps an updated edition will tie up some of the loose ends. Maybe she's even right. Time will perhaps tell. But as of right now "Portrait of a Killer," though admirable, hardly lives up to its subtitle. A thoughtful, well-researched re-examination of the most infamous serial killer of all time? Certainly. But case closed? *No.*
Rating: 
Summary: Speculation on top of Speculation
Review: I'm not saying much that the other 450 or so reviews already here haven't said; more just adding my thumb to the scale of those disappointed by how dramatically short Ms. Cornwell's "case" comes to being "closed." Perhaps my biggest problem with the book has nothing to do with the soundness of the theory, but instead with how poorly written it is. It is in serious need of an a competent editor. Chapters start with lofty premises that never pan out, or, worse, are never tied to anything concrete. The meandering narrative weaves between things presented as fact to things that, eventually, one learns are sheer speculation, with little warning of the transition. You will find yourself frequently wondering, "how does this relate to anything I've read previously," and then later, "how did that relate to anything that came later in the chapter." It's really bad. Actually, as I think about it, my hunch is that this is all deliberate and that Cornwell would like anything but a competent editor -- some of the "evidence" on which she has "closed" the "case" is so sketchy (see below) that obsfuscation really is her friend. Clarity would probably reveal a lot that she doesn't want revealed. Equally troubling is how unconvincing Ms. Cornwell is. It's certainly an interesting theory. But much of the book is simply conjecture piled on top of speculation, as Cornwell attempts lamely to convince you of what she has apparently already convinced herself. Some of it is so absurd that I quite literally laughed out loud. One theory that repeats itself randomly thoughout the book is that that Walter Sickert is the Ripper, because some Ripper letters use the at-the-time rare expression "ha ha ha," which, Cornwell assures us, is an American affectation, and one that Sickert probably would have heard because he hung around as an apprentice to an American, and that American, Cornwell believes, had a good sense of humor, so therefore probably liked practical jokes, and thus, quite naturally, surely laughed at times, and when he did certainly did so by using "ha ha." Really. That's a central theory to the book. I'm not making this up. The genital mutilation theory, on which the book puts much emphasis, is equally sketchy -- one waits patiently through 400 pages to learn what evidentiary basis she has for the theory, but it's really just pop-psychology, 120 years after the fact. Which is not to say that the entire book is all conjecture. I think Cornwell does an admirable job of making a case that Sickert wrote some Ripper letters. If she had limited herself to that modest, but startling, premise, and then asked the next natural questions, the book would be quite valuable. But that is hardly enough to put "case closed" on the cover, which of course is not going to sell many books. And that, fundamentally, is my problem with the book. Cornwell gets trapped, because she doesn't want to admit that the next natural question -- did the writer of Ripper lettes have special knowledge that demonstrates he was acutally the killer and not just some twisted prankster -- has no answer. Instead, she glosses over it, by use of slight of hand, and about how images in the Ripper letters are similer to coroner's photographs and those photographs show the body as only the killer could have seen it. It's pretty shallow. Anyway, you get the point. My last point is only a quibble, but it really was unnecessary and completely annoying. Throughout the book, Cornwell writes how she would have analyzed the crime scenes, if the murders happened today, and all the wonderful evidence that she, super slueth, would have preserved. These passages really must be read to appreciate their self-congratulatory and pedantic nature. It's extreme. The true value of this book, if it exists, and the reason I give it two stars instead of one, is the portraits it paints of the victims, who have been forgotten as the legend, if that's the right word, of the Ripper has grown. Cornwell is not the first to do this, by any means, but she handles the victims with dignity and with honor, which is, in my view, this psuedo-novel's chief redeeming feature.
Rating:
Summary: Props for trying
Review: Let me start by admitting I'm not a "Ripperologist." And let me add that I applaud Cornwell's getting DNA off a stamp from the 1800's. That aside, this book didn't break any new ground. Sickert was considered a theoretical suspect by many people. He painted somewhat disturbing pictures and was reported to be impotent. Okay, that's old news, but he wasn't quite ready to get a Viagra prescription. He was married (at least) 3 times and had numerous illegitimate children. It doesn't sound like he had many problems getting sex. As for the *grotesque* paintings and some looking like morgue photographs/photos of Ripper victims...did the man ever look at a newspaper? Perhaps that's where he got his inspiration. Okay, it's kinda creepy, and a little morbid. Cornwell states that DNA from a stamp of his matched DNA from a Ripper letter. Once again, the guy's a little weird, obviously. However, writing a few letters and slaughtering prostitutes are two very different things. Another point in Sickert's defense is that he died in 1942. You might wonder how that fact might be important. Most (yes, I know there are exceptions) serial killers either stop killing because of imprisonment or death. The Ripper murders ended long before Sickert did. Just a thought there. There are places in the book in which Cornwell admits she doesn't know Sickert's whereabouts (at the time of X Ripper murder.) Then in the next sentence she claims she was 'sure he was in London' Well, if you can't verify someone was AT the murder scene, you probably shouldn't accuse them of the murder. The Ripper murders will probably never be solved, and I think a lot of people actually want it that way. So, to sum up: Sickert's DNA links him to some Ripper letters. He paints pictures of dead women, some mutilated. He must be Jack! Well, that's what I got from the book anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent, insightful, zealous; chronologically weak.
Review: The butchery of Jack the Ripper caused widespread panic and solidified the concept of serial killing. Reading horrific details of how the 'unfortunates' (prostitutes and other victims) were murdered made me lose sleep. As a woman, I was outraged; I'm sure this fueled Cornwell's zeal, too. I agree with many reviewers that Cornwell's chronological order can be confusing -- she does 'jump' or fast-forward a few years, then, the reader is prepped for the gruesome Mary Kelly slaying. Say what you will about Cornwell's writing style, but I find it compelling and vivid. It's far from tedious. Comparatively, many books from the true-crime genre are difficult to follow, certainly, more dry and clinical in style. True, we don't want a sensationalized, overwrought account of Ripper crimes -- the horror of the acts is plenty sensational enough. Cornwell's use of 'probable' rather than certainty in her narrative contributes to a sense of a scientific investigation. The title is therefore misleading, "Case Closed." Yes, she does present a convincing presentation, mainly via circumstantial evidence, that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. But she does use "could have," rather than "did," much as does a journalist relies on words like "alleged." Thus, the subtitle is confusing. Her strong personality comes through, yes, in describing how modern forensics and police methodologies wouldn't have bumbled as 'coppers' in the Ripper's time did. But, Good Lord, that was in 1888. Fingerprinting was just really emerging as a forensics tool. Given her background, I could see how frustrated she might be if she was investigating or a colleague was -- all the way, the Ripper is taunting, ridiculing the police for their ineptitude. What I know about serial killers, (and I'm no expert), is that they revisit or fantasize about their murders. They relive the experience. Bundy allegedly crawled back to his murdered victims and applied garish makeup to their dead flesh. Here is Sickert, then, reliving the murders via his "art" -- sketches, paintings, etc. Plus, being a prolific writer, as well as skilled in disguising his handwriting, he deluges police administrators with written 'rants' and taunts. You can almost hear the 'n'yah, n'yah' behind every note. Perhaps one of the most compelling parts for me, was the discovery of the "Guest Book" from an inn. Experts linked those
drawings to Sickert's doodles and comments, as well as to Ripper notes. Gave me a shudder. The Sickert aficionadoes decry Cornwell's assertions as madness; Sickert was an influential English artist. Why can't a celebrity also be capable of murder or a crime? Interestingly, I discovered that Caravaggio, another famous artist, was also connected to a murder (or murders). Sickert, like other serial sexual psychopaths, relived his fantasies via his artwork; his egotism and narcissism is reflected in his interpersonal relationships and how he constantly wrote -- whether articles or Ripper notes -- this is a man who demanded to be heard. Many may disagree with me, but Cornwell convinced me. Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting theory, poorly written book
Review: Patricia Cornwell obviously put-in a good deal of work to write this book. She presents a decent amount of information and findings to support her theory. Given the time which has passed since the crimes and the poor quality of detective work done at the time, she probably presents most of what is available. She also spends a good deal of time defending the theory that Jack the Ripper carried-out more than the 5 killings for which he is best known. However, this book is poorly written. The entire useful portion of this book takes-up 100 pages or less. The rest of the book is babble, including speculations such as Jack the Ripper may have stood in a certain place and watched the detectives work or that he may have frequented a certain bar or eaten at a certain restaurant, etc.. Frankly, Ms. Cornwell comes-off as a snob in this book. She is very critical of the detective work done at the time. That in itself is fine, but she does it in a way that is more arrogant than truly critical. Overall this book presents an interesting theory with a fair amount of evidence to support it. However, it is written in such a drawn-out and arrogant way that it is difficult to read with any enthusiasm.
Rating:
Summary: Not too convincing
Review: It seems as if Patricia Cornwell tried her best to slove the case of Jack the Ripper, but something stood in her way: the complete lack of evidence. Cornwell only has to go on astounding coincidences and assumptions. There are many passages in this book which state that there's no evidence to suggest that Walter Sickert was or did something, but there's no evidence to suggest that he DIDN'T. This becomes a little presumptuous and slightly annoying. The same rule could apply to anyone: There's no evidence that says that Abraham Lincoln was in London at the time of the Ripper murders, but there's no evidence that says that he WASN'T. There is really not enough evidence to accuse one specific individual of being Jack the Ripper. Which is why the case continues to mystify and bewilder us. Cornwell seems to believe that Sickert wrote a staggering majority of the Ripper letters sent to the police, which I cannot believe. Perhaps Sickert had visited all of the places where the letters came from, but I didn't find it convincing that he traveled all over England, Wales, Scotland, and even France in one day. Cornwell makes a noble effort though. She invested much of her own money (not to mention time) into this investigation. She does extensive research on the Ripper letters, and connects a few drawings to similar ones that Sickert did in his time as an artist. There are points in this book where I thought, "Yes, Sickert COULD be Jack the Ripper." But I never thought, "Yes, Sickert was, without a doubt, Jack the Ripper." Another bothersome aspect of this book is it's complete lack of choronology. Before Cornwell even begins to write about Mary Kelly (the last victim of the Ripper), she has already gone on for many pages about murders that took place in 1907 (Mary Kelly was murdered in 1888). I read this book simply because I am fascinated by Jack the Ripper. And it is a good read. Cornwell brings to light many facts about the murders that I had never heard of. But did she convince me that Sickert was, in fact, the Ripper? No. Perhaps she should not have titled this book "Case Closed." The case is still, and forever will be, unsolved. That is the grotesque beauty and wonder of the Jack the Ripper murders.
Rating:
Summary: thoroughly unbelievable theory
Review: Poor Patricia Cornwell. She has fallen into a trap of her own making. She has stated publicly that she "stakes her reputation" on her conclusion that Walter Sickert was the Ripper, and has boasted that she spent "four million dollars of my own money" on research to attempt to prove it so. I guess if I spent that much money on such a pursuit, I would want something to show for it, too. Unfortunately, all she has to show for her effort is the fact that she has made herself look like a buffoon.
I first heard about her ridiculous theory on "20/20" when she was interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Even in the limited time she had in this forum, she demonstrated the gaping holes in her theory. So Sickert painted some disturbing pictures? Oh, no! I guess we'd better call the cops on Picasso, Van Gogh, and Goya as well, to name a few. I strongly doubt that Sickert was the only London artist whose work was influenced by the murders.
But the "Rosetta stone" that makes her theory fall flat on its face is this: the letters. Cornwell jumps through hoops, making a big fuss about the Ripper letters as if they were the key to the entire case. They are not. Why? It's simple: THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS WROTE A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE LETTERS. No way at all. There is no REASON to think of any one of the letters as anything other than a hoax. Even if one or two of them are genuine, the rest are obviously hoaxes. Hundreds of them. Cornwell does make a fairly convincing case that Sickert wrote at least one or two of them. BIG DEAL! All that means is that he wrote a couple hoax letters, as dozens--if not hundreds--of other Londoners were also doing at the time. It does not make him Jack the Ripper. How could she be so shortsighted? Testing the stamps and letters for DNA and fingerprints is a great idea... IF you can prove that the murderer wrote the letter. Since you can't, it is completely pointless.
In Cornwell's line of work, she should be familiar with the work of former FBI agent John Douglas, who poineered behavioral profiling. To him--and trust me, he knows his stuff--it is a no-brainer to state that the Ripper was NOT the type of personality who would write letters to the police and press. Appartently Cornwell thinks she is smarter than Mr. Douglas.
Cornwell made the mistake common to rookie investigators: she started with a suspect, then worked backwards, trying to bend the facts of the case to fit her theory. That is not how you solve crimes. You do the opposite: work with the facts, and find out which direction they point.
When Sawyer asked her, "Can you prove that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper?" she responded, "I'd like somebody to prove to me that he wasn't!" For cryin' out loud. Give me a break, Ms. Cornwell. This is YOUR theory. The burden of proof is on YOU. And you have failed. There was not one shred of physical evidence left behind by the Ripper, and not even a solid eyewitness description. Therefore, there is no way to EVER solve the case, which is why it remains so fascinating to armchair "Ripperologists" such as myself. Anyone who claims to have solved the mystery is deluding themselves. Walter Sickert was no more Jack the Ripper than the ludicrous Maybrick diary, or Prince Eddie, or Donald Duck.
But, hey... nice try, Ms. Cornwell. Stick to fiction.
Readers looking for a general overview of the Ripper crimes should steer far clear of this book. There are numerous better ones out there. Start with Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper", arguably the best.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad but could have been better.
Review: Over all I feel that this book, though presenting a very interesting and AT TIMES, compelling theory of the case of Jack the Ripper, was not as well organized as I would have expected. The author often repeats herself and the various sections/chapters frequently begin talking about one thing and then switch topics right in the middle with little or no transition. Furthermore, there was alot of teasing in the book with the author beginning a section by opening a particular thread without ever elaborating. I was left several times feeling very disappointed. The theory of the book was interesting and I feel might have been more persuasive it the book had been organized better.
|
