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

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Observations
Review: I think the main problem with this book is the title doesn't work for the content. There isn't enough "proof" to say this case is closed - just my opinion. I admire the author's tenacity and research - and some of Sickert's paintings do illustrate a certain "chill." Creatives often can't help weaving current events into their works - whether consciously or not. This could very well be the case with Sickert - these murders may have been resting in his subconscious, and finding there way into his paintings. Who knows? The handwriting analysis may be the most convincing piece of evidence but it's acknowledged that many letters and decoys were sent to officials. Great read, stirring and peaked my curiousity, but I don't know this case can be "officially" closed.

Rating:
Summary: Circumstantial Evidence Tied Together with Imagination
Review: Ms. Cornwall should stick to writing mysteries and far, far away from trying to build a case that she alone has solved the real identity of Jack the Ripper. As a devotee' of "Ripperology" over the last five years, I have read a number of books that detail the evidence and incisively analyze clues which allegedly solved the crime. The majority of these solutions have been disemboweled at a later date by the discovery that apparent facts were only subjective opinions and did not stand up to close scrutiny. For example, many of the clues were taken directly from the journalist of the day reports which were found to be later in error (journalists were inaccurate then as now.) Unfortunately, the author does not seem to feel a need, beyond her creative imagination, to build a case that hangs together or to refute some of the excellent research or theories that others have painstakingly put together. The DNA evidence she provides is not compelling. Her analysis of Sickert's paintings and the linking of them to the imagery and symbolism surrounding the Ripper lore ignores the most likely theory, that any artists of the day with a widely acknowledged dark side would have felt compelled to either emulate or incorporate these images into his art. Her psychological detailing of the personalities of psychopaths is interesting but she again fails to tie them to Sickert's actual behavior. There are fascinating mini-essays on Victorian forensic medicine, the crushing East End poverty, and the life style of the "unfortunates" who were Ripper's victims. Some of the writing is almost stream of consciousness and drifts from topic to topic in a loose manner that is hard to follow. She ignores other likely Ripper candidates, e.g, James Maybrick, the Liverpool cotton merchant, by waving away the evidence and research with personal opinion or superficial generalizations. All in all, if you are a Ripper fan, the book will disappoint for its lack of analysis, evidence, and logic. Only the most compulsive and methodical of Ripper fans will be able to read the entire book. If you are a Cornwell fan, this book will be a long journey that ends nowhere and seems a misuse of her considerable talents.

Rating:
Summary: Can Writers Write?
Review: Given that she is a successful novelist, one might think that Patricia Cornwell would have a clue as to how to organize her arguments into a cohesive whole. However, "truth" must be harder than fiction, as this book rambles about without any rhyme or reason. It's hard to see why she even divided it into chapters, as each one contains a multitude of thoughts, facts, and surmises on a number of Ripper-related subjects, without ever making a specific point or building on previously made points to bolster her current argument. Does she prove her case? Well, she presents some interesting information, but never proves anything other than she is a better novelist than a writer of non-fiction. Was Walter Sickert the Ripper?

Let's just say that the case is still open.

Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: This book is simply terrible. Corwell piles up a number of "could have beens," "maybes," and "we can never know for sures" and finds that these speculations add up to her suspect being Jack the Ripper. She proudly states at one point that a Scotland Yard Official would have presented her evidence to the Crown Prosecutor. I would suggest the Crown Prosecutor would laugh the the official out of the office and suggest counseling.

What is most disturbing is that Cornwell dismisses previous efforts to identify the subject as speculative and relying on flawed notions of personality types. She indicts Sickert largely based on a psycho-babble interpretation of his lifestyle and drawings. This effort seems to me to be a 21st Century version of the phrenology which disgusts her in reviewing 19th and 20th Century efforts to identify the Ripper.

I could go on about the the substantive weaknesses as they are legion, but suffice to say, as an attorney, I could have Sickert out without presenting a case. As a former state's attorney I wouldn't bothering bringing charges. She often tries to anticipate what a defense attorney would do with her evidence. She simply shows how little she knows about defense attorneys. Her "evidence" would be shredded by any competent attorney.

From a literary standpoint, Cornwell seems to follow a lose chronology of the killings and then throws in whatever sticks to the wall: A little wife abuse here, a little deformity there, and mix it all with the fact that Sickert had a strange and dark personality (how strange for an artist) and sprinkles liberally throughout the book. She may have made an in depth analysis of these matters, but the information is so loosely presented in such a poorly organized manner that I had long since stopped caring by the end of the book.

This book is substantively weak, organizationally chaotic, and tinged with such presumptions of superiority and righteousness on behalf of the author that the final product really should not have been published. I enjoyed Cornwell's first few books, but stopped reading them because it became obvious that either her talent had peaked or she was mailing in the newer books. I tooks a chance on this book based on an review. I feel like suing the reviewer for the $7.99 I spent on the book. I'd have a better chance of winning that case than Cornwell would winning hers.

Rating:
Summary: Best theory I've heard yet!
Review: Most will say they were not convinced by the circumstantial evidence presented by Ms Cornwell, but I was. Her investigation into Jack was the best laid out one yet and wasn't hyped up by throwing in the Royal family or a secret organization. Yes, she didn't prove conclusively that Sickert was the infamous Ripper, but she provided a thought provoking look at a man who was quite capable of being the serial killer. My only regret about the book is the misleading title (Case Closed). It is a shame the bad publicity (ie. she didn't prove it) will over shadow a great profiling of Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Of course, if too many people believed it, the tour walks in London wouldn't have a show to put on for the tourists would they? I hope to see further research revelations as she continues (I hope) the search. Keep it up Ms Cornwell!

Rating:
Summary: Don't get ripped off! Avoid this book like the plague.
Review: I bought this book in the english book section at the Munich airport. I was intrigued by the title's appendix " . . Case Closed". Well, to close a case you need some proof. To put it simply, Cornwell has none. Beyond that simple fact, you should be aware that this book is rambling and poorly organized. Don't waste your time reading to the end thinking that Cornwell will finally come to the point and prove her case. She never presents one shred of meaningful evidence, not even with her dubious DNA testing. A total ripoff of a book. I can't imagine that she isn't being sued by someone representing the artist Walter Sickert, whom she accuses of being a serial killer.

Rating:
Summary: NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR
Review: It interests me that PC could and would go back and reinvestigate the crimes. I thought getting DNA off the Ripper stamps was an ingenious idea. Although PC does a good job of making her case against the artist Walter Sickert, all she's done is prove that Sickert probably authored some of the Ripper letters. Nice try, though. I thought John Douglas made a better case in THE CASES THAT HAUNT US in less than 100 pages.

PC should stick to fiction. Now she's trying to turn Princess Diana's death into her personal cash cow.

Rating:
Summary: Here We Go Again...
Review: Every five years or so someone comes along with "The" definitive answer to criminal history's most famous question: Who was Jack the Ripper? And like so many of those who have come before her (i.e. Melvin Harris - "The True Identity of Jack the Ripper", Stephen Knight - "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" and Paul Friedman - "Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter"), Patricia Cornwell commited the Ripperologists most cardinal sin by picking the suspect, ignoring the evidence and bending the facts to fit the case. In her well researched, naively argued and egomaniacally titled "miss"terpiece "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed", Ms. Cornwell weaves a weak and unsupportable tapestry of murder around a well known and respected artist of the day, Walter Sickert. I was suspicious of Cornwell's "meticulous" research from the start when she not only includes Martha Tabram as a victim of the Ripper (a theory long since discounted by most investigators) but misspells her name as "Tabran". In the very beginning, Cornwell blatently states that Sickert was the only suspect for her and the only on one which she ever focused her attention. Granted, Sickert was a weird fellow with a penchant for morbidity in his art and tastes, but Cornwell would have you believe his appetites would have made the Marquis de Sade a Cub Scout den leader. And what truly stunned me was her contention that every single letter written to the police claiming to have been penned by the Ripper was not only genuine, but that they were all (ALL) written by Walter Sickert! 250+ hoaxes of varying paper samples, ink types and handwriting styles that would take a graphologist a month to even catalogue were, according to Cornwell, written by Sickert, only Sickert and no one but Sickert. And as if that pill weren't hard enough to swallow, Cornwell would have you believe that Sickert was a master of disguise, a sexual hypnotist and an ambidexterous virtuoso of disguising his handwriting. The way Cornwell portrayed Sickert made him sound more like James Bond than Jack the Ripper. If Sickert were indeed the "Phantom of Death", it's a wonder he ever had time to do any painting with all the murdering, letter writing and traveling around Europe that he was purported to have done. For over a century there have been a plethora of talented and dedicated criminologists who have dedicated their lives to researching this case (i.e. Martin Fido, Philip Sugden and Donald Rumbelow) and while they each have their pet theories, none of them have been so egocentric as to claim to have solved the case after a 30 minute tour of Scotland Yard. Cornwell's credibility as a "forensic researcher" is going to take a hit after this one. However, I'm sure Colin Wilson and Shirley Harrison will welcome the company. Don't bother.

Rating:
Summary: Tendentious and unconvincing
Review: I agree with the reviewers who suggest that this is a hotch potch of unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo. I found nothing in this book that was compelling evidence to prove Sickert was the Ripper. It's totally cirmustantial evidence when you do away with the so-called DNA evidence.
Ms Cornwall should be ashamed of herself for putting out this farrago of rubbish and in the messy and unconvincing form that she has. It may well be that Sickert was the Ripper. And I'm inclined to think he's the most likely suspect. But the case would have been better put together and argued by someone like Vince Bugliosi (he of the wonderful "Helter Skeleter" and "The Sea Will Tell" -- both highly recommended true crime stories). She should stick to fiction.
BTW: I too was a little annoyed at the "Case Closed" subtitle to her book; hers is in no way a watertight proof of Sickert as Ripper.
BTW2: I too did enjoy the parts describing Victorian London, though even in those she often descends into use of adjectives with at time inappropriate value judgements.

Rating:
Summary: plausible
Review: When this book was first published it got a strangly cold reception from the critics. Patricia Cornwell has a theory. I think she's wrong (my money is on Montague Druit as the killer) but she backs up her theory with a very good argument. Unless someone finds a confession with the Rippers real name on it we will never know who he really was but Cornwell's book is FAR superior to idiocy like Prince Jack or any of the silly books that attempt to pin the killings on elderly Dr. Gull. While I think she's mistaken I do respect the research, the mighty effort and the entertaining prose. Never mind what the critics said, this book is worth your time and money.