Rating: 
Summary: fascinating version of the Ripper case
Review: When this reviewer realized that Patricia Cornwell had written a nonfiction work focused on solving the cold case of the Ripper, the initial thought was "just what the world needs, another solve the Ripper Case'. Immediately after that idea came the thought that if anyone could do it Patricia Cornwell can and started reading the book only to find out it is so well written and fascinating, that it impossible to put down until the last page is turned. She and her team applied modern day forensic techniques and crime scene methodology, and historical sleuthing to determine whom Jack the Ripper was. Several tons of documents and other physical evidence such as fingerprints, photographs, museum paintings, fine arts accouterments, and even DNA, etc. were evaluated. Using the assumption that Jack remained free and still operated after his several month killing spree in 1888, Ms. Cornwell follows the paths of the prime suspects and looks at police blotters near where they lived. This concerted effort led to Ms. Cornwell to declare unequivocally that Jack the Ripper is none other than: read the book. PORTRAIT OF A KILLER: JACK THE RIPPER CASE CLOSED is a fascinating version of the Ripper case and the chronicle of how Ms. Cornwell and her team step by step drew their conclusion. The key to this true crime account is not the final claim though that is appealing, but the powerfully interesting nonfiction elucidation that hooks the reader to follow along as if Dr. Scarpetta was working the crime scene. Ms. Cornwell shows she could rule the true crime genre if she permanently switched fields perhaps to try to uncover the identity of Deep Throat next. Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: amazing
Review: As a huge fan of Cornwell's, it went without saying that I would purchase this book on the day of it's release. I've read all of her stuff. And loved it all. She is truly the greatest crime novelist of our time. I've always been fascinated with the Ripper case. I've read several books on the matter, seen a few related movies, etc. But never have I read a book that essentially solves the case. Using modern technology, she examined all the evidence and literally solved the crime of the century. After reading this book, there is no doubt in my mind to the identity of the Ripper.
Rating: 
Summary: Coulda Shoulda Woulda
Review: I have never read any other Patricia Cornwell book and doubt if I will do so. Even if Walter Sickert really was Jack the Ripper, I'd have to acquit him if Patricia Cornwell was the prosecuting attorney in his trial; she does not prove her case so much as hammer her preconceived notions into your head with a truncheon. Ms. Cornwell has intense dislike for Walter Sickert. This is not surprising, since Sickert does not seem to have been a good man; he was a bad husband and an eccentric who did not paint pretty models.
Cornwall's statement that Sickert was the Ripper is stated at least once in every chapter. She rules out all other suspects and vows to 'clear their names'. The theory that Sickert painted his victims is intruiging but Cornwell has very little actual evidence tying Sickert to the murders. He liked to walk around the East End and go to music halls. Therefore he 'could have' met the Ripper's victims. And every murder committed in the British Isles at that time was the work of the Ripper, or Sickert. No one else in the country appears to have been a psychopath, despite Cornwell's assertion that 4% of the population is psychopathic.
All extant 'Ripper letters' are accepted as genuine by Ms. Cornwell. I can't believe that none of them were written by cranks and wannabees who claimed then, as they do now, to be the perpetrators of the latest atrocity. The handwriting in the letters varies? Cornwell's answer: Sickert disguised his handwriting. No evidence of Sickert having a talent for this art is ever offered. It is all conjecture. That is the nicer word. The use of artists' materials to write some of the letters is her one solid piece of evidence. How about a chemical analysis of the 'etching ground' found on a Ripper letter with one of Sickert's etchings?
Cornwell pads the length of the book by wandering off on tangents to give the reader histories of the Bertillon system, or a digression on papermaking and watermarks. Some of the paper in the Ripper letters matches some paper Sickert used. Are we to believe that the papermakers only sold materials to one person in the city of London? We are told that Sickert was so good at disguising himself that he went unrecognized by his own family when a child. This is mentioned once then never referred to again, though it would seem to be a matter that is worth investigating. But we only have Cornwell's assertion that this is the case; there are no footnotes.
The most specious associations are important to Ms. Cornwell. Is it really significant that a painted sun in one of Sickert's paintings from 1932 "is almost identical to the one etched in glass over the front door" of a pub where a murdered woman 'usually' could be found in 1907? This is twisting the arm of coincidence until it dislocates. Or bending facts to suit your theories.
Sickert kept 'bolt holes' to which he would remove at a moment's notice, telling no one where he was going, and was excellent at disguising himself. This description would apply eually well to the fictional character Sherlock Holmes. I wonder why Ms. Cornwell hasn't investigated any ties between Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Walter Sickert? This would be about as significant as some of the other associations in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: The Principle Figure In A Pageant Of Massacre?
Review: Patricia Cornwell's investigation into whether British painter Walker Sickert was in fact also infamous murderer Jack the Ripper has been fascinating to follow in the media over the last year. As the essence of any good investigation is clear, accurate perception, precision, and a rigorous search for the facts and truth by objective methods, it is by these standards that Cornwell's book must be considered. The author has accumulated an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence against Sickert, but Portrait of a Killer is amateurishly written, sloppily executed, and poorly edited. For a famous crime writer, Cornwell has produced a weak book unlikely to stand up to scrutiny or survive the brunt of attacks by Ripperologists the world over, written as it has been for the uncritical light reader. Every facet of Portrait of a Killer seems rushed, as though Cornwell wrote with little consideration for structure and then submitted the manuscript without rereading, rewriting, or thinking it through as a whole. The awkward title alone suggests Cornwell's hesitations: 'Portrait of a Killer / Jack The Ripper / Case Closed.' Why not 'Walter Sickert: Portrait of a Killer,' or 'Walter Sickert: Jack The Ripper?' Why the reservation about damning her subject in the title, as she does so heartily in the text? For Cornwell damns Sickert before she's made her case, and from the first page. She immediately refers to Sickert as a killer as if this were an objective fact, and as a 'psychopath,' a phrase she bandies about loosely and without proper definition throughout the book. By contemptuously referring to his rented East End studios as 'ratholes' upon their first mention, Cornwell makes her biases entirely clear. As a result, Sickert's habit of long walks become 'obsessive walks,' and his love of walking at night becomes evidence of his psychopathology, when night walking was also the habit of Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, Paul Bowles, Walt Whitman, Thoreau, and Charles Baudelaire. Sickert's penchant for watching and studying people is also interpreted as a sign of his predatory madness, rather than as an attribute common to most visual artists, actors, and writers - to say nothing of detectives and crime writers. Describing a poem sent to the police and signed 'Jack the Ripper' which she believes was written by Sickert, Cornwell describes the poem's rhymes as "not those of an illiterate or deranged person." Since she believes Sickert was a "psychopath," by what criteria was he a "psychopath" but not a "deranged person?" Cornwell says of the broken, middle-aged Sickert, "He subsisted in filth and chaos. He was a slob and he stank," but on the next page states, "he traversed the surface of life as a respectable, intellectual gentleman." The same easy logic the author uses to turn the lights on Sickert could be used on anyone, at anytime. Cornwell has been obsessed with and made a career of criminal behavior, death, and murder herself; by her own what - makes - madness equation, shouldn't she explain her own morbid preoccupations to the reader? In light of the many sound accomplishments found here, it's unfortunate how many errors in judgement Cornwell has made, especially if "staking her career" on this volume as she says she is. Sickert is portrayed on any number of pages as manipulative, bizarre, cunning, misogynistic, treacherous, desperate for attention, and dangerously arrogant - Cornwell states these are facts about his character - but provides almost no sources for her information, when this should have been scrupulously documented. The worst others have to say about Sickert comes to almost nothing. Under oath, former teacher Whistler says, "Walter has a treacherous side to his character," his first wife's sister, who clearly disliked Sickert, perhaps with good reason, says "they cannot know what he really is as you do," and Clive Bell refers to him a man of "no standards." In exaggerated fashion, Cornwell calls Sickert a "master of disguise" - a master, not just an afficionado - but again provides no sources. Viewing early drawings by Sickert-or, she admits, perhaps drawn by his father-Cornwell believes she already sees clear evidence of a woman-hater and a violent, disturbed mind. But when the reader refers to these drawings, the figures are hardly more than stick figures; one male figure Cornwell ominously perceives as "about to spring" at a defenseless woman looks more like a hemorrhoid sufferer hesitantly lowering himself onto a cold toilet. Yet two Ripper letters containing drawings obviously done by a talented hand are called "crude." An in-profile caricature of a woman is said to have "an ugly mole" on the nose, but the "mole" is clearly just an oversized, if still unsightly, nostril. Readers will get the sense that one thing Cornwell isn't is a visual artist, a race she seems to have little understanding of or sympathy with. Sickert's relationships with his wives is barely touched upon until the end, and what first wife Ellen thought about her husband, whom she loved until her death, is never made clear. Since Cornwell believes Sickert was impotent all his life and perhaps left without a penis after three traumatic childhood surgeries, the reader should know a great deal about his marital life, and what his wives felt about marrying a man only to discover a eunuch in their honeymoon beds. Cornwell, in sadly PC fashion, quotes her mentor Dr. Marcella Fierro as saying "a woman has the right to walk around naked and not be raped or murdered." In the theoretical and idealized Garden of Eden of liberalism, that certainly may be the case. Reality, again, is something else. Cornwell embarrasses herself by stooping so low to make an unnecessary case for the Ripper's desperate, tragic victims. The author should have spent several more years on this book and then written a scholarly, definitive account of her presently unfinished investigation. Why the rush to publication? Cornwell's errors and misjudgements throughout will only raise powerful doubts about her methods and conclusions, and prejudice the reader against the more solid fruits of her labor.
Rating:
Summary: fantastic non-fiction start to finish
Review: Being a huge Dr. Kay Scarpetta fan, I was at first hesitant to purchase Patricia Cornwell's first venture into non-fiction. Boy am I glad I changed my mind. This is the best book I have read in years. Being a fiction mystery and thriller fan at heart, this book has changed my hesitancy to read non-fiction forever. This book is exciting and hard to put down from page 1 to the very last sentence. Not only does Patricia Cornwell present you with overwhelming circumstantial evidence as to who Jack the Ripper was, but she gives you extensive background about London in the 1880's, the Victorian mindset at that time, the abilities and inabilities of the local police and Scotlad Yard to effectively investigate these crimes. The writing is so descriptive and detailed that you progressive from one mental picture to another easily. The circumstantial evidence that that has been discovered by Patricia Cornwell and her team of experts will have you convinced of who the real Jack the Ripper was within the first fifty pages, but the volume of evidence just grows and grows to the very end. This is a must read for all Patricia Cornwell fans and will become her most famous and most enjoyed book to date, even for fiction buffs like myself.
Rating:
Summary: jack the ripper - still an industry
Review: A book claiming to reveal the true identity of the legendary Jack the Ripper , by one of the leading crime writers in the world , is always going to hit the bestsellerlists and Patricia's editors must have realized this when they gave this book the go-ahead. Who cares if the thing is badly written ( its amazing Patricia Cornwell is a bestselling author at all) and the case poorly researched (convicting someone by looking at his paintings ? That's what they do in Iran , no ?) Just publish it in time for christmas, sit back and relax.
Really , any hope of suspension is immediately destroyed by all these (fatal) flaws. Check Amazon.com for better Ripper books.
Rating:
Summary: Not Proven!
Review: Caveat emptor! This book does not, once and for all, solve the mystery of the Ripper's identity. In fact, the arguments made in support of the guilt of Cornwell's suspect do not even make out a convincing case that she is on the right track. There can be few more damning allegations than to accuse someone of being one of the most notorious, sadistic and misogynistic serial killers of all time. When such claims were made during the accused's lifetime, he (or she) was at least able in theory to offer a defense. But long after the Ripper's death, dozens and dozens of suspects have been offered up by authors with varying degrees of objectivity, integrity, honesty and fairness. In all those cases, the counter-arguments had to be made by others who had studied the reports of the crimes, and who often succeeded in discrediting the new theory. But permanent damage to the reputations of many perfectly peaceful and respectable members of England's citizenry was done, as they would forever be linked in the minds of some with ghastly brutal mutilation murders because of irresponsible speculations. Thus, anyone approaching the case after almost a century of mostly armchair sleuthing and conjecture, should be on notice that pointing a finger unswervingly at a contemporary of the crimes is not an endeavor to be undertaken lightly. Rather, humility, intellectual honesty, and an openness to evidence that may contradict a working hypothesis are vital. None of those qualities are in abundance in this book. Despite a long-standing fascination with serial killers, Cornwell apparently was completely unfamiliar with the Ripper case until a chance encounter with a senior Scotland Yard official who directed her attention to Walter Sickert, a well-known painter, as someone worth further study (even though he had previously been named as one of a trio of Rippers as part of the Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory most recently featured in the movie From Hell, and, over a decade ago, by Jean Overton Fuller, as the lone butcher in her book, Sickert and the Ripper Crimes.) That suggestion prompted Cornwell to spend a year and a half, and, according to press reports, $6 million of her own money, to study Sickert and establish his guilt. Her proof consists, in essence, of: 1) some inconclusive DNA evidence that cannot be linked to Sickert or the actual killer; 2) evidence that Sickert used stationery that was also used by some of the cranks who wrote to the police claiming to be the killer; 3) her interpretation of Sickert's paintings as proof that he was obsessed with the Ripper. She only weakens these already tenuous contentions by spending time arguing points such as that Sickert was probably the killler because his friend Whistler used the phrase "ha ha," and so did some of the letters ostensibly from the Ripper. (She also finds significance in the fact that Sickert liked the word "fools", a term that also appears in some of the Ripper letters.) None of this is actual proof of anything that implicates Sickert. Whether he was a moral paragon or not, he does not deserve to have his memory tarnished by unsupported charges. Despite its author's celebrity, this is not a serious work of true crime, and adds nothing of merit to the ongoing debate about the Whitechapel murderer.
Rating:
Summary: Perfection from Cornwell, as expected!
Review: This book is throughly researched and,as usual, written with both clinical and informing intentions. At the same time, Cornwell enables the reader to become absorbed in the history of the time of Jack the Ripper that only the section of photographs in the middle of the book reminds of the truth it represents! It is a wonderful and enlightning book to the wonders of modern investigative technics and is a fascinating read for passionate fans or "newbies" to her work!... Highly recommended!...
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Read
Review: To start with, this book is very good. It tells you who, when, and where the whole time. Cornwell always let you know what she was thinking and wrote her side of the story and never left anything out. If she was unsure, she would say she was. She never led me down the wrong track. I'm a big fan of her and so is my mother.
This book had it all. The only reason I didn't give it a perfect 5 stars is because she sometimes started talking in so much detail about something that I felt like I was in school again. It was a good read. I would suggest this book to adults, not children.
Rating:
Summary: Case Closed?
Review: Cornwell has uncovered some suggestive but far from definitive evidence, which leads her to conclude that the artist Walter Sickert was responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders, as well as others never ascribed to the Ripper. Her approach is inflated and highly speculative--lots of "would have-could have-must have"--and rests to a surprising degree on pseudo-Freudian "profiling" of Sickert. Illustrations that compare known drawings of Sickert's to Ripper letters are interesting, but also be prepared for some gory and (I think) gratuitous crime scene and autopsy photographs. The book was a disappointment, and I returned it to Amazon less than 24 hours after its arrival.
|
