Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed

Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed
Review: Even though the writing style seems a bit unorganized, I found the actual information very interesting. Cornwell uses every scrap of evidence possible building her case to prove that the artist, Walter Sickert, was Jack the Ripper. I was very impressed by the obvious energy spent in researching all the finer details, such as, the water marks found on the various papers, details in Sickert's paintings, and outlining what facts would have been brought into focus back in that point in time. And while most won't be happy until a bloody knife is found, I do believe this book is worthy of serious review.

Rating:
Summary: And the walls keep tumbling down ...
Review: I bought "Portrait of A Killer," read it all, and was disappointed that it failed to live up to its own hype. But it's still a fascinating account of how Patricia Cornwell became yet another victim of the international Rubik's Cube known as "Who was Jack the Ripper?" She seems to have taken up some other people's theories without seriously questioning their conclusions because, after all, those people were Experts! But even an expert doesn't know everything, especially things that exist outside their own field of expertise. Here's an example. When Cornwell says that Sickert's art contains proof of his guilt, she's referring to the fact that some of his paintings contain elements which seem to echo photographs of two Ripper victims, specifically the morgue photo of Catherine Eddowes and the bedroom photo of Mary Kelly. Cornwell also claims that these photographs never appeared in print until 1972 and so, for many years, the only people who knew exactly how these women looked after death were the police and their killer.

Oh, really? Academic librarian James Bunnelle has posted a reader review at Barnes and Noble that describes a book called "Vacher l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques" by Alexandre Lacassagne, which was published in 1899. Among other ghastly attractions, it contains the first published photographs of victims murdered by Jack the Ripper, namely-you guessed it!-the morgue photo of Catherine Eddowes and the bedroom photo of Mary Kelly. Now let's see here: (a) Sickert was a news freak who was fascinated by criminality and sensationalism, (b) he often worked from photographs, and (c) he was fluent in French and moved to France a year before Lacassagne's book was published in Paris. (Can you say "reasonable doubt"?) There's a good reason why real historians don't publish wild claims until they can survive an annoying little thing called "peer review" ... namely the critical response that this book is now receiving. Read it at your library.

Rating:
Summary: Vivid and interesting, but not enough connecting evidence
Review: If you were an egotistical serial killer who wrote letters to the press, you might be tempted to conceal your name in a pseudonym but without giving away your identity. So try this:
1. Take the name "Walter Sickert"
2. Remove the initials he used (W. St.) and 'l' for luck to get "ater icker"
3. Put a 'J' in front and move the 'ck' to make 'Jackter ier'
4. Now add an 'h' and 'pp' and change the spacing: 'Jack the ripper'

So by replacing only 4 letters and moving 2, 'Walter Sickert' can be transformed into 'Jack the Ripper'. Pretty coincidental I would think!

However, like Cornwell's book this observation only suggests that Sickert wrote a number of the Ripper letters not that he was the actual Ripper.

I enjoyed Cornwell's book and it provided a vivid and interesting account of the dark side of London in the 1880s. She provides a lot of evidence that Sickert wrote letters as the Ripper, that he painted pictures to do with the Ripper, and that he might fit the profile of a serial killer. She may even have all the proof necessary to conclude that Sickert was the Ripper. However I don't believe that her arguments and the evidence presented in this book are sufficient to warrant the heading 'Case Closed'.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting but very unconvincing
Review: Patricia Cornwell tries hard to separate herself from the usual run of Ripper books. And, she has some interesting conclusions to offer: usage of DNA testing on possible Ripper letters and the introduction of a possible new bit of evidence with the guest book of an inn in Cornwall.

However, none of it is all that convincing. Her DNA testing may show that Sickert actually wrote a hoax letter, but it's a long step from there to calling him Jack the Ripper. The watermark evidence is interesting, but not conclusive at all. Her art analysis shows that Sickert was interested in death, nothing more.

Ultimately, there are a number of independent sources that place Sickert in France during September of that year, quite possibly including all of October.

Much of this seems to be the case of someone picking a suspect and doing their best to prove he was the one, rather than reviewing all of the information available.

Rating:
Summary: Puzzled by the Reviews
Review: I found the reactions of some of the other reviewers of Cornwell's book puzzling. I had never read a Cornwell book before this one, but I heard her interviewed about the book several months ago, and I was fascinated by her discussion. I vowed at that time I would buy the book as soon as it came out, and I did. I found her main premise interesting, but what I really enjoyed about the book was her depiction of the Victorian era, in particular the place of women in that society. Ms. Cornwell had obviously done quite a lot of research into the historical period, as well as into the particulars of the crime. And as she herself admits, with most of the evidence from the crime scenes themselves destroyed long ago, sometimes before the police at the time could even make a thorough investigation, it's difficult at best to make a positive claim; however, she has used the techniques we now have available to link Walter Sickert without a doubt to the Ripper through letters, through his art work, and through his general character. Criminals today have certainly gone to jail based on such circumstantial evidence. And since all the witnesses are dead, I suppose no one will ever be able to definitively prove Sickert's guilt or innocence. Readers certainly don't have to agree with her, but Ms. Cornwell certainly makes a fascinating case.

Rating:
Summary: "A worthy read !"
Review: I liked this story and I usually enjoy most of the books written by Ms. Cornwell. One thing for certain, she is definately a stickler for facts and detail. "Portriate of a Killer," by Patricia Cornwell is a worthy read !

Rating:
Summary: Do your research before you accept this as truth
Review: Patricia Cornwell should stick to fiction as legitimate historical scholarship defeats her, her matter of fact claims are based on opinion not tangible evidence. The fact she spent six million dollars buying expert opinion to fit her opinions shows, I recommend anyone interested in her book visit the ... website for a balanced view...

Rating:
Summary: Nice try, but...
Review: Patricia Cornwell falls far short of the claims of her title. Her "proof" is circumstantial evidence at best, and, like most Ripper investigators anxious to promote their pet candidate, she conveniently ignores or dismisses any evidence to the contrary (in this case, most notably the evidence that Sickert wasn't even in England at the time of several of the murders). Add to this her strange and unhelpful habit of "quoting" only one word at a time from her sources, giving no useful context whatsoever, and you have a very disappointing book. (Such quoting practices would never be allowed in even a school term paper, and should certainly never have been allowed in an internationally distributed book. Cornwell should have known better.) I've read much of the Ripper literature out there, and this effort does little to solve the mystery. Though her descriptions of Victorian England are interesting and informative, Cornwell also inserts herself into the book in a way that is both distracting and appears to be sheer propaganda for herself as a (fiction)writer. In the end, the book is a somewhat interesting read, but nearly useless in solving any crime at all.

Rating:
Summary: Don't Bother
Review: I love Patricia Cornwell's novels, but this book is boring! It's page after page of conjecture, no suspense, no pacing, no interesting characters. It reads like a college term paper. Frankly I'm sorry I wasted my money.

Rating:
Summary: Not all that convincing
Review: When I picked this book up I thought that it would be fascinating, if a tad morbid, to learn a bit about the Ripper murders. After slogging through Cornwell's book however all I feel is certain is that there isn't actually much left to know. Little to no evidence is left to examine, police reports and other key papers have long since disappeared, and forensic examination performed by the doctors and policeman was woefully insufficient to build any kind of case against a suspect. Yet Cornwell persists in arguing that Walter Sickert, a painter and student of Whistler, was the true identity of Jack the Ripper. She sounds definite in her opinion, but I fail to see how such specious reasoning could convince anyone else. All in all 'Portrait of a Killer' is an unsatisfying read. The reader comes away with scant information about the killings other than that it was a forensic nightmare, and no more of an idea who Jack the Ripper was than they had when they began the book.