Rating: 
Summary: Convincing arguments, plausible premise
Review: Cornwell's ego inserts itself just a wee bit too much into this book, and I'm not at all interested in reading about her own political agenda...but those things aside, I found her argument naming Walter Sickert as the Ripper to be quite convincing. It could have been better but it's nowhere near as bad as some here are saying.
Rating: 
Summary: Cornwell's writing style obfuscates any 'revelations'
Review: Having read the other reviews posted here, I must confess that I'm no Ripper expert and have read little on his crimes prior to now. However, I am a student of forensic psychology, and as a sporadic reader of Cornwell's fictional works, I was interested in her take on the Ripper case. I was rather disappointed by this offering. The main complaint I have with the book is that it was horribly disorganized. While her novels are tightly organized and logical weavings, I found her Ripper tale to make huge leaps in chronological sequence and she often littered the account with oblique historical references that confused its flow. The chapter headings seem to at times have been chosen from a hat as they had no bearing on the text. I learned much valuable historical information of relevance here and am intrigued [and dismayed] by the horrific crimes. However, I agree that her 'conclusions' are often drawn from facts that are anything but conclusive. For instance, when she compares the watermarks of the Ripper letters to watermarks of Sickert letters, I found myself wondering how often one would find that certain brand of paper in London society in the late 1800s. Buried in a small paragraph pages later was a dismissive reference to the fact that the paper was 'not the most common' at the time...but in comparison with her statistical analysis of mitochondrial DNA results, I found the lack of numbers wanting. To put it bluntly, I came away from the book feeling that Sickert COULD be the murderer but the evidence is too flimsy to support a definitive conclusion. Despite this, Cornwell's depiction of life in London in the 19th century is compelling, if bleak. The book was still an interesting read for the uninitiated and it has spurred me to begin reading experts' opinions on who else the Ripper could be.
Rating: 
Summary: Unconvincing, poorly edited, dull, confusing......
Review: What was Cornwell thinking? She might really have something with her Sickert theory but the organization of the information in this book is so poor, I really can't tell. If she plans to continue writing in this vein I would suggest a rudimentary college course in historical research/presentation. This thesis would have garnered an "F" in my class.
Rating:
Summary: A good historical summary, but no proof
Review: I agree with many of the other posters here. Cornwell has attacked the reputation of Sickert in this book, providing circumstantial evidence that in no way proves Sickert was indeed Jack the Ripper. She interchanges "Sickert" for "Jack the Ripper" in a weak attempt at trying to fool the reader to believe the two were indeed the same person. She consistently uses "proof" such as "there is no way to prove otherwise" when accusing Sickert of being in the vicinity of the murders when they occur. She accuses that because he sketches women's body parts that he is fantasising in his sketches about dismembering their bodies. She says Sickert liked to take long walks, just as the Ripper supposedly did. She tries, rather weakly, to attribute every Ripper letter sent to the police, and even every letter written to the newspapers, to Sickert, simply because there is no proof that he is not responsible. And, Sickert used chalk, as the Ripper supposedly did after one of the murders. You could probably replace Sickert with at least 1,000 other individuals living at the time and come up with the same "proof." Cornwell's writing style is very disjointed and jumps around from place to place and from time to time, which makes it difficult to put together timelines. Her tone is almost stream-of-consciousness, in that she seems to be discussing one aspect of the murders, then suddenly changes direction because she suddenly thinks of something else. I'm sure the author put a lot of effort into gathering the information for this book, but perhaps she should stick to fiction and not accuse the dead and defenseless of one of the most infamous crimes in history.
Rating: 
Summary: Ok read, but no "Gotcha" evidence
Review: I am not much of a mystery reader, but I do know of Ms. Cornwell's books. This is a good book for all those who love late Victorian London, with its gaslights and fog. She has convinced me that Sickert is likely the Ripper, but there never was strong evidence in the entire book that can clinch it. Rather than start with her "clase closed" evidence first, she starts with the premise that we readers know Sickert was the killer, so let's talk about his background. It was always Sickert the Ripper did this and Sickert the Ripper did that right from the beginning. And then she goes off occassionally about what police would do if the Ripper murdered today. Still, she does present some circumstantial evidence that he was the likely killer, and I am convinced. Sickert, you SOB, we have you at last.
Rating:
Summary: Case not proved
Review: I started this book with an open mind. I had only a passing familiarity with the Ripper case and was eager to get a fresh point of view on the case. Ms. Cornwell's point of view is certainly fresh, but ultimately not compelling. Were I serving on a jury trying the case of Walter Sickert as the Ripper I'd have to conclude that she has not proved her case. She would like you to believe that her conclusion is based on a modern forensic analysis of the case but that evidence boils down to only a couple of hard facts - an analysis of the watermarks on paper used by Sickert and purportedly used by the Ripper, and a partial mitochondrial DNA match again between letters written by Sickert and allegedly by the Ripper. Both require you to believe that a significant portion of the several hundred odd letters signed by the Ripper were indeed written by him. Ms. Cornwell seems to have no problem believing that to be the case, while most Ripper experts seem to believe that at most 2 or 3 letters were actually penned by the Ripper - and not, significantly, the letter used for the mitochondrial DNA evidence. Even without that doubt, the mitochondrial DNA evidence is less conclusive then the more typical nuclear DNA used for identification. The rest of her "case" amounts to 361 pages of innuendo, speculation and coincidence. But worst of all it's all couched in muddled logic and bad writing. A favorite example, referring to murder victim Elizabeth Stride, "Swedish, her native tongue, is a Germanic language closely related to Danish, which is what Sickert's father spoke." Huh? How is that at all significant? Similarly bizarre logic leads Cornwell to write that a bloody knife found after Stride's murder which was ""smothered" with dried blood and the sort a baker or chef might use", points the finger at Sickert who "was an excellent cook and often dressed as a chef to entertain his friends." Ms. Cornwell could probably make a good case for Sickert being author of numerous Ripper hoax letters. Her presentation of Sickert's personality makes that plausible. But that would hardly sell a large number of books. As for the identity of the Ripper, well, keep the case book open.
Rating:
Summary: A dull, disorganized read
Review: I haven't read any of Patricia Cornwell's novels before; I only read this one because I am mildly interested in the Jack the Ripper case, and have read a few good books on the topic, including "From Hell," a fantastic graphic novel by Alan Moore. I had been to Ms. Cornwell's website, read the first chapter, read several interviews about the book, and it sounded intriguing, and perfectly plausible that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I still think that it's quite possible he was the killer, but if so, Ms. Cornwell makes her case quite poorly. It seems that more evidences needs to be accumulated, and perhaps someone with more criminal background or experience in writing non-fiction should cover the case if it continues to develop. Ms. Cornwell splices forensic science with second-rate art criticism rhetoric and out of context descriptions of life in Whitechapel, speculations on Mr. Sickert's daily habits, all in one jumbled mess. Had this been a criminal case and she was prosecuting Mr. Sickert, Ms. Cornwell would have failed miserably and boringly. I advise others to skip the book, just look at her website, or if you really want to, get the book from the library. You'll be disappointed in spending the money and effort to read this abomination.
Rating:
Summary: Excellence in Detail, As Usual
Review: Patricia Cornwell is astoundingly intelligent in gathering facts in a world that offers so many countless configurations. Exhausting work, indeed. Comparing this book to supposedly better Jack the Ripper "websites" (if you enjoy those, check out Area 51 and/or Elvis spotting websites)is laughable at best. Earlier writings on Jack the Ripper abound and are often very interesting but they lack the intense detail and availability of modern technology. Is Cornwell believeable in her facts/assumptions/conclusion? More so, than any past writer on the subject due to the vast research completed and intensely detailed investigational techniques. The best part? It was fun to read! An engaging book through and through. Some may not agree with her conclusions but you cannot argue against the fact that Cornwell did her homework and did it very well. (Note to reviewers who go overboard trying to get someone to notice and possibly offer them a job...too many details ruin a good review. Please don't describe the entire book content to future readers. They are checking out the reviews to get a sense of what the book is all about. They are not reading reviews to get the entire story retold by YOU. (And some say Patricia Cornwell is arrogant?!)
Rating:
Summary: Sensationalism at the highest degree
Review: This book is, in my opinion, nothing more than a glorified comic book. While mildly entertaining, especially in the first few chapters, it quickly begins to bore me with the endless graphic and horrific descriptive terminology. While the nature of the subject matter certainly entitles the author to use descriptions of the crimes that are sickening, she loses no opportunity in her attempts to shock the reader. With every reference to the victim of one of these murders, even innocuous ones, she feels compelled to include descriptive words such as gutted, eviscerated, split open, etc. This predilection towards the use of repulsive terms is not the worst this book has to offer, however. This author seems to be torn between writing a factual book in which she purports to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper, and writing another piece of fiction. There is actually very little in the way of concrete evidence presented in this book. The vast majority of what she uses to "convict" Sickert is total and complete fabrication on her part. She uses her "what-if's" and "might-be's" to concoct elaborate scenarios that quickly are transformed into her evidence. She sometimes states that she has no actual evidence to a certain bit of information being true, and then has the gall to state that she also has no evidence that this information *isn't* true. That methodology will certainly allow one to draw upon anything in the realm of possibility and turn it into "evidence". What little actual evidence that she is able to relate, and this is only if we are to believe what she states is true, all falls into the weakest form of circumstantial evidence. If you eliminate everything in this book that is conjecture on the authors part, then you would have very little left with which to convict anybody, let alone write a book on the matter. Yes, I was mildly titillated by various sections of this book. However my actual interest in continuing to read page after page of this nonsense ceased well before I reached the mid-point. I had to force myself to continue to the end. I knew that there would be little else revealed of any real consequence and that one can only be enthralled with shocking descriptions a limited number of times before they simply become tiresome. I confess that I have never read one of this author's novels. I only read this "novel" because of her claim to have solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper. Hopefully her other books are more interesting and believable than this "factual" account of a real serial killer. This account of Jack the Ripper is no more the truth than would be a Superman comic book, and far less enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: INTRIGUING, GAVE ME A LOT TO THINK ABOUT
Review: If you love history, unsolved crimes, and forensics, -you will love Cornwell's PORTRAIT OF A KILLER, Jack the Ripper Case Closed. Ms. Cornwell admits that there was no joy in writing this book, and I would have to agree that there was no real joy in reading it. Portrait of a Killer is a dark, oft times frighteningly discriptive account of what probably happened over a hundred years ago. Yet, I could not put the book down. Once I began reading, I felt obligated to finish. We may never really know if Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, but Cornwell magnificently wrote from her heart, drawing from conversations, old police files, letters, newspaper clippings, and yes, forensic testing. If Walter Sickert painted what he saw, then he convicted himself. Great book, that I would highly recommend to all Cornwell fans. Vickie Adkins, Reviewer and author - Tattered Pages, the light blue ribbon.
|
