Rating: 
Summary: The Best of "True Crime"
Review: That this book is a success is demonstrated by the passionate love -hate reviews. A "good read"it is, and in the end, that is what we want from Patricia Cornwell. I got the impression that she would very much like to be what she writes, but I don't have that expectation. I thought this book was a good page turner and lovingly researched for a true crime production. Whether it was six million worth, I don't know, but it kept me entertained with all sorts of doubts about her theories and methods. And, what I loved was her very humanizing portraits of these victims. She gave us real human beings in this work. A part of me thinks this should have been worked into a novel, a delightful Cornwell novel. But I admired its passion and willingness to step into the abyss of this controversy and put it all out there. I saw an interview in which said she was "risking her professional reputation"in this book. Well, she really isn't. It is a bit overreaching for the excellent crime novelist to think that her reputation is as a crime investigator. She is very simply one of the very best at what she does best. She writes about bad guys, brings them to justice, keeps us awake at night turning the pages, and just a wee bit nervous about what is outside the window. This book has some of that and gives us a glimpse of her as the newspaper crime writer. It also tell the story of Jack the Ripper as well as it has ever been told. And really, readers isn't that enough? She got all of you ranting and raving, yes she did, all the way to the bank. Ripper industry? Maybe. But, if you can't enjoy this book, maybe it is you, not the author taking her/himself too seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: a good read
Review: While I am not nearly as critical or disappointed as are many of the other reviewers posted here, I do find much weight and worth in what they have to say. There *are* some problems with Cornwell's examination of Sickert. She often "goes out on a limb" to use supposed and circumstantial evidence as a way to prove Sickert's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; while she prefaces or qualifies these assumptions with the fact that she and the rest of the world will never know for sure, I became irritated after a while. The book could certainly be better organized. An actual clinical analysis of Sickert would have been more helpful and perhaps would've provided stronger assurance of Sickert's actions as Jack the Ripper. But, for someone who has not read any previous books or articles examining Jack the Ripper's murders or motives prior to this, I found Ms. Cornwell's book to be interesting, challenging, and strongly suggestive of Sickert's guilt in the Ripper murders. Ms. Cornwell has found new material and some evidence (fingerprints, similar but rare paper watermarks) that she uses to support her premise that Sicker is the Ripper, along with new views on some of the more disturbing paintings and doodles that were done by or are attributed to Sickert. As a social historian, I found her attempts to put the Ripper, the police, and Sickert into their proper context wonderful detail and history. Even if Sickert never murdered anyone, the reader must admit that, at the very least, Sickert was quite an eccentric, even weird, bird whose habits (doodles, compulsive letter writing, the possible defacing of the Lizard Point hotel's guest book, etc.) and artworks were certainly evidence of a dark, pained man. Perhaps now, the truer picture of Sickert-the man, the artist, and his legacy-can be written by his biographers as a result of Ms. Cornwell's book and newly found evidence.
Rating: 
Summary: Um. . .did she want her name on this?
Review: Ms. Cornwell should've put her money to good use and hired an editor to put together this incoherent, rambling mess of a book. Even if she had indisputable evidence as outlined by her audacious title, it still wouldn't save horrible writing and appalling pacing. Her evidence consists of some DNA evidence to prove that Sickert may have written some hoax letters and some in depth analysis of painting which as a trained artist I find laughable. Her painting analysis is outrageous, as any educated art historian knows Sickert painted from photographs almost exclusively. Violence towards women is not all that uncommon among artists by Cornwell's rationale Picasso, Cezanne, Dali, DeKooning, any painter of any version of the Rape of Sabine Women, and any 17 year-old "brooding" artist could paint a picture that would make Cornwell suspicious. As for Sickert the man, yeah he was a jerk prone to outrageous behavior. However, being a jerk is less than being a murderer. About terrible behavior read a biography of Picasso's wonderful attitude towards women or Freud with his attitude towards women and obsession with sex. The point is, while art, like any other profession has its share of disreputable people, Sickert would be by no means the first person to be accused of being a less than stellar person. However, it must be said that lots of less than stellar individuals go through life without killing someone. What about some of the other suspects? Few of them are mentioned in passing and summarily dismissed. Finally, there is resonable evidence that Sickert was in France during the Whitechapel murders. Hmmmm. . not being there does pose a problem. Cornwell also neglects to mention she bought several paintings of Sickerts work, looking for her conclusive DNA evidence to tie her suspect to letters that have been dismissed as mostly hoaxes. She is rumored to have completely destroyed one (inexcusable to those who love art) and I wonder if the others are going to increase in value once her book comes out. Hmmmm. . . . Cornwell, like many Ripper slueths before her, puts the cart before the horse and wants the facts to fit her suspect. I can fully understand the desire to prove beyond a doubt your solution to one of the greatest crime mysteries in the world, but to propose this circumstantial evidence as fact and pronounce case closed is dubious at best.
Rating: 
Summary: Amazing!!
Review: This book is GREAT!! I'm a new Cornwell fan because of it. I have been somewhat interested in the "Ripper" case for years. Patricia's book has brought a dark figure into the light. Her uncanny ability to research and collect the proper data about "Ripper" never failed to amaze me as I read every page with anticipation. Miss Cornwell takes you back in time to a very real sense of the east end of London. The set-up of of the enviornment at that time creates the hunting ground for any sluth at heart to see the real story behind a mystery that is NOW solved. A must read.......
Darrin W. Owens
Rating: 
Summary: Case not closed
Review: What a disappointment - what a muddled mess. This book could never be mistaken for a scholarly analysis. Ms. Cornwall should have started with a paper published in a peer review of criminologists. But then again, she's a fiction writer with deep pockets - not a criminologist. She makes an interesting case, but destroys it with strong bias and supposition throughout the book. It seems at every point when she is describing the known facts of the case, and possibly related cases, she gets off track with baseless speculation. I began to wonder what Sickert was really like, since her portrayal was so strongly biased, I started to distrust it. Enough circumstantial evidence to bring Sickert to a Grand Jury - I doubt it. Her editor should have taken a strong hand to her manuscript. A suggestion: First describe the known events and facts. Then describe your suspect. Next, show how the circumstantial evidence connects the two. Then show how modern forensics science relates the two. Then, for fun, show how modern forensics techniques, applied 100 years ago, would have proven guilt, or not. And keep your bias out of the book. Keep to the facts, and only the facts. A very frustrating read and one I would not recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Ms. Cornwell, please stick to fiction.
Review: I admit, I have a sense for the morbid, but Cornwell has me beat by miles. This book was boring and disgusting and I can't really see why she was so compelled to write it. I hope whatever demon she had on her back has been laid to rest along with Jack the Ripper and all his "Unfortunates". It was too technical and tended to go off in all kinds of directions at one time. I couldn't tell if I was reading the same page over or if she was just repeating herself time and again. Really, she is a great writer. I love the Scarpetta series, not crazy about the Hammer series, but this stuff needs to go. Bring back Kay and chalk this one up to a waste of trees. Save your money, or if you feel you must read it, do like I did. Get it from your public library. I'll be returning my copy tomorrow.
Rating:
Summary: Case Closed - NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: I am sorry, this is nothing but sensationalism. Cornwell is being manuplitive, cashing in on the Jack the Ripper interest to push her books. It makes nice fiction, but she is off target in labelling Walter Sickert as the Ripper and borders on foolishness in saying case closed and Sickert was Jack.
If anyone bothered to see the BBC interview or read Stephen Knight's Book, you would have learned Sickert was involved in the whole mess, but she totally missed the point. Sickert was a player, a user, possibly a blackmailer - and conceivably was pointing out the targets as "Jack" hunted for Mary Kelly. But to claim 'case closed'....that is as false a claim as Sickert was the Ripper.
Rating:
Summary: patricia is doing better with this book
Review: So, Patricia might not have solved the crime. She did an excellent job of describing life in England with regard to forensics, hospitals, morgues, women on the street, etc. Reminded me of the conditions in France before the revolution. I read every page of this book and enjoyed the intensity with which Patricia wrote.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful book, but far too conclusory
Review: A little too conclusory for my taste. Shouldn't have titled it "case closed", but a wonderful book nonetheless that poses very interesting theories.
Rating:
Summary: Silly Theory
Review: Most of the positive reviews here are from fans of Cornwell's books. The low ratings are from people who are more familiar
with the complexities of the Ripper case, not to mention a few
die-hard Ripperologist's opinions as well. Anyone quite familiar with the case could immediately dismiss her claims outright. At the time of the murders Scotland Yard gave SOME credence to only one letter among hundreds received at the news agencies. This is the famous FROM HELL letter which included a piece of a kidney (may or may not have been human) which MAY have come from one of the victims. All the others were considered hoaxes by the authorities, many determined to have been created by journalists to sell copy. Thus linking Sickert to a bunch of hoaxed letters tells us zip. If any of you want to read an excellent account of the Ripper case with only primary source material (ie actual coroner reports, news articles, etc during the time of the murders) and painstaking research I highly recommend Philip Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper. This book details all the crimes from beginning to end with precise information giving you an idea of what the police were really up against.
| 
