Rating: 
Summary: Good content, bad presentation
Review: I was really excited to read this book, but I have to say, I was pretty disappointed by it. I guess if the goal was convince me that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, then the goal was accomplished. The problem I had with the book is that the presentation was very hard to follow. The book was constantly jumping back and forth between Walters Sickerts history, the different murders and the present in a way that I found confusing. A timeline of when the murders occured (including the ones she speculates are done by Sickert, but are not thought of as "Jack the Ripper" murders) would have been helpful to try to see patterns. Another missing piece for me is why Jack the Ripper suddenly stopped. Patricia Cornwell speculates that he probably didn't stop committing murders, but why did he stop writing the letters? He obviously loved the attention it brought, so why stop after that had been his modus operandi for so long? The last criticism I had of the book is the ending. The book ended abruptly with the death of his 2nd (of 3) wife. Why end there? I couldn't believe when I turned the page and that was the end! There was no wrap up or conclusions of any kind. For anyone who has always wondered who Jack the Ripper was, you must read this book. It's extremely detailed and as I said, convincing. Her insights into the psychopathic mind are fascinating. She also makes a strong case that Walter Sickert was a violent psychopath. However, you may find as I did that the book could have been much better had the presentation been clearer.
Rating:
Summary: her mistake was in the Title
Review: Her first mistake is in the title. If should just read "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper" and that is it, forget about the 'Case Closed' bit. As a very avid fan of Cornwell, I find it very surprising to find that she has made such a strong judgement on Walter Sickert in this book to proclaim his guilt so definitively with such circumstantial evidence. I do, however, agree that Walter Sicker was not a man in his right mind and perhaps killed women himself at some point. His hatred of women is relentless as has been well documented in other writing but that can only be a contribution to her investigation and not used as evidence as she has done in this book. I am also surprised that she has put her reputation on the line as being someone who has to see hard cast evidence and enough of it to prove guilt to just dismiss this side of her for this book. I feel that she had already proven Sickert's guilt in her own mind before starting her full investigation and used the investigation as her justification to back her opinions up. On the other hand, it is very telling that so much of her time and efforts (even more than her other works) have been put into this case. She has researched so much and yet her evidence still only points in one direction. Sickert could well have been the killer but I still see the case as open and that Cornwell's investigation, although contributes well to finding the killer, is not enough to prove that it was, in fact, Walter Sickert. I did, however find the book entertaining and a gripping read and also educational of that time period. It was very detailed in so many areas, it was excellent to learn those points in itself. I still recommend it for those reasons but not to commit guilt to this man.
Rating: 
Summary: Jack the Ripper: Case Not Closed
Review: The other reviewers have it right--a very confusing story is revealed by the author. The strongest evidence for Sickert being the Ripper is (1) the mitocondrial DNA which he shares with the Ripper and 1% of the human race, (2) a rare note paper that they both used, (3) a surmise that Sickert's sexuality was bent due to a birth defect dealing with his ***, (4) the writer of the Ripper letters was well educated and familiar with painting techniques (some letters were painted rather than written with a pen), and (5) Sickert was a weird, selfish man who might have done it. Without a breakthrough in the evidence (for instance, finding Sickert's mother's grave and stealing some tissue since the rest of his brothers and sister were cremated and he had no kids), this is just a case of coincidence. Sorry Patricia. I watched her talk to the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science on CSPAN about two weeks ago and was sufficiently impressed to go out and buy the book with some Christmas money. I just skimmed the last half of the book--her case had fallen apart by then--I want my money back. She was never able to prove that Sickert was even in the area of the killings though she tried. I am convinced that Sickert was a weird person, and he treated his three wives rather badly.
Rating: 
Summary: ...
Review: Patricia Cornwell should stick to writing fiction. Her faulty, incomplete evidence, combined with the lack of any real structure not only makes this the ultimate waste of time and money but a scholastic farce. Her theories are not new (see Walt Vanderlinden "Art of Murder"; Stephen Knight, 1976), she manipulates each fact to suit her premise, and leaves one to wonder if she has ever studied basic rhetoric. Even freshmen students know that you don't make outrageous claims without proof. She takes up a line of argument, then distracts the reader with details of life in 1880s London. She "links" Sickert to the scenes of crimes by saying that he didn't keep a diary so there's no proof he wasn't there. Imagine if our judicial system worked this way! She accuses him of having deviant tastes because he wandered the East End, attending plays and hanging out with artists and dancers and actors. (So did many men at the time; they had no television to occupy them.) Her "evidence" is selective and circumstantial. For example, she goes into great detail about the watermarks on the stationary used by both Sickert and Jack the Ripper. She does nothing to say that MANY other Victorians were using the same stationary or that it was probably readily available to anyone with a bit of money. Iron bedsteads, used in Sickert paintings, a fact she thinks is extremely damnable, were also found in the rooms of the murdered prostitutes. 'Convict him!' She says. But how many other doss-houses had iron bedsteads, a common piece of furniture in Victorian England?
She compares the speech and diction used by Sickert to Jack the Ripper. Did she do a full analysis based on general word usage common to the time? Or did she just look for what she wanted to find, based on a precursory scan using as a reference her modern experience of the English language? She includes very few of Sickert's paintings to prove the parallel between life and art and doesn't delve into his other paintings. Sickert was quite prolific and some of what he painted dealt with the seemlier side of life, but the majority is of landscapes and innocent topics. She has examined his paintings and determined that he hated women because of a botched surgery for a deformed penis. I've looked at his paintings and see nothing but the eye of an artist who wanted to depict life as it was-harsh, stinking, and dirty. And the question of his penis is backed up, not by objective evidence, but by the fact that there are no facts; therefore, whatever was done to him must have been bad. If our judicial system did convict based on evidence like that presented here, we'd be guilty right off and be charged with proving our innocence. What burns me is that I paid good money for this book, and I'm positive Cornwell will get very wealthy off this stink.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a... guy who might or might not have killed.
Review: Patricia Cornwell's book left me very unimpressed. I have read all her Kay Scarpetta novels, and I don't remember feeling that they were full of holes and fluff, like I felt with this book. Unfortunately, I feel that instead of doing the research first and making her conclusion based on that research, instead she came to her conclusion and built the research around it. Her psychological "profiling" seems completely fabricated. She takes quotes completely out of context. She refers to artwork and paintings of Sickert's that she doesn't include. The whole book seems like an essay that she had a word count to complete, and she's filling in with alot of fluff because she doesn't have enough meat or real evidence to make her case.As far as the much-ballyhooed DNA evidence, even that wouldn't hold up in court, much less the court of my armchair. Even if it conclusively proved that Sickert's DNA was on a letter that was signed "Jack the Ripper" that couldn't possibly prove that the letter writer was also the murderer. I'm very disappointed in the book as I thought it would have a much more scholarly feel to it. Probably only dedicated collectors of all things Ripper will want to read this as it probably does, at the very least, bring a few new things to light.
Rating: 
Summary: Impressionists Can Get Away with Murder
Review: This is the very first book by Pat Cornwell that I have read and I thoroughly enjoyed it as I am fascinated by true crime and forensics. Pat gives an account of two people: the life of Richard Sickert and what anyone can glean from the evidence of Jack the Ripper and she lets the reader be the judge. All of us know that someone was indeed Jack the Ripper and it's amazing that the traditional suspects have continued to remain suspects all through the years when there was no shred of evidence at all other than the fact that these people were a little odd, such as Queen Victoria's son, or leading an alternate lifestyle as perhaps Montague Druit led and, therefore, open to all sorts of attacks and misconceptions and stereotypes. I love reading true crime but I'm not a Ripperologist. One thing the reader can walk away with after having read this book is that prejudices, stereotyping and the public's view of lifestyles and "occupations" was a perfect breeding ground for the Ripper to exist. To this day we have gone after and even executed people who were guilty of crimes because of their backgrounds or lifestyles and later on it turns out they were innocent and yet the perpetrators are still out there. We all can agree that Jack the Ripper was someone in a class above reproach and Richard Sickert with his background in languages, and ability to act out any person he wanted to be was perfect for the role of Ripper. I did know about Mary Kelly but Pat Cornwell, has researched the lives of his victims, putting a human touch to these women and showing the need for social reforms which are still needed to this day. We know that from the horrid things that were happening to those women in Vancouver just recently. Pat is very honest in her findings and does not attempt to force pieces of a puzzle to fit. Please understand that the evidence they do have is 100+ years old and I think that's what makes me believe even more that she's on the right track with her assumptions. And yes there is a DNA match, a mitochondrial DNA match. I encourage everyone who has read this book to go to their local library and see if there are any books on the painting of Richard Sickert. I went to my library and what I found was disturbing. Pat does talk about some of his paintings, such as Ennui. I'm not the type of person who tries to look for subbliminal messages in a can of cola or a Disney movie but when I looked over his work which, when it comes to his paintings of women, I find it, overall, to be eerie. Furthermore, the men and women never interact in a positive way. Men consistently have the advantage over women in his paintings, or the women appear to be sitting alone and yet if you look at a mirror, they're appears to a glimpse of a face in it such as "Rehearsal". In "Suspense" the girl is looking up at something and your eyes take you to an outline on the wall of what appears to be a figure. Again, look at the wall in "Maria Bionda". In "La Carolina in an Interior" the woman appears to have a horrified expression on her face as one who has just witnessed something terrible will happen and look in the mirror behind her. You see her image but another silhouette as well. However, this is Impressionism and therefore whatever he wants people to visualize in his paintings or what he wants to hide an Impressionist can easily get away with "murder". You almost sense that he is taunting us with these dark impressionist figures in much the same manner the Ripper taunted the police in his letter. "The Painter in his Studio" is of a man standing beside a torso of a woman. "King George V and Queen Mary" you get the complete profile of George's head but half of Mary's. "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" is nary to be found in the entire book. Funny ain't it! Richard Sickert is certainly a prime candidate for the role of Ripper more so than the other suspects and although he escaped the judicial system of this world, he certainly could not escape a Higher Judicial System. Pat, I loved your book!!
Rating:
Summary: Too Much Information. Not Enough Substance
Review: Endless and tedious investigation of circumstancial evidence. I am convinced that Sickert may well be "Jack" but the case is not closed. Mostly I was irritated bythe author's description of his paintings as evidence of his murderous personality, but without the corresponding illustrations, the basis escaped me. An okay historical perspective on the times of Jack the Ripper, an incomplete biography of Walter Sickert, a good but not complete attempt to convict him - the case is not closed. I only finished it because I kept hoping it would get better...in fact, the last few chapters became even more rambling and disorienting.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't cut it
Review: This book is just too circumstantial to close the case on the Ripper. A real let down after all the hype. Ms. Cornwell should get her $6 million back from the investigators that helped her reach her conclusion
Rating:
Summary: Highly speculative!!!
Review: I understand that it is difficult to trace the footsteps of a killer that struck a little over 100-years ago but any shred of evidence to substantiate the conclusion would be much appreciated. It's not that the author does not provide any evidence, but she fails to provide solid evidence that was credible. Without giving the context of the book away to the "would be readers," I want to share with you my frustration when reading this book and all of its "highly speculative" guesses. Example of my frustration arises with the Ripper Letters. There is absolutely no shred of evidence provided by the author to link the letters to her suspect. There are no sworn affidavits by today's experts to say that "he or she" was the author of ANY of the letters. It is all based on a hunch by the author. I think that this book needs to be reclassified as FICTION for there is nothing non-fiction, at least in my mind, about this particular piece of work. I am utterly disappointed by the author and all of the money supposedly used to research her conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Disapointed
Review: As a fan of Patricia Cornwell's fictional writing, I settled down to read this book with great anticipation. I was disapointed. It is conjecture from page 1. Patricia Cornwell had decided from the outset that Sickert was the Ripper and nothing -not facts or logic- was going to stand in the way of this premise. It is a little disorganised, some of the facts that she cites seem to not to have been understood fully. The writing is wooly and Patricia Cornwell has made a mistake that other authors have. "I have so much research material. Not all of it relates all that well to the subject matter. Oh, what the heck! I'll just use it all, anyway!" Patricia Cornwell fails to notice that some of the clues in the letters indicate that another of the supsects -an American doctor- might have been the Ripper and the author of at least some of the letters. Would any English person of the 19th century have used the word "guess" in the way that the Ripper did? No, I suppose not.
The word suppose would be used in those circumstances. And would be to this day, too. As a Patricia Cornwell fan this pains me, but please do think very carefully before you buy this book.
| 
