Rating: 
Summary: Sickert did it, and so did OJ
Review: Those reviewers unable to tie Walter Sickert to the Jack the Ripper murders are likely former OJ jury members. 99 percent DNA evidence, common taunting phrases, madness for letter writing, same stationery, unaccountable abscenteeism, not a single alabi which can place him somewhere other than near the murders, painted letters, paint on letters, graphicly violent sketchings and paintings, sociopathic behaviors, multiple hide-outs/studios, hatred of women, handwriting similarities, identical nicknames, similar drawings, more... If one or two of these similarities tried to tie a suspect to the Jack the Ripper murders, it would be incredible circumstantial evidence. All?, well, that's just ridiculous. Patricia Cornwell did an unbelievable job in collecting century old evidence against this artist/seriel killer. Think about it, of all suspects how many could possibly have similar writing styles? A handful? How many of those have similar drawing styles? One, Walter Sickert. How many of the handful used similar nicknames? One, Walter Sickert. How many had similar phrases? One, Walter Sickert. How many could write left handed? How many were artists and might use paint on a letter? How many could have actually mixed paint to look like blood on a letter? How many had a history of violent thoughts put to paper? How many loved writing taunting letters? How many couldn't account for where they were at the time of writing? How many had hide-outs/studios near where the murders took place? One person, Walter Sickert. Now add in the 99 percent DNA evidence and it eliminates everyone but Walter Sickert. What the hell else do you want, a bloody glove?
Rating: 
Summary: Basic Mistakes, This is Entertaining Fiction But Not Fact!
Review: Other reviewers have provided a great overview of why the Jack the Ripper case is far from closed, as the author claims. I concur with the other reviewers that the books is replete with guesswork, innuendo, and sketchy reasoning. Further, I can provide an example as to the sloppy research and mistaken "facts" presented in the book. In discussing the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, Cornwell notes that the body was found with her eyes wide open, and attempts to connect the body with a sketch drawn by Sickert of a woman with open eyes. She argues that Sickert must have been at the scene of the murder, because otherwise, how could he have known that Nichols' eyes were open? Cornwell argues that Sickert would not have known "unless the detail was in a news story I somehow missed." It took me about 30 seconds to pick up "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner and read the London Times September 3 edition, in which police constable John Neil is reported as saying that "her eyes were wide open." Not only does the auther make many claims that are specious at best, some are based on untruths and distortions of fact. If you are looking for some fun fiction, read this book. Otherwise, for a thorough, accurate, and objective study of the Ripper case, I highly recommend "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden and "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion."
Rating:
Summary: Trashy Fiction -- A Ripper-Off
Review: Read this as pulp fiction and maybe it will work for you. It does not quite qualify even as "faction." Only the fact that Amazon][.com]requires at least one star gets it that -- undeserved. The book is a waste of time and money relentlessly flogged into the marketplace by an purely commercial author who is more successful at fiction than non-fiction, fiction that only raises a semblance of reality. Ms. Cornwell has invested a tiny portion of her considerable wealth in this book, but she'll get it back and much more as a result of the hype and the phony claim that she has "solved" the Ripper case. Less risky than contemporay cases. No lawsuits. This book has been savaged by every knowledgeable reviewer, in particular those with knowledge of the REAL world of forensics and the history of the case. There is little that could be added to the NYTimes review of December 15, 2002 which dismisses Ms. Cornwell's "work" as "A sloppy book, insulting to both its target and its audience." ABC showed no respect for the truth when 20/20 aired a burbling fawning tribute to Ms. Cornwell earlier this year and her breathless claim that she had at last found the true Ripper. Ms. Cornwell, who seems in search of relief for the tedium for all the money she made from earlier (not bad) work, acts as though she is the first to discover Walter Sickert. Wrong, although there's no evidence that he is the Ripper. She boasts of ignoring evidence and creates her own speculative material. Cornwell boasts of the work by the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine. Which tends to support her writing and that has blurbs on its website about the woman who solved the Ripper crimes. Except ... while the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine exists, it's Patricia Cornwell's money, deductible from her taxes of course that paid for it. Her money buys criminal science to the extent there is any in this book. Ms. Cornwell likes to talk about her days in the Medical Examiner's office in Richmond and "hundreds of autopsies" but does not talk about what she did. She was apparently clerical staff. NO one wants to talk about that now. She's given forensics some cache and helped build false expectations. Solved the Ripper case? No, conducted a successful campaign to sell a book without content of any merit. It's a RIPPER-OFF.
Rating: 
Summary: Stick To Fiction!
Review: After reading the book and seeing a TV special (starring, of course, Ms. Cornwell), it is with deep regret that I must relegate both the book and the theory of Sickert as the Ripper to the scrap heap. She has committed the greatest sin of the true investigator, as pointed out by the fictional Sherlock Holmes. Instead of letting the clues lead her to a suspect, she starts out with an alleged perpetrator and then goes digging to find "facts" to support her case. It is true that some of Sickert's work seems to show a startling propensity to portray women in deathlike poses very similar to some of the victims, as well as making references to the Ripper. However, it apparently never entered the author's mind that Sickert may have been inspired by the Ripper's handiwork,and chose to use these horrid events as subjects for his work. And what is so strange about asking permission to go inside and sketch the interior of Mary Kelly's abode? Instead of assuming that he wished to re-visit the scene of his crime and/or flaunt his work in front of the police, it may be that, like a modern photographer, he wanted to obtain material to portray the latest ravages of this killer. This analysis could go on and on, with Ms. Cornwell ignoring anything that did not fit in with her belief in his guilt. Apparently Sickert's genital deformity was not so great that he could not father children, but the author chooses to downplay the fact he had a son. Sickert was also in France during part of the time of the murders, but again, this means nothing in her eyes. It is true that William Sickert had a dark side and some strange proclivities, but this does not make him a killer. Rather, it explains his fascination with the crimes. Finally, linking Sickert to any of the Ripper letters would only prove that he wrote at least one of them. However, the authenticity of all the letters remains in doubt, with only the "From Hell" missive POSSIBLY coming from the killer. Just as today, there are attention getters who want to taunt the police and have their fifteen minutes of fame. All the author has succeeded in doing is painting a very negative picture of a famous artist who had (and still maintains) a huge following of art lovers who are appreciative of his work and do not fancy the idea of a fiction writer blackening his name and memory. Even Conan Doyle could not solve real life crimes. Stick to fiction, Ms. Cornwell.
Rating:
Summary: Readers ripped-off
Review: As a rule I don't write negative reviews of anything, but I feel that I was cheated out of [PRICE] hard-earned dollars for this book, so hopefully I can prevent others from making the same mistake. Painter Walter Sickert has previously been considered by others as a candidate for Jack the Ripper, but has always been dismissed for lack of evidence. Unfortunately, the lack of evidence doesn't stop Patricia Cornwell. For "Ripperologists" or even anyone interested in a good true-crime tale, this book is a total loss. It is disjointed and dull, rambles on in scattershot fashion, and ultimately offers absolutely no evidence that Sickert was Jack the Ripper beyond the kind of creative interpretation and "clue" hunting that has "identified" everyone from Cervantes to Queen Elizabeth I as the true genius behind William Shakespeare. Worse, Cornwell suffers from severe "I-strain," personally inserting herself into text so often that it virtually becomes a book about her, rather than Sickert or Saucy Jack. The Blowhard School of personal journalism can work if the story is written well enough (such as with Thomas Hoving's "King of the Confessors"), but this book is shockingly poorly written. In the course of her "research," Cornwell ripped up an original Sickert painting. She'll have a lot harder time restoring the tatters of her reputation after this debacle.
Rating: 
Summary: Case Closed?
Review: I admire Patricia Cornwell's fiction writing. She is one of the best authors out there in the fiction genre. Her skills as a non-fiction writer however, leave some things to be desired. Her research is meticulous, but, it seems to be grasping at some points, especially in reference to Sickert's art. She also bogs down in some areas when trying to prove her point, making the reader get lost in factoids. The ending, was the most disappointing aspect of this book, and led me to question the merit of writing such a sweeping indictment of a single person.
Rating:
Summary: Mt. Mandal of Circumstantial Evidence
Review: The other night I told the Englishman sitting next to me in a tavern that England's most notorious criminal had at last been brought to the bar. When I explained that Patricia Cornwell had solved the case of Jack the Ripper with a mountain of circumstantial evidence. He replied "Yes, but it is circumstantial." As though any evidence after 114 years could be anything but!! As I read the one- and two-star reviews of this book here at Amazon. com who claim that the case is not proved, all I can say is that, should I ever be at the bar for murder, I hope these [people] are on my jury! "If you are innocent, go before a judge, if you are guilty [as Sickert surely was] go before a jury." The old adage is still good advice. Most people are skeptics and can't believe that the shadow they see on looking out between both their eyes is their own nose, even though they can see it clearly by looking through one eye and then the other. One of these "jurors" said that since only 99% of the people are eliminated by [mitochondrial] DNA, that such hardly constitutes a good match. We have a criminal in our sights, and, regardless of all the other evidence against him, there is one-percent of the population who is not eliminated by the DNA: Sickert-Jack fall into the one-percent together and that is not a good match? Just take the evidence of the "HA, HA." that taunting phrase appears in about half of the Ripper letters. Cornwell demonstrates from painstaking research that the English did not use this phrase at all, and found it terribly rude--that it is an Americanism pure and simple. It is an important clew left by an arrogant killer. The German-Danish-French-Englishman Sickert would not know "HA HA," nor would a low-life Eastend murderer--except that Sickert learned it from the American painter James Whistler to whom he was apprenticed, and who was well-known for his obnoxious HA HA. Had the Metropolitan Police force been sensitive to such matters, they'd have had their man. Too bad Patricia Cornwell and her staff were not available. This Sickert beast murdered not just helpless down-and-out unfortunates but a number of helpless children, as well. Disgusting animal! If I never look at another SICKert painting it will be too soon. And I am not alone in finding him guilty; the only law-enforcement person who comments in these reviews had this to say: "Not only was this a well researched and written book, I belive it to be the most convicing book on who Jack the Ripper was. I spent most of my life in Law Enforcement, in an Crimnal Investigator capacity. I have read almost all of the books on this Subject. The evidence is really quite convincing, for a crime this old. I believe that the author, has her man. When there is this much evidence, you just cannot walk away [even] with a reasonable doubt.... I too would take it into court. I belive a Judge would convict." [Slightly edited] I only wish I had Ms. Cornwell's resources and skills when I go about investigating all the misunderstood issues from classical antiquity that are moot or stamped "issue closed."
Rating:
Summary: "An Amazing Book!"
Review: Ms. Cornwell's, "Portrait of a Killer" is an amazing book! Detailed, well-written, and, accurate. I give her "Two-Thumbs Up" on a job well done!
Rating:
Summary: Where is the real evidence?
Review: Ms. Cornwall has certainly reviewed a lot of material in her investigation, but her presentation is so disorganized that it leaves the reader with only the confused knowledge that there is a tiny bit of forensic evidence (not conclusive) and a plethora of circumstantial evidence to support her "case". She quickly begins to sound like an overzealous lawyer trying to inundate the jury with a huge quantity of disjointed circumstantial evidence to cover the fact that there's very little hard evidence. It would have been more helpful to start with a summary biography of what is known about Walter Sickert including a chronology of where he was known to have lived and traveled (as well as times whereabouts unknown) and an overview of the body of work he produced (written and drawn) during those times. Following this with summary of the material reviewed for the case would have laid the framework for understanding the "evidence". Then present the evidence without digressing into long discourses on modern forensics that are more self-serving than helpful...her esteemed predecessors have already pointed out that contemporary standards in police detection and forensics were not highly evolved and repetition of these facts are not helpful to "solving" this case. The fact remains that it is still conjecture that modern forensics might have solved the case if available at the time. Perhaps the next breakthrough in forensics will solve the case. Its still open for now.
Rating:
Summary: Fair to Middlin'
Review: I have been interested in the Jack the Ripper case for a number of years and have read quite a few books on the subject. I'd put this down somewhere in the middle of the list -- not really convincing, but not worth completely disregarding either. Both better and worse cases have been made for various JTR suspects. My biggest problem with Cornwell's case is her seeming lack of knowledge of other serious Ripper suspects, or willingness to discuss them. In my view, to build her case she needed to compare and contrast her findings with those of other Ripperologists who have valid arguments for their suspects; she didn't do this. On the other hand, she provides quite a lot of interesting, if largely circumstantial, evidence that may stand a further look. The quality of the writing itself is pretty weak; reading her novels one may conclude that while Ms. Cornwell may be a fairly good plotter, she's not a particularly good writer. For topnotch mysteries by women, please see those by P.D. James, Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine, and Minnette Walters. These ladies can write!
|
