Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Book But One HUGE Omission
Review: I just finished an advance of this book and, despite the circumstancial case Cornwell makes for Sickert being the Ripper, she doesn't address one key issue that keeps nagging at me. Throughout the study, Cornwell points to Walter Sickert's true guilt manifesting itself through the graphic depictions within his art, particularly the physical similarities between the prostitutes' mutilated bodies and his disfigured portraits of women. There are other interesting points to her thesis, such as a watermark on stationary (no distribution figures are offered nor is there any indication of the stationary's popularity) and a partial mitochondrial DNA match taken from a stamp (the researchers admit to the latter being potentially coincidental given the number of DNA combinations present). First off, I'm no Cornwell debunker or Sickert scholar so I could really care less who's right or wrong over this one, although I admit the book's subtitle "Case Closed" is misleading to say the least. But I DO know my rare books. And I know that a book by Alexandre Lacassagne entitled "Vacher l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques" was published in Paris in 1899, just one year after Sickert moved there to live and about six years before his "Ripper" paintings began to appear. Anyway, Lacassagne's work was a somewhat sensationalist book detailing the case of Joseph Vacher, a frenchman convicted and put to death in 1898 for the rape and murder of at least eleven women near Tournon. In one of the text's appendices, there is a chapter dealing with similar sadistic crimes, one of which is the Whitechapel/ Jack the Ripper killings. The crucial point is this: Lacassagne's book contains the first published photographs of two of the Ripper's victims: the gruesome bedroom photo of Mary Kelly and the morgue photo of Catherine Eddowes. Cornwell reiterates the point made by several prior researchers, that the photos did not appear in print until 1972 but this is not true. And this book is published in Paris exactly one year after Sickert arrives, a man who is profiled--by Cornwell and others--as being fascinated by criminality and sensationalism. Given the horrible impact of these photos, that can turn your stomach 100 years later, isn't it conceivable that these would have been distributed and possibly reprinted in various sources, especially Parisian newspapers and periodicals? How could they not be? Even more striking is the fact that these are the EXACT two killings that Cornwell points to again and again as evidence of his guilt in his art. Does she not find it odd that the Sickert paintings often contain the same angle and viewpoint of the victim as the crime-scene photos, i.e. the slanted right profile of Eddowes and the left side of the bed for Mary Kelly? Added to this is the fact, admitted in the book, that Sickert often worked from photographs or recollections of photographs. Sorry, but the fact that they failed to even acknowledge that photos of the crime scenes were published and circulated seventy years before the date quoted (1972) makes me wonder what else they overlooked and/or suppressed. One has to wonder.What's more, it's downright embarrassing how ignorant Cornwell appears to be with regard to the trends and common practices of 19th century art and artists. If you're going to form your central thesis around the notion of "violent art = violent artist", then surely Goya MUST be guilty of dismemberment ("This Is Worse") and eating his own children ("Saturn") and likewise, even Cornwell herself MUST be guilty of murdering the real-life equivalents of those in her novels. Sickert, an arrogant misogynist? Yes. Jack the Ripper? Perhaps . . . but just perhaps. Still, an entertaining read. Just read it critically.
Rating: 
Summary: Approach This Book with an Open Mind
Review: I don't like the pompous title and I don't like Cornwell's tendency to use phrases such as "heartwrenching" and "in shambles". But that's the end of my criticism. This is a fascinating book, my first exposusre to Cornwell, but not my last. To the repeated assertions on these web pages that the Ripper letters are "known to be hoaxes," I say that 110-plus years of repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Cornwell ACKNOWLEDGES that the letters are almost universally considered to be hoaxes; her theory is that they are NOT. Her theory may be wrong; most Ripper theories are wrong, since they cancel each other out. But her case is as convincing as anyone's, and makes a darned good book. The tendency of the 19th-century police to dismiss evidence is chillingly like the same tendency now. Perhaps Sickert even had a normal sex organ and a normal sex life; that does not mean he was not violently misogynistic, as his art indicates. That's a common failing. You can find it in these "reviews."
Rating:
Summary: Patricia Cornwell tries to close the case of Jack the Ripper
Review: Ripperologists have a passion that rivals that of Talmudic scholars and an ability to savage any position that runs counter to their own. Therefore, it is not surprising that Patricia Cornwell's attempt to close the case of Jack the Ripper would be met with disdain, hostility, and outright invective. Of course Cornwell claim that the artist William Sickert was Jack the Ripper is open to debate. We need to remember that EVERYTHING involving this case is open to debate. One of the initial decisions you have to make in trying to reason out the real identity of the Ripper is to determine who his victims were. Even the acceptance of the canonical five (Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Kelly) is a basic assumption that is easily called into question. Stride and Eddows were both killed the same night; Strides body was not mutilated, the assumption being the killer was interrupted. The horrible mutilation to Eddows' face is assumed to be because the Ripper was enraged that he had been interrupted in his first killing. But what if Eddows had not been killed? Would we still assume Stride was a victim of the Ripper? If Eddows had been the sole victim that night what motivation would we have ascribed to her mutilation? Any and all assumptions made to deduce the Ripper's identity are debatable. For most people familiar with this case the most astounding part of Cornwell's case against Sickert is the argument that he wrote MOST of the Ripper letters. The assumption has always been that only one or two of the letters might have been real, so Cornwell is making a radical argument in this regard. Ultimately this is the strongest part of Cornwell's case, especially given her repeated observation that these letters are confessions as far as the law is concerned. Given the prolific number of letters Sickert wrote to newspapers in his life, it would not be farfetched that he would do the same thing as the Ripper. The other key part of Cornwell's argument is the psychological profile of Sickert. The problem is that this is more of a premise in the book than a cogently laid out argument, with bits and pieces scattered throughout the book. I think the problem is more organizational than argumentation and I would have appreciated a more clinical presentation of the profile. The weakest part of Cornwell's case is also her strongest. Cornwell dredges up everything from Sickert's life and work that she can use to pin these crimes on the artist (e.g., suggesting an unopened letter by his first wife given to her sister contained suspicions Sickert was the Ripper) and there will be times when you think she is pushing it. But the sheer volume of accusations is such that you have to be open to the possibility that some of them are valid. From an argumentative standpoint, she does not have to be right on ALL of these accusations to prove her point; she only needs to be right on some of them. One of the things that makes me think Cornwell might be right are the argument raised against her thesis. Cornwell repeatedly points out that she does not have "hard" proof of Sickert's guilt, so pointing out the inconclusiveness of her DNA matches is irrelevant. Yes, there is evidence that Sickert was in France during some of the killings, but Cornwell deals specifically with the problems of that evidence (Sickert claimed to be in France with friends who were no longer there, etc.). To be fair, it is hard to make substantial arguments against Cornwell's case in the context of a review limited to 1000 words, but you still have to deal with the specific points she raises. In the end Cornwell rests her case on an accumulation of coincidences sufficient enough to have Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve and an expert on the Jack the Ripper crimes to endorse her conclusion by saying he would be happy to put the case before the crown prosecutor. One of the other things that works against "Portrait of a Killer" is that Cornwell uses more of a disjointed narrative structure than an argumentative one. The six murders that Cornwell ascribes to Jack the Ripper serve as a basic chronology for the book, but interwoven are chapters devoted to various parts of Walter Sickert's life that are unstuck in time. At one point I was convinced that maybe an editor had decided to rearrange these chapters and that I might be able to put all of them in a more traditional chronological order. With each of the murders Cornwell provides the main details and then talks about the limitations of forensic medicine at that time in contrast to what could be done today. "Portrait of a Killer" would work better if it were divided into a section that looks at the murders and then another making the case against Sickert. The book is illustrated with tinted autopsy pictures of the Ripper's five canonical victims, including one of the horrible human wreckage of Mary Kelly. Cornwell uses these images, not only as a way of remembering the victims, but usually with the additional goal of showing how they are reflected in Sickert's artwork. Certainly the book would have been enhanced by more reproductions of the various works by Sickert that Cornwell alludes to in making her case. As it is, the key examples here have to do with the Ripper letters, the Lizard House guest book, and sketches known to be by Sickert. Despite the presentational problems, "Portrait of a Killer" is going to be required reading for Ripperologists, all of whom will make of it what they will. Just be sure to read it before you dismiss it (or diss it). This is not something akin to the creative fantasy of Alan Moore's "From Hell."
Rating: 
Summary: The mystery will never be solved...
Review: When I heard that the author spent a bit of a personal fortune researching this novel using modern forensic science, which included DNA testing, and investigative techniques I thought that after a 114 years the case might actually be solved. Boy, was I wrong. The problems that relate to this author's investigation are: the case files are 114 years old and after all these years so many have critical documents [like original autopsy reports] are missing, there isn't any physical crime scene evidence or physical evidence from bodies (like blood samples, hair fibers) to prove anything conclusively, and while it is true that an envelope does have the ripper's fingerprints there aren't any prints from the author's suspect, the german artist Walter Sickert, to compare against for a positive match. The DNA testing does provide the possibility that the ripper could have been Sickert, but fails to prove anything else otherwise conclusively. All the author really has to go on is handed down second hand accounts of Sickert (friends and relatives memoirs) and the ripper letters. The problem with the accounts is people's memories can be fallable; a group of people can all experience the same scenario and write down their thoughts afterwards and there's a good chance that all of them will remember something differently. People will add details, leave details out, or modify details when writing memoirs. The author does prove somewhat that Sickert could have been the author of the ripper letters, but she even fails to do this conclusively. I only have a 65-70% conviction that Sickert wrote those letters and in the end the argument "just because he wrote the letters doesn't make him the murderer" prevails. Some people believe that in fact the ripper didn't write any of the letters and all were hoaxes. It is possible that people who were witnesses to the crime scenes and gawking at the bodies could have pranked the police with the letters trying to take credit for the killer's work. It sounds absurd, but if you take it into consideration then the author doesn't have anything at all to argue her case. With a lack of any physical evidence (aside from the ripper letters and the memoirs) the author doesn't have any backing of empirical evidence to prove her case. In the end you have a book constrewd of nothing but inconclusive and purely speculative theorizing. Don't bother reading this book because the case is not solved (it probably never will be) and the mystery lives on...
Rating:
Summary: "Ripper" not a "barnburner""
Review: What's not to like? Murder fans' favorite unidentified serial killer and America's bestselling crime novelist together at last? Who could resist such a pairing! I read the much-anticipated latest from Patricia Cornwell with a great deal of disappointment. The style is tangential (or the organization of the material just escapes me); the evidence to support Sickert's guilt is compelling, but doesn't make for a good read, interspersed as it is with Ms. Cornwell's insistent speculation about his behavior and the meaning/connection of events. There is no tension in this book and, despite her success as a novelist, Ms. Cornwell is neither a forensic pathologist or a psychiatrist--how does she become such an expert on the evidence, then? And where is Kay Scarpetta when we need her most?
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: Sadly this book goes nowhere. After the first few chapters in which Ms Cornwell attempts to make her case the book becomes a boring restatement of the premise. The book should have been no more than a 50 page magazine article. Ms. Cornwell should have saved the millions of dollars she spent on this project and donated it to something more worthy.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell does injustice to her subject
Review: Cornwell's book, as can be seen by a quick look at the posted reviews,has done a sloppy job of examining the Jack the Ripper case. Those in search of better and more imaginative work on the Ripper case should look to From Hell by Alan Moore and The Complete Jack the Ripper by Donald Rumblelow. Moore's From Hell shows a much deeper insight into the English culture surrounding the Ripper slayings and Rumblelow's book has a much better collection of reliable facts. Cornwell would've done better to have written another cookbook; it would've cost her less money.
Rating: 
Summary: Amazing!...
Review: I love this book and have become a NEW Patricia Cornwell fan. The "Ripper" case has sparked my interest for years. Now a long awaited work like Patricia's book is a sight for sore eyes. "Portrait of a Killer" is grounded in it's information, not to mention making a hell of alot of sense. With the kind of time and money that Miss Cornwell put into this project i'm not surprised if she spent a past life on this very case....in some form. READ THIS....Truly the "Ripper" case is Closed.
Rating:
Summary: Poor - at best.
Review: A poorly written account of an interesting subject. The editor should be ashamed at letting this one go to the presses. All of the "evidence" is circumstantial at best - and more precisely; ridiculous. The only value this book can be said to have, is a interesting link between Sickert and one of the hoaxed Ripper letters. Don't waste your time or money.
Rating:
Summary: Quite simply a farce
Review: Tosh! What an arrogant book. Ms Cornwell claims to solve the Jack the Ripper case, "case closed" the book jacket screams yet alas the contents are preposterously wide of the mark. There are some very silly Ripper books out there, what with the Royal Conspiracy fantasies and the Maybrick diary forgery, and this book will quietly join their ranks. Cornwell claims to have blown six million dollars on her quest, which puts me in the mind of the movie "Local Hero" where the locals band together to fleece an outsider. Has this happened to Cornwell? There are so many problems with this book I hardly know where to start. Most basic is her insistence that the Ripper letters were indeed written by the Ripper, which no other expert on the letters agrees with. She finds that most of the crank letters were in fact written by Walter Sickert and hence he is the Ripper. Trouble is the letters appear to have been written by many many hands (there are over 210 letters kept by the police) yet Cornwell claims to discern Sickert's hand in well over a hundred of them! Why? Well she can tell by the language...oh and the different handwriting? Well multiple personality types can write in many different handwritings! Fact is she never makes the case that even one single Ripper letter was in fact written by the actual killer. She makes the leap then assumes the leap is a fact. Sorry but it isn't. So even if she were to prove that Walter Sickert did in fact write any of these crank letters she still hasn't proven anything beyond the fact that Sickert might enjoy writing crank letters... But this only skims the surface of what is wrong with this book. A great deal of her "case" seems to be a very philistine reading of what art is. Sickert painted some grusome scenes therefore he must be a killer. Again what simple minded nonsense. I haven't been mugged by Martin Scorsese lately and he certainly made some violent movies. Sickert experts have demolished her readings of the paintings as well as cast doubt on whether he was even in England on the dates of the murders! Truth be told this is a rather sloppy, if expensive, libel of a decent artist. Let's hope if nothing else all the hoopla will renew interest in Sicket's paitings... The thinking is this book is so sloppy yet so arrogantly assured that it gives one pause as to Cornwell's other endeavors outside of her fiction (she claims to have founded a forensic institute). Frankly an embarassment that should soon find its way to remainder bins.
| 
