Rating: 
Summary: An intriguing read though not entirely convincing
Review: For more than a century, the mystery of "who was Jack the Ripper" has fascinated both sides of the Atlantic. Who perpetrated the brutal murders of so many Whitechapel prostitutes in England in the late 1800s? And why? Numerous theories have been put forth over the decades: a lunatic, a crazed doctor, a member of the royal family, a famous artist. And now, for the first time, someone has taken Scotland Yard's evidence, along with other letters and ephemera, and applied modern-day forensic science to the still-open investigation. The someone is Patricia Cornwell, author of the critically acclaimed Kay Scarpetta mystery series and a forensic specialist herself. The results, while not entirely convincing, are compelling. Cornwell asserts, with great confidence, that Jack the Ripper was the impressionist artist Walter Richard Sickert, an apprentice to Whistler, and, in his own right, a highly accomplished and recognized artist. In fact, Cornwell posits that Sickert's work is perhaps one of the greatest clues of his culpability. First, his paintings are menacing and threatening, particularly towards women of a lower class. Also, known as an artist who painted what he saw, a few of Sickert's canvasses eerily resemble the Ripper's crime scenes. Coincidence? Perhaps. But Cornwell interprets his work as revelatory, confessional almost. In profiling the famous serial killer she suggests that the Ripper would have been a man who harbored a keen, deep-rooted hatred of women, most likely founded in his own sexual inability or inadequacies. Sickert at a young age underwent a series of corrective penile surgeries, which quite possibly left him impotent. There is no proof one way or another that he was entirely sexually dysfunctional, but there are hints at problems that lend some credence to Cornwell's theory. The Ripper did not exist in a vacuum, and Cornwell did an extraordinary job of setting the scene, placing the reader in late 1800 England. Detailed references to John Merrick (the elephant man), Henry Irving (one of the stage's greatest stars of the time), Henry James (author and constable) and others frame Cornwell's story. The Ripper was very much a part of the happenings of the time, and his name was as likely to be found in the pages of the newspaper as any of the abovementioned notables. Sickert, a voracious reader with morbid sensibilities would have been captivated by the stories of the Ripper. As a prankster and prolific writer, he might even have been tempted to pen a faux Ripper letter or two to the police or the daily paper. (At the time, many of the Ripper letters were thought to be hoaxes.) As a murderer, if he was a murderer, Sickert's well-known vanity would have thrilled at and thrived on the publicity. To be mentioned on the same pages as royalty and celebrities would have fed his hungry ego. Cornwell offered much supposition and hints at Sickert's guilt. For instance, he was a master of disguise and could have easily lured a prostitute to her death and then escaped undetected, Cornwell suggests. He was enthralled by the music halls and the "unfortunates" who frequented them, and he was known to walk the streets of the Whitechapel area late at night for long periods of time. He had an unhealthy fascination of the anatomy of the human body that went far beyond an artist's natural curiosity. And the Ripper letters included allusions Sickert would have known and drawings in the fashion of Sickert's own work. From DNA to mitochondrial DNA, from handwriting experts to watermark experts, from newspaper articles to authentic Sickert paintings, Cornwell left no stone unturned. She described in lay terms --- using easily understood analogies --- the forensic methodologies she and her impressive crew of colleagues used in their thorough investigation. Along the way she spent an exorbitant amount of money trying to prove his guilt. (She even went so far as to purchase several of his paintings, and destroyed one in the hopes of finding conclusive evidence.) The science is fascinating, albeit more often inconclusive than convincing. Her research did not always glean the results she had hoped for. But taken all together, the evidence, mostly circumstantial, is damning and probably would have been enough in today's court system to bring Sickert to trial. Case Closed? I can't say I was convinced by book's end that Sickert was indeed the Ripper. I wanted a smoking gun that left no room for doubt, and Cornwell did not deliver a smoking gun because she did not find one. She found compelling evidence that makes the strongest case of guilt to date. But with no death bed confession, or bloodstained canvasses, or eyewitness reports, we will never really know his innocence or guilt. The strong science, the history lesson, and the story of Sickert's life make PORTRAIT OF A KILLER an intriguing read, and on those fronts I recommend the book. But I leave you to decide for yourself if she has found enough evidence to label Sickert the Ripper --- or not. --- Reviewed by Roberta O'Hara
Rating: 
Summary: Jack the [...] Case Wide Open
Review: This book would never have been published were it not written by a famous author. She provides only a tenuous link between Walter Sickert and letters signed Jack the Ripper and no link at all between Sickert and the actual crimes. The rest of her evidence is might have, could have, I don't know but. The most ironic connection she makes is that one of his paintings is entitled Jack the Ripper's Bedroom and other paintings have violent themes. This from a woman who writes novels about gruesome murders. Should we check to see if there are any unsolved murders where she lives? Of course not. Sickert also liked to take long walks at night - o my goodness - in London - and attended music halls. This is the only true crime book I have read, and I have read many, where I was so disappointed in the lack of content that I wanted to send the book back to the publisher for a refund. Patricia Cornwell's editor should be ashamed of herself and Patricia Cornwell should learn the basic tenets of historical research - for example following the facts to find a conclusion as opposed to bending the facts to fit a theory. Caveat emptor.
Rating: 
Summary: Jack the Ripper: Case Closed?
Review: Anytime an author publishes a new book in which they claim to have singlehandedly solved the greatest criminal mystery of all time, Jack the Ripper's identity---beware. Remeber the Maybrick diary? This book, Jack the Ripper: Case Closed, is no exception. This book is getting far more media hoopla than it deserves (a Vanity Fair article and TLC cable special just to name two). Its actually not a bad book as far as it goes, with some very interesting observations on the nature of psychopathic behavior and analysis of the wounds, crime scenes and coroner's reports of the Ripper's victims, however the author bases her claim that Jack the Ripper was actually a Victorian artist and student of the great James Whistler named Walter Sickert (who has already been considered and dismissed as a suspect by Ripperologists) on some rather shaky assumptions and speculation (such as Sickert's having a fistula on his male member, that several of his paintings bear striking resemblences to Ripper murders, that he wrote several of the Ripper Letters, that he was actually in England at the times the murders were committed-this is not at all verifiable, that Sickert/Jack the Ripper killed again outside London, etc.) all of which are pointed out and answered in great detail in the Casebook: Jack the Ripper website's review of her book. Cornwell sees too many coincidences between the Ripper and Sickert for it to be a coincidence. Her main argument seems to be "I can't prove he did it, but you can't prove he didn't do it." The DNA analysis Cornwell conducted on the some 200 letters (most of which are considered hoaxes by serious Ripperologists) allegedly written by the Ripper which are on file at the Office of Public Records in London is interesting, and according to Ripperologists, may provide serious clues, but as Sickert's remains were cremated we do not have any of his DNA to know for certain. My main gripe with this book is that the author appeared to me to be a maverick, disregarding or ignoring most of the published work of experts such as Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner; only two works by expert Ripperologists are cited in the extensive bibliography-Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell and The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, both by Evans and Skinner. The only caveat to professional Ripperologists is a sentence at the end: " I honor those who have gone before me and dedicated their efforts to catching Jack the Ripper. He is caught. We have done it together." As others have said, Cornwell picked a suspect and then made the evidence fit. I'm wondering how the art world is reacting to this book.
Rating:
Summary: All based on circumstantial evidence!!!
Review: I really admire Patricia Cornwell, and I have read some of her other books, so I was really enthusiastic when I heard that she had solved the Jack the Ripper case and she had written a book about it. Sixty pages into the book, I kept hoping that she would show me some piece of tangible evidence that would finger Walter Sickert as the killer. Even when I was towards the last chapter I kept saying to myself "Okay, here it comes. She's going to surprise me in the end". Nothing. All of her evidence was completely circumstancial, simply for the fact that she based all her facts on letters written to Scotland Yard at the time supposedly by the killer. If in fact Sickert wrote the letters to the police, it still does not mean he was the killer. Throughout her book she states clearly that Walter Sickert was fond of making crude jokes, and this could have been one of his sick jokes, provided he wrote the letters. If this case were prosecuted in modern times, all of this evidence would be completely inadmissable. I was really disappointed in this book and hope this doesn't affect Ms. Cornwell's career or credibility.
Rating:
Summary: Intruguing, compelling, but is it truth?
Review: You have to hand it to Ms. Cornwell. She has tackled a thorny problem that many writers have speculated about, and she has drawn her own conclusions. One of the most spectacular things about this book is that her conclusions are in no way tentative: she believes her theory about Jack the Ripper being Walter Sickert to be true, and doesn't stint to say so from page one. But her proof is based on suppositions and half-possible occurences that simply aren't facts. I wanted very much for this to be the solution - and maybe it is! but ultimately her ratiocinations about the whys and wherefores don't hold water. Sickert painted dreary whores and gloomy scenes with bedsteads and ambiguously placed nudes (dead/alive?) from about 1902-1905. From those dates Cornwell projects back to 1888, and forward to 1940, and expects us all to ride along with her. She selects facts that fit her theory, and rejects those that don't. Eventually the reader feels rather manipulated. I wanted to believe in the Maybrick theory of JtR; it truly felt right, and I am sorry to see that they've discounted it altogether. But to dive into this mystery and deem it solved just because so many millions of dollars were spent to follow this theory seems a waste. The whole idea of watermarks is intriguing - but it isn't taken far enough. Compare one of the half-sheets to one of Sickert's full sheets (she doesn't) to see if they fit, and how they fit. Cornwell believes she's found Sickert's doodlings in a guest book in Cornwall (no relation), that are revealing. She embroiders a whole chapter based on the findings - but there is simply no proof at all that it is he who's doodled in the book. And further, the idea that the book was written before the 1888 murders, and she posits that Sickert went there post 8/1888 and did the doodling fits real nicely - but there isn't an ounce of fact in it. Readers are not quite *that* gullible. There simply are too many loose threads to make it satisfying, and the insistence on the author that it's all tidy and done make things very uncomfortable.
Rating:
Summary: I Must Respectfully Disagree With Ms. Cornwell's Findings...
Review: As a criminologist and Ripperologist, I have read Ms. Cornwell's book with interest, but cannot support her theories and conclusions with respect to Walter Sickert being "Jack the Ripper." It seems as if the author fancies herself as a modern day Sherlock Holmes or perhaps a real life version of her fictional Kay Scarpetta. No problem with that accept for the shortcomings of her findings. Aside from the book being somewhat difficult to meander through, it is a giant leap to suggest that the Ripper case is "closed" on the basis of this book, even as a sales gimmick. Most real life criminologists would argue that there are any number of Ripper suspects that are more plausible than Sickert. But even if you assumed Sickert could be the Ripper, the evidence Cornwell offers is too weak to support this conclusion. Moreover, the reality is that even with modern science and investigative techniques, solving an 1888 London serial murder case well over than a century later is next to impossible--given the logic that there would always be doubts as to whether the identified person is truly Jack the Ripper. And since Cornwell did not travel through time to gather her so-called facts and evidence in a sort of reversal of the 1979 Ripper movie, TIME AFTER TIME, all of us are left to speculation at best in identifying the elusive man known as Jack the Ripper. Indeed, there are some who believe that the prostitute killer may have been a woman. My point is that this is one historical killer that will continue to fascinate the public for years to come--long after Cornwell's book has left the store shelves for good--largely because we cannot know his/her identity for certain. As such, we can play around with different suspects from here to eternity, knowing that the killer could have been anyone from among the most powerful to the powerless of Victorian society. For those of you with a taste for real true crime books, I would recommend my book, THE SEX SLAVE MURDERS (St. Martin's Press, 1996) or my latest nonfiction title, MURDERS IN THE UNITED STATES: CRIMES, KILLERS AND VICTIMS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY (McFarland, 2001). If you prefer to focus on Jack the Ripper, stick to fiction, which can be far more compelling without claiming to be the real deal. In this respect, you might want to try my fictional account of Jack the Ripper, IN THE DARK OF NIGHT, published in 2001 by iUniverse. In any event, the fascination about Jack the Ripper and his identity lives on ...
Rating:
Summary: portrait of a poorly written book
Review: not compelling, not well written
Rating:
Summary: A bit of celebrity whiplash going on
Review: I was all set to dismiss and dislike this book after all the negativity in the reviews. At this point NO ONE knows who Jack The Ripper was. Not Scotland Yard, not the many armchair detectives who peruse the volumes of writing on this gruesome killer. Certainly the case against Walter Sickert is no more or less full of holes than any other theory. Cornwell's Portrait is still a good read. She doesn't posture any more than any previous writer on the subject ( and a lot less in some cases, than her critics reviews) for her conclusions.
I learned a lot on Sickert and see this more along the lines of an "Unauthorized Biography" of the man. Maybe this is a conspiracy between the Royal Family and Cornwell to distract attention from the REAL killer... hmmm
I, too, am still PO'd at Cornwell for wasting my money on "Isle of Dogs", but not enough to forget the entertainment from the Scarpetta books before it.
I too am a Ripperologist. Probably on a more casual basis than some. I found a lot of information on the era, political and social problems in London in the late 1880's to still hold my interest. This book also included more pictures of more obscure Ripper letters than I had seen before in one book.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Finished But Already Disappointed
Review: I love the Kay Scarpetta novels and can't wait for the next. I just wish Patricia Cornwell had used her considerable talent writing a new Scarpetta instead of this book. I have just started reading Case Closed and already have noticed some glaring errors. In the first chapter she mentions the Duke of Edinburgh birthday. I think she means the Prince of Wales as the title "Duke of Edinburgh" was created for Prince Phillip. Also she claims the first victim of Jack The Ripper to be Martha Tabran. Every other Ripper book lists this woman as Tabram. These are just two examples of sloppy research and I've only read three chapters. All the money spent on the research for this book and she couldn't hire a fact checker?
Rating:
Summary: looney tune cornwell
Review: the case is closed: cornwell is nuts.
| 
