Rating: 
Summary: The Worst Book Ever Written About Jack The Ripper
Review: Case closed? Hardly.
Cornwell's "book" is all conjecture and supposition. It is a completely ridiculous book with no factual basis for anything that she believes to be true. At least she has stuck to what she does best: fiction.
If you are going to read anything about Jack the Ripper, then read any other book on the subject. There are tons of horrid books about Jack, but they are still better than this load of dung. For people who really want to learn about the subject, pick up anything by the following authors: Philip Sugden, Donald Rumbelow, Keith Skinner, or Stewart Evans.
This book is horrid for true students of the case because Cornwell, with this pathetic stinker of a book, has put in the minds of casual readers that the Ripper case is solved when it is so obviously not. Ugh...she and this book make me want to vomit.
Rating: 
Summary: Case closed? Yeah...right.
Review: First, let me start off by saying that I think Patricia Cornwell's novels are well written. This dismal failure, however, is not. It jumps back and forth between Victorian London and modern times and is rather slow-paced. And although I respect the fact that she researched this topic extensively, to make such a ridiculous claim ("case closed") based on very thin circumstancial evidance is only damaging to Cornwell's reputation. Let's face it: her theory as to the Ripper's identity is as good as yours or mine. Walter Sickert's ghost is probably shaking his head in confusion and outrage at Cornwell's ludicrous claims throughout this book. The real Jack the Ripper remains as elusive as ever, and I doubt that we'll ever know his real identity. That's why this remains such a gripping subject more than a century after the murders took place.
Rating: 
Summary: Still not sure...
Review: Hmmmm. I doubt that the world will ever really know the truth about the Jack the Ripper case, especially since in the Green River Killer case, some experts such as former PI Joyce Spizer believe that the killings were the work of more than one murderer. Spizer specifically names Glen Rogers, "The Cross-Country Killer," as a Green River suspect, and also, interestingly, the murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a hypothesis supported by Donald Freed's book on the OJ case. Spizer's assertion is bound to spark as much controversy as Cornwell's, although both experts' opinions should be given more weight because of their experience, Spizer as a PI and Cornwell as a forensic pathologist.
Leaving aside the question of whether Cornwell is correct in fingering Walter Sickert as the 19th-century killer, I found her thought processes, her CSI-type investigation (and very human Sherlockian analyses) and her portrait of 19th-century London engrossing. There is a good deal of poetry in the treatment of a gruesome subject. Most affecting is the way that the poverty in London emerges as an even greater crime than the Ripper's butchery of women. Most serial killers follow a profile, with the exception of course of the DC snipers and Aillen Wuornos in which a prostitute, far from being a killer's victim, herself became the attacker. Serial killers like Glen Rogers do target "throwaway women," who sadly still exist today, as alive and well in modern America as in 19th-century London.
Cornwell's writing style is sensitive and masterly. I love the way that she takes an image from a chapter, for example, a dark lantern or three keys, and uses that as the chapter title. Her writing style is certainly vivid and evocative.
Although I couldn't make up my mind whether Cornwell proved Sickert as the Jack the Ripper suspect, for me that wasn't the point. I enjoyed the book.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell is an IDIOT - Case Closed
Review: Hopefully this book sinks into oblivion - and fast! The absolutely ludicrous libel that is printed in this book about a rather accomplished artist of the late nineteenth century is appalling! If I were one of his descendents I would have her prosecuted for defamation.
There is not one single shred of evidence linking this man to the crimes. This book is so damaging to the reputation of Walter Sickert and the study of the Ripper crimes!
Not even worth reading it for entertainment -
A waste of paper.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute tosh: says more about Cornwell than Sickert
Review: I can't think of another character assassination that is as unfounded as this, based as it is on pure conjecture and highly selective and inconclusive 'evidence'.
And just think of the irony of a writer who has based her entire written output on lingering over the sordid details of murder and mutilation claiming that Sickert was a violent psychopath because of the subject-matter of his paintings. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!This book reveals more about the neuroses and obsessions of Cornwell's own sick mind than it does about Sickert. Rather than 'case closed' on Sickert, it is 'case closed' on Cornwell. Cornwell's reputation as a writer of FICTION remains intact.
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: Not too bad!
Review: I read the other reviews before writing mine. I think that anyone who reads these books actually believing that someone has "closed the case" needs to understand that this is all just theory. I do not believe the case of Jack the Ripper will ever be solved (and that is what intrigues us all). The story of Jack the Ripper will always be alive. Perhaps the true Ripper is watching us from below and laughing because he got away with the perfect crime.
I am not a fan per-se of Patricia Cornwell, actually I believe this is the first book I have read by her. I bought this book as I am fascinated with the cases of Jack the Ripper. I first saw Patricia Cornwell on Dateline, or one of those shows, discussing this book and felt that I needed to read it.
Yes, some of her "evidence" is rather weak but she does point out some very interesting items such as the doodles that Jack the Ripper had on his letters to the police and those that Sickert drew. She does find some interesting DNA information that really makes you want to know more but I believe she also stated that due to the lack of care taken to seal the evidence for future scientific advances it was hard to get a good working amount of DNA off of the envelopes.
I do not feel the case is closed after reading this book, but I do feel that Patricia Cornwell has some good circumstantial evidence. I believe that if anyone did solve the case, the draw of Jack the Ripper would end. I truly feel that people do not want the case to be solved. If it is..where is the fascination?
Overall, I feel this book is a good read for those interested. I am not disappointed I bought the book and am looking forward to many other theories that are likely to come in my lifetime.
Rating: 
Summary: 3 stars for effort, zero for credibility
Review: I tried to read this book, but found it to be very 1 sided(which comes to be expected with JTR single-suspect type books). I think that she did a very good job with her research, but it just wasn't enough. I believe that maybe the only point Cornwell made was that Walter Sickert was probably the author of many of the Ripper Letters... in fact, the DNA evidence she wrote about proved this, but everyone who knows a little about JTR knows that the killer may not have written any of those letters, and they were all written by different people. It was a good try, and Portrait is a very well authored book on a very popular theory, but its just not good enough to convince most ripperologists. I would recommend at least skimming through this for anyone interested in the Ripper murders, because Cornwell does touch on a few good points, but I would also recommend checking out some other works. I would recommend that maybe you invest in a nice ripper encyclopedia, such as Phillip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" and/or Paul Begg, Martin Fido, and Keith Skinner's "Jack the Ripper A-Z." I would also recommend the on-line casebook, which includes info on every single JTR suspect, witness, and victim. It also includes articles transcribed from several old newspapers and magazines, oficial documents, and almost everything else. I'm not supposed to put in urls, so I'll just recommend you do a search for "Casebook: Jack the Ripper" on any online search engine. If you are intrested in Sickert as a suspect, you should certainly check out Cornwell's book, but definitely also check out those other materials.
Rating:
Summary: What a laugh!!! HA HA!
Review: If a prosecutor went to court and presented a case against Walter Sickert with the evidence the author gives us in this book, the judge would go "ha ha" and require of the prosecutor to chose another profession.
So let's see what are some of the evidence that would make Sickert the killer. He knew a guy who was american and laughed with a "ha ha". In the ripper letters, the ripper writes "ha ha", so he's gotta be Sickert! Or because Sickert occasionally wrote on a certain type of paper, that happened to be the same type as the one used in the ripper letters, then it had to be him! And he wrote most of the 250 (????) letter jack the ripper sent to the police too! Also, Sickert drew pictures that were called jack the ripper and showed women being mutilated by a man, so he's guilty, who else would paint such things? Sickert was a sexually frustrated man who was very morbidic, selfish, weird, a pathological liar and since he lived in london, he had to be the ripper, right?
This all sounds very stupid doesn't it? This is just a brief summary of Cornwell's ridiculous evidence. She goes on and on about the type of paper used in the ripper letters, and does say that maybe even if the paper is the same it does not mean Sickert is the killer, yet she decides that he is. From the beginning she does not just accuse him, she tells the world that she knows and refers to the Ripper as Sickert. On what basis? That maybe he wrote one of the hoax letters because the handwriting was very similar. That's the only evidence i agree with, that maybe he wrote a letter. And so what? Does that make him the killer? How can it be proven that those letters were real anyway?
The couple points i agree with: he did not have to be a doctor like often suspected. You don't need to be one to open someone's abdomen and take their organs out. It's not surgery, no skill is needed. I further agreed with her as she explained how each murder was more and more gruesome which showed how he was learning his "craft".
I give this book two stars because i like the profile she makes of the killer, even if her whole sickert thing is a stretch of her imagination. And if she's right, it's by luck, not thanks to her investigating skills. Sickert could be the killer, just like every single other man living in London at the time, but she was not able to prove it one bit.
It'll never be solved, his name was Jack the Ripper, that's who he was, that was his name, not Walter Sickert, Ha ha!
Rating:
Summary: More bodies on the pyre
Review: If anything, this book is perhaps proof that the Jack the Ripper obsession will never die, if only because it's unlikely it will ever be solved, at least 'conclusively'. The book is arrogantly sub-titled 'Case Closed', and of course, it's anything but a closed case that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, or that James Maybrick was the Ripper, or Lewis Carroll was the Ripper, or the royals were involved, etc. I'm not sure what to make of the whole business anymore. There are now close to 20 suspects in the Ripper case, and indeed in the 1990s alone quite a few new suspects appeared on the scene thanks to research and fanaticism on the part of various writers. Now Cornwall has thrown herself into it, and it's somewhat troubling. Of course, at the end of the day, there's no smoking gun. There hasn't been a smoking gun, and given that the murders took place in 1888, and evidence and various records are long gone, it's highly unlikely there will be a smoking gun. The whole business already inspired someone to forge a 'Ripper' diary and try to pass it off. This has since been debunked numerous times, with the author himself swearing that it's a forgery, yet people still believe it. Every year someone discovers someone who was in London in 1888, hated women, etc, etc. Folks who are interested in the Ripper may peruse this book, but it's clear from the 'evidence' and the layout that this is anything but 'Case Closed', if anything, it says something about Cornwall, who writes about her own doubt to this theory. And admittedly, while there are some nice coincidences, and Sickert indeed may have been a bit off his rocker, and indeed may have penned Ripper letters (of which there were many fakes), it's no more convincing than several other theories of the past ten years. Notice the '71% off' price tag of this book, which shows you something in comparison to other books on the subject. There are much better books about the whole case, and you'll likely learn more from those if you care. It would be nice to put the whole Ripper case to rest, finally. The energy and resources some folks have put into 'solving' this business is becoming more alarming. Recommended if you must, but it's hardly a 'final chapter'.
|
