Rating: 
Summary: What did Jack paint with?
Review: Has Patricia Cornwell unmasked the beast of Whitechapel - the original "Hannibal the Cannibal," who, by his own taunting admission, ate one of his victim's kidneys?This purported solution, in which Cornwell confidently lays the blame on the English painter, Walter Sickert, is a ripping good read. Cornwell is, clearly, obsessed with her subject and driven to hunt down the most famous serial killer of all time. She is a formidable researcher who uses a potent mix of forensic evidence, psychological profiling, gut instinct and a bombshell discovery of one of Sickert's lost paintings that is as convincing as it is nightmarish. Sickert is not a new suspect in the Jack the Ripper rogue's gallery. Nor are the author's observations that some of Sickert's paintings show eviscerated female bodies that mimic the actual Ripper killings. However, whereas past researchers have used less than credible speculation about the killer's ties to Freemasonry or to the Royal family, Patricia Cornwell sticks to the more sober path of modern criminal tools and profiling. Moreover, she looks for (and finds) similar killings in areas that Sickert was known to have lived in, both before and after the infamous Ripper killings of 1888. It is unlikely that history will accord this book the ultimate epitaph - "case closed" - any more than conspiracy theorists will accept any one "final" version of the JFK assassination. The Ripper legend has entered into that peculiar realm of the cultural Rorschach test that reveals more about its interpreters than it does of its own inscrutable nature. Yet, there is a sense, towards the book's conclusion, that Patricia Cornwell has made the best case thus far and perhaps, just perhaps, finally revealed the face of a man whose actions presaged so many 20th century horrors. A truly strong and compelling book.
Rating: 
Summary: Save your money - and skip this book.
Review: Cornwall uses a dead man, Walter Sickert to bolster her non-existant case. With any kind of karma, Mr. Sickert's relatives will sue her for her outrageous claims.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but I'm not convinced.
Review: I enjoyed this book. It was interesting and I felt it was worth the read. However, I give it three stars instead of a higher grade for the following reasons. First of all, it failed to convince me that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I wanted to believe; to be convinced. While there were a lot of evidences and coincides that were brought forth, too many of them seemed interpreted to fit, and didn't seem to me to exclude anyone else. Least convincing was the supposed evidence in Sickert's artwork. While there were indeed similarities between some of the subject matter and the post-mortem photos of the victims, they were no more that similarities. Secondly, while much of the book is very well written, particularly the parts that descripe the victims and Sickert himself, other parts aren't. Plus the overall organization of the book makes it difficult to keep track of all the evidence and the author's interpretations. The best evidence Cornwell provides is her reasons for excluding the more well known suspects. While Sickert could have been the Killer, here evidence didn't exclude anyone else. Though it is true that much of the original evidence has vanished making a definitive revelation of the killer difficult if not impossible, that weakened the arguements in my opinion. Still, it was an enjoyable read, and worth the time.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting but not convincing
Review: I was interested in this book because of the prime suspect, Walter Sickert. Sickert was a genuinely good and important English artist and I was surprised that he is considered "the Ripper" by Cornwell. She makes a fun, readable case but that doesn't mean it's convincing if you look at other viewpoints. I find her psychology rather silly and she seems ignorant of certain facts about 19th century artists, such as the fact they often painted prostitutes as models. In addition, her interpretation of Sickert's artwork wouldn't be taken seriously by any Art Historian and is highly subjective. Nevertheless, I found it pretty entertaining reading and I hope it will make people take a look at Sickert's actual artwork, which is pretty good.
Rating:
Summary: "Case Closed"!?!?
Review: In this author's case, success has obviously bred an arrogance that's in a league of its own. Nothing else could explain adding "Case Closed" to the title of a book that doesn't even come close. A more accurate title addition would have been "As Good A Suspect As Any, But Who Knows?". I understand her next "non-fiction" endeavor's called "Bigfoot:He's Real Cause I Say So And I'm A Successful Novelist".
Rating:
Summary: "maybe," "possibly," "could have."
Review: Patricia Cornwell knew practically nothing about Jack the Ripper before being invited on a tour of Scotland Yard. She says she didn't even know how his victims died or that they were prostitutes. Her interest was in using him in a Scarpetta novel. When she asked Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve if anyone had ever tried to use modern forensics methods to solve the murders, Grieve mentions artist Walter Sickert, who painted a picture entitled "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom." Rather than examine the evidence, consider the various suspects, and seize upon the most likely killer, Cornwell is immediately hooked on Sickert.
Sickert is as good a choice as any, actually, at least as good as Montague Druitt, the Duke of Clarence, physician John Gill, or Aaron Kosminski. What bothers me most is Cornwell's blatant hubris. It's been a hundred and fourteen years since the murders; yet, she knows better than the fumbling detectives who worked during the original time frame, one of whom (Sir Melville MacNaghten) had the audacity to write a book about the murders, choosing Kosminski as his Ripper.
Cornwell's chosen structure is also aggravating. She spurns a preface or introduction, which would have given her a chance to explain how she came about writing the book in her own voice. Instead, she interrupts the narrative flow, consistently interrupting to explain her superior forensic technique. So, what does she come up with? Sickert was sexually impotent, having had three operations on his penis prior to age six, possibly without anesthetics. She loves that word "possibly", also "maybe" as well as the words "could have." As a result of the painful operations, Sickert hated women. This despite the fact that he was married three times. "Possibly," he married them for money or "maybe" because he needed a mother figure. What else? Sickert loved attention; he wrote hundreds of letters and articles for the newspapers. Thanks to Cornwell's legion of researchers, she finds watermarks on the Ripper's letters that match Sickert's stationery. She also decides that most of the Ripper letters were genuine. The authorities were hoaxed by the different handwriting, and Sickert, being an artist, could imitate many different styles.
Another aspect of the letters she finds incriminating is the Rippers's persistent use of "Ha! Ha!" Once again that points at Sickert, whose mentor James McNeil Whistler was notorious for that annoying laugh.
One wonders how Cornwell can look herself in the mirror when she implies Macnaghten wrote his book for money. Listen to this drivel: "'I hate this book, Ester (her agent). . . .' I was losing my life to Walter Richard Sickert. He was taking it away from me. 'I want to write my novels,' I said. 'I don't want to write about him. There's no joy in this.'"
There's not much joy in reading the results either. A better bet is to check out casebook.org to see what the Ripper fanatics do to Cornwell.
Rating:
Summary: Case far from closed...
Review: Since 1888 sleuths of all types have been struggling to unmask a killer whose real identity will never be known. Patricia Cornwell comes along and, in less than two years, claims to have cracked one of the most enduring mysteries in the history of crime. I have long had an interest in the Jack the Ripper slayings. Going into Cornwell's book, I didn't believe she had actually solved the case. Having just read the final page, I now know for sure. The case remains far from closed. Her evidence pointing to famous painter Walter Sickert is circumstantial at best. She relies mainly on coincidences and the nature of his violent artwork to pinpoint him as the killer. The book sometimes reads like a big slander piece. Yes, he was a somewhat deranged individual, but that is far from being a brutal serial killer. In the course of the book, Cornwell fails to provide any concrete evidence to back up her theory. Most of her conclusions are pure conjecture. DNA she retrieved from a Ripper letter and a correspondence written by Sickert proved to be inconclusive. Far from proving he was the killer, all Cornwell has done is show he makes a likely suspect -- there's a big difference between the two. The fact is we will never know who Jack the Ripper was. In some places, the book is a bit unorganized. The author has a habit of going off on a tangent here and there, especially when cheerleading the skills of the Virginia Instituteof Forensic Science and Medicine (an institute she helped establish). That said, the book is an interesting read and a good introduction to the slaughter that occurred in Whitechapel those many years ago.
Rating:
Summary: Sickert would not be convicted on Cornwell's evidence!
Review: It is laughable that, on Page 147 of her book, Miss Cornwell speaks of people "who weren't even born at the time of the crimes" that offer "baseless" Jack the Ripper theories without ever realizing that she herself is THE prime example of such people. What Ms. Cornwell offers in this mediocre work can be summed up in one sentence: "Walter Sicker was 'Jack the Ripper' because I say so!" (You can now save your money and the time it would require to read this pitiful book!) At best, she "proves" (and I use the term very loosely here) that Walter Sickert may have written one or more of the infamous Jack the Ripper letters. However, Ms. Cornwell points out early on that Mr. Sickert had a habit of ingratiating himself into a variety of things, including submitting letters to the editor under pseudonyms. (For what it's worth, there is much debate as to whether any of the letters were written by the actual murderer anyway.) A crank who writes letters does not necessarily a serial killer make! Ms. Cornwell, who insists that there is violence in Mr. Sickert's art even in the paintings where there is none, is now in the company of Richard Wallace who, in his book Jack the Ripper: Light-Hearted Friend, offered - based upon confessional statements derived from CREATING anagrams of Lewis Carroll's writings - that none other than the creator of Alice in Wonderland was Jack the Ripper.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Quite Closed -- Plenty of Reasonable Doubt
Review: I've been a fan of Patricia Cornwell's for a number of years, and once I heard she had not only written a book about Jack the Ripper, but claimed to have definitively solved the case, I couldn't wait for it to be published. Apparently, I wasn't the only one. She must have been in a hurry as well. Overall this is an average Ripper-Lore book. And while Cornwell offers a lot of new insight into Walter Sickert, the man she claims was Jack the Ripper, she didn't completely convince me that Sickert was the Whitechapel Murderer. She did convince me that the possibility exists that he was Jack the Ripper, but only the possibility. She also convinced me that Walter Sickert may have written some of the hundreds of Ripper letters mailed to the police and newspaper, but she fell way short of placing Sickert anywhere near the murders (or Whitechapel for that matter) when the Ripper struck. Let me begin with what I liked about this book:
Cornwell gives a good summary of what London, and specifically the East End, was like during the Ripper murders. The plight of the Unfortunates (as the prostitutes were called by the Victorians), especially their daily struggle for food, lodging, and alcohol. She also describes the history of the police force handling the cases quite well. When discussing the hundreds of Ripper letters that were mailed over the years, Cornwell offers more insight into the mind(s) that may have written them than any other author I'm aware of, and it is in this portion where her most compelling evidence is discussed. She herself admits, though, that this wouldn't hold up in a modern court if Sickert was brought to trial today. Where Cornwell fell short:
She offers up DNA evidence, from personal letters known to be mailed by Sickert and Ripper letters, but then is forced to quickly dismiss them because the only type of DNA evidence that could be gathered after such a long time only excludes "99% of the population". Hardly a solid match. Using his artwork, Cornwell claims that certain paintings and sketches Sickert drew over the years were directly inspired by scenes only Jack the Ripper could have seen, but falls short of describing why only Jack the Ripper could have seen them. She also makes the classic mistake of believing that an artist can only create what he has seen. As a writer she should know better, but she continually pounds this point home with description of painting after sketch after painting claiming that he had to have seen it before he could have created it, with no exceptions. This whole assumption is based on one comment Sickert made early in his art career that he could only draw what he had seen. And while this may have remained true throughout his life, there is no such evidence that it did remain true (since he never uttered the remark again), and is hardly worthy of building a murder case on. Cornwell, though, uses this to build nearly half of her argument. It is well known that the first four Ripper murders were not handled well by the newly established Scotland Yard. But the murder of Mary Kelly presented the police with a nearly sealed crime scene and the conservation of evidence that didn't exist up to that point. But Cornwell spends only a small handful of pages describing this fifth murder attributed to Jack the Ripper, in comparison to whole chapters dedicated to the other murders. Why? I can only think that maybe evidence was found that counters her claim that Sickert was the murderer. Before the discussion of Mary Kelly (which was saved until nearly the end of the book), Cornwell spends nearly three times as many pages discussing a murder she herself says did not fit the MO of Jack the Ripper and in all likely-hood was not committed by Sickert. The only connection is a painting by Sickert named after the general location where the murder took place. Again, a weak argument, and not the least pertinent to the Ripper case. Cornwell failed one of the earliest lessons writers are supposed to learn: patience. But I believe she failed it intentionally. There are multiple times in the book where she says that certain results of scientific tests had not returned at the time of publication. These are tests she had commissioned and the results would have shed more light on the case. But Cornwell chose to move forward with publication anyway. Once again, why? If these results could have helped her arguments, why did she proceed without them? If a commitment date had been made by the publisher, this publisher would have pushed off the date in light of new evidence (this happens all the time). Overall, her biggest mistakes were repeated throughout the book. She takes well known criminological or psychoanalytical theory, constructs a theory about the Ripper's motivation, claims that Sickert felt these same feelings based on no evidence or small amounts of circumstantial evidence, offers that as fact, builds another theory on top of it, then claims it as proof positive Sickert committed the murder. She commits the same "atrocities" she chides others Ripper authors for - makes the facts fit her theory instead building a theory on the facts. If you're a Cornwell fan, you'll want this venture into non-fiction. If you're a Ripper-lorist, you'll want this latest book for your collection. But if this case was presented to a modern jury with Sickert as the defendant, the verdict would be obvious, because there is plenty of reasonable doubt with Cornwell's case.
Rating:
Summary: Lose your righs after you are dead?
Review: Nothing like attacking a man, long dead, who just happens to have an excellent alibi - being in Paris at the time of the murders. Cornwall's DNA evidence - nada. Nothing. Maybe Walter Sickett's family will sue Cornwall. Let her prove that he is who she claims.
| 
