Rating: 
Summary: Who is the real Ripper?
Review: In her book Portrait of a Killer, crime fiction novelist Patricia Cornwell claims that she has uncovered the true identity of Jack The Ripper, the madman who haunted the lives of everyone in London in the late 1800. But who was the real Ripper? His identity was never found. Only conspiracies and theories exist. Cornwell, through years of research, scientific analysis and very intelligent deductions, might have stumble upon something that is very close to the so-called truth.Walter Sickert, a somewhat renown painter of the time who died in the 1940s, is the man Cornwell accuses of being Jack the Ripper. Sickert has been one of the many men named during the course of history, and now Cornwell has tried to prove his guilt. Many of Sickert's painting bear frightening resemblances to the crime scenes and the victims themselves. The letter sent to the police and newspapers echo the things Sickert was living at the time. And Cornwell, through unduly research, can even place him at the scenes of the crime most of the time. Sickert's background is the kind that would undoubtedly help at creating a killer. What I liked about the book is that Cornwell's argument isn't one-sided. When some of her research failed, she is not afraid to say so. For example, DNA testing on a letter Sickert sent compared to that of a letter the Ripper sent were inconclusive. But many other tests Cornwell did offer some new light on the subject at hand. Was Walter Sickert Jack the Ripper? I'm not sure the book fully proves that. But it makes a very strong argument for it. The Ripper story is filled with falsities and fiction. Cornwell does erase all of it to give us the bare truth and the real facts. She goes back to each and every murder scene and analyzes them. She tries to go into Sickert's mind and show us his many mood swings, his dark personality and his abnormal behaviour. All in all, Cornwell does make her point, and quite strongly. The book is very informative and written in a very entertaining way. After a series of fiction duds, Cornwell is back full-force with this non-fiction effort.
Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting Revelations
Review: For what can be described as one of the "coldest cases" known, as far as evidence is concerned, Cornwell makes a compelling case. I read this book in four days, and could barely put it down. Some previous reviewers have made comments regarding the use of profiling in this book. Profiling has, on the whole, been a very useful tool in solving crimes. Roy Hazelwood and John Douglas are experts in the field and have been instrumental in solving some of the most violent and shocking crimes of our lifetime. The extensive research, thoughtfulness, background information and care put into this work shines through on every page. Agree with her theory or not, you cannot, once you finish this book, dismiss it out of hand. Well worth a read.
Rating: 
Summary: Dumb dumb dumb
Review: Cornwell claims she can 'prove' Sickert was the killer by comparing his handwriting with the Ripper letters, which are widely regarded as hoaxes. She also insists that to have painted his famous autopsy pictures Sickert 'must have viewed the body' as 'he never painted anything he didn't see.' Any casual student of his art is aware that Sickert painted from photographs throughout his career.
Sickert experts have also refuted Ms Cornwells claims by providing extensive documentation proving Sickert was on vacation with his family in France when the Ripper killings were taking place in London.
Cornwell should be ashamed of herself, as should anyone who concludes that Sickert was Jack the Ripper from the 'evidence' contained in this very poor, flimsy book.
Rating:
Summary: You Don't Know Jack
Review: Was Sickert really Jack the Ripper? Would it make his otherwise wretchedly muddy paintings all the more bearable? Would it make Jack the Ripper's ghastly crimes that much more amusing? After reading this book, and frankly I haven't, it seems clear that the Ripper was not Walter Sickert but Walter Winchell. Or was it Paul Winchell? I get them confused. Nevertheless, the truth is that there is more to historical inquiry, particularly art historical inquiry, than just cursory examinations of artworks which are then assimilated into the assumed truth of history. The point is, really, that I hate books. Despise them. There are just SO MANY of them. Who could read enough of them to make a dent in the Truth? Well, not me, I'll tell you that. It's for this reason that my reading mainly consists of sugar packets and the sides of cereal boxes. I don't know if Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. And for the millionth time in my life, I couldn't care less. I've been looking for other uses for books: window props, coasters, flyswatters. You get the point. People keep on writing books and people keep on buying them. It doesn't end. The writers end and the buyers end, but the books just keep flooding the earth with pulp and ink. I may buy this book at some point, when my contempt for the written word has waned. I may even read it. Or I may save the universe the trouble and burn it as soon as I buy it. Return it to the cosmos from which it came. It's the only noble thing to do, really. And aren't we all seeking a noble life, free of the Sickerts of the world?
Rating:
Summary: Case Still Open
Review: After expending a great deal of ink and, reportedly, a large amount of cash, Patricia Cornwell has succeeded in proving that some of the hoax letters purportedly written to the authorities by Jack the Ripper MAY have originated with the painter Walter Sickert. Hardly an earth-shaking discovery...hardly worth writing another book about. (Sickert was previously identified as a suspect by Stephen Knight in 1976 and by Jean Overton Fuller in 1990.) Absolutely no new evidence linking Sickert to the murders is presented. Ms Cromwell would have been better advised to save her money and our time.
Rating:
Summary: A New Low
Review: Patricia Cornwell's attempt to link Walter Sickert to the 1888 Jack the Ripper murders in London, has taken the field of Ripperology to a new low. It is typical for an author to select a candidate for Jack the Ripper and then bend the facts to fit, conveniently discarding those that can't be contorted. As example in Cornwell's case, whereas most serious students of the case believe that ALL the letters written to newspapers and the metropolitan police were from a variety of kooks and pranksters, Cornwell concludes that MOST are from Sickert. How does she reconcile the disparate handwritings? By concluding that Sickert was a master of forgery. And what does she base this conclusion upon? The variety of handwritings that the many Ripper letters demonstrate. The circularity of reasoning doesn't bother her a bit. How could it be that two or three Ripper letters were sent from differing locations in Britain with the same postmarked date? Sickert must have had people mail letters for him. And on it goes. The book is disjointed, illogical, and should convince no one actually familiar with the minutia of the Ripper case.
Rating: 
Summary: preponderance of evidence?
Review: I agree with most critics that the case Cornwell presents is less definitive than she wants us to believe. But I still find it convincing. The fact that Sickert's letter's mitochondrial DNA matches that on the Ripper's letter is a stunning piece of evidence. Even if the match still leaves .01-10% of the population that can't be excluded, it narrows the field of suspects dramatically. The Ripper used expensive paper and artists' supplies for some of his writings. Sickert titled a painting of his own bedroom "Jack the Ripper's bedroom". (Yes, I know the story that his landlady supposedly told him that a previous tenant was the Ripper, but that explanation can't be verified and seems like a very suspicious coincidence). He painted scenes of violence against women. He was appallingly insensitive and selfish to those closest to him. His sketches look very similar to many Ripper sketches. These are just a FEW of the many "coincidences" Cornwell cites. Yes, none of these are convincing in isolation, but when you put them all together the case against Sickert becomes very strong. As for the many reasons that have been cited to "prove" Sickert could not have been the Ripper, most of them are pure opinion (such as saying that certain Ripper letters that had Sickert-type DNA are hoaxes). If the Ripper had the artistic talent Cornwell asserts, it would've been easy enough for him to fake his handwriting and use many different styles of writing to confuse. One reason the Ripper was never caught was that no one of that class-conscious era could fathom an upper class, attractive, charming man committing such heinous crimes. Perhaps some of Cornwell's critics are letting their own snobbery get in the way of their common sense.
However, I do take issue with Cornwell's style. She jumps around chronologically in a confusing way, intersperses her biographical data with opinions and asides on forensics, cites facts and opinions without having laid the groundwork to help the reader understand them, and just generally does not organize the book very well. It seems hastily thrown together. I was particularly disappointed that she did not explain how or why she eliminated other suspects, and how she became so convinced that Sickert was the murderer that she subtitled the book "case closed".
Rating:
Summary: Case Closed or Fabricated?
Review: First, let's just say Cornwell needs to stick with fiction. After reading this farce I believe a novel would have been more appropriate considering the abundance of speculation and juggling of the facts. To say the least I was disappointed. From claiming Sickert's artwork gives clues and mirrors the murder scenes is just one leap of fantasy used. I really don't want to state all the issues I have here, just know that if you want revelations about the case you won't find them in this charade.
Rating:
Summary: Those dreadful words...
Review: "Case Closed". Really, you just can't throw phrases like that out there and expect to be taken seriously. Similarly, Gerald Posner claimed to have closed the JFK case, by "proving" that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Nonsense. With the Ripper case, the sheer age of the case and the questionable quality of the evidence, such as it is, makes it totally impossible to do more than make a series of educated guesses. Pat Cornwell has put forward some interesting ideas, although her non-definitive DNA "evidence" is somewhat misleading and as for handwriting "experts"... well, yeah. The most fascinating thing about the Jack The Ripper case is why it has been so compelling for so many people. If the case really did only consist of five murders, in a city in which all human life was cheap, especially among the poor, why should it have taken on such an enduring mystique? Apart from the favoured-by-some Royal Conspiracy theories, one of the most unique elements in the JTR murders was the incremental level of violence that the killer used. By the final murder, in which the greatest level of mutilation was employed, Jack had played himself out in terms of his ability to layer more horror on the police and townsfolk of Whitechapel. Sickert could have easily been the Ripper. Yet, any one of a dozen suspects could have done it, either singly or with an accomplice. While reading Cornwell's book, the most chilling thought that occured to me was that virtually ANYBODY could have been the killer. We will never know why the Ripper killed those apparently innocent women, or why he used a mind-boggling level of mutilation on the fifth victim. What we can be sure of is that given sufficient cause, most people could unleash similar violence on a "deserving" party. I have only experienced this unparalleled hatred for an enemy once in my life, when I was being hounded by a sadistic Collection Agency (they are ALL sadistic). At the peak of the harassment, I know completely that I would definitely have used a Ripper-level of violence and brutality against certain individuals, had they appeared in front of me, instead of hiding behind a false Desk Name, at the other end of a telephone. In dehumanizing me, they dehumanized themselves. This then, is perhaps the key to understanding our fascination with this unfettered use of violence. Whether the Ripper was a misogynist, a contract killer employed by the Royals, a deranged psychopath or whatever, he carried out a short series of violent acts that seemed to wound the fabric of Time itself. More than anything, he showed us the Dark Side that lurks in too many people. Perhaps all people. Just waiting to be triggered. Just waiting to bring Him back, from Hell. No, the case is not closed, and it never will be.
Rating:
Summary: DON"T GET THIS BOOK
Review: This is an amateurishly written badly organized mess of a book. The author should either avoid non fiction or get a ghost writer. I don't know if the authors theory on the rippers identity is a good one or not as she made such a mess of presenting her facts. If she is correct hopefully someone will come along and do a better job of presenting the theory. I'm propably being overly harsh but this was a huge disappointment as I had high expectations of this book based on the authors reputation. If you must read this book get it from the library don't pay for it, it's not worth the money.
| 
