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

Rating:
Summary: Not Guilty M'lud
Review: Despite what evidence is presented in "Portrait of a Killer", any jury would be forced to return the above verdict if artist Walter Sickert were tried for the Jack the Ripper crimes.

Does this attempt by Patricia Cornwell close arguably the most famous series of crimes in history? No it doesn't.
Does "Portrait" satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt that Sickert killed any of the prostitutes who fell victim to the Ripper? Again, no.
So, what does "Portrait" succeed in doing?

To begin with, it serves as a thorough background to many topics. The Ripper's victims appear in pen portraits, and it is particularly interesting to read their stories (no matter how truncated) than simply have them as de facto "plot devices".
Cornwell also provides a similar service to the policemen who were involved in the hunt. While her pen may not flatter these men, it does inform the reader that the efficient police force of today has not always been the way.
London of the late 1800s is also well described and in more than the bare academic terms found in works of history. As a history student, I have often been frustrated at attempts to explain the squalor and deprivation of the "Unfortunates" - Cornwell's attempts at putting human faces on them is not perfect, but certainly works quite well.
Insight is given into modern forensic techniques by a woman who, of all contemporary authors, is probably most qualified to do so. There is also an interesting diversion on the history of the role of the coroner.
An attempt is made at explaining the mental condition of psychopathy.
Finally, the lives of Walter Sickert (about whom I had never heard before reading this book) and some of his associates are described.

Cornwell's "proof that Sickert was the Ripper" falls into the very old trap of selecting evidence to match one's hypothesis, rather than the other way around.
We are told, for example, that there are a great many letters purporting to be from Jack the Ripper. Experts have historically dismissed these letters as irrelevant to the case. Cornwell, on the other hand, works not only from the hypothesis that the letters are relevant but that they were all written by the same hand. How can this be when the writing styles are so different? Sickert was an artist and could thus disguise his handwriting. How can we be certain that Sickert could disguise his handwriting? Look at the Ripper letters, they have such different handwriting styles.

Another theory deals with the apparent differences in literacy levels from letter to letter. Why do some letters feature bad spelling and poor grammar while others are immaculately written? Sickert wanted to fool the police. Why do the misspellings vary within letters ("will" being spelled both correctly and as "wil" in a single sentence)? Sickert wasn't very good at maintaining this illusion of illiteracy. This comes after Sickert's acting past has been revealed as a means of fooling the police - as the actor could disguise himself.

Did Sickert write one or more of the Ripper letters? Maybe. Cornwell tries very hard to prove that he did. Watermarks are analysed and words which appear frequently are written down. In the end, all this proves is that some Ripper letters were written on paper from the same source as Sickert's writing paper and that Sickert shared a fondness for some words with a few of the letters. Sickert's "mania for writing letters", as it has been described, was nothing out of the ordinary at the time. London in 1888 was without so many of the communication devices we take for granted. Thus it is not surprising that Sickert wrote to friends almost constantly.
The centrepiece of Cornwell's investigation appears to be the DNA testing of parts of some of the Ripper letters with Sickert's own letters. What emerges is that Sickert could well have written some of those tested. Cornwell herself admits that the results are inconclusive, thus those who trumpet the "DNA Proof" that Sickert and the Ripper are one and the same are sadly mistaken.
Even if Sickert, who Cornwell points out on many occasions had a rather eccentric manner, did write one or more letters, he is still not placed at the scene of the crime. Writing these letters may have caused some nuisance, but there is the world of difference between that and disemboweling prostitutes.

When it all comes down to it, the evidence against Walter Sickert is circumstantial at best. Some of his pictures appear to have clues in them as to his "secret identity" or the manner in which he killed his victims. None of this is readily apparent when the reader looks at the pictures in question - much of the case hinges on a shadowy form in one picture which just seems to be a blob, not "the face of a man coming up behind the woman" as it is suggested to be.
Indeed, one section of evidence is described in such detail as to be farcical. Cornwell somehow theorises that Sickert would have stayed at a certain guesthouse. When she examines the guestbook for 1888, she discovers drawings and poetry which bear striking resemblances to the Ripper letters. Her suggestion that this proves anything is unconvincing in the extreme: doubts persist as to the authenticity of these drawings and as to the reason that these drawings did not see the light of day earlier.

Walter Sickert could well have been Jack the Ripper, although this effort in proving it has quite possibly torpedoed any further attempts at doing so for some time.

Those whose interest in the Ripper has been piqued are heartily recommended to make the trip to London and go on the "Ripper Walks" on offer. Of particular note is the "London Dungeon", featuring an evocative walk through Newgate Prison and then into the streets of "Victorian London" where the guest is to try to catch the Ripper. Perhaps that is the closest anyone will ever come to being able to write "case closed" on this infamous series of events and actually mean it.

Rating:
Summary: Total speculation
Review: Ms. Cornwell may be a good fiction writer, but this book is bad! She jumps around far to much, and her entire claim is nothing but speculation. To give an example she shows a drawing by her suspect Sickert entitled "He killed his father," and states that the "wooden bed" in the drawing is the same as that in the photo of the Ripper's victim Mary Kelly..... Well duhhhh.. as if wooden beds were rare in the Victorian age! To top it off when one looks at the bed in the drawing, and the bed in the photo you will see that there is NO similarity between the two at all!

Rating:
Summary: Interesting leap to conclusions
Review: Patricia Cornwell is best known for her series of books focused on Kay Scarpetta, a tough lady medical examiner who solves crimes. For a while now, I've been feeling that these books were becoming a bit dull and extremely formulaic, so when her non-fiction book, Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed came out, I jumped at the chance to read something that wasn't Scarpetta-focused. It turned out to be an intriguing look at the author as well as a thorough description of London and the Ripper murders. Cornwell turned a spur-of-the-moment invitation to Scotland Yard one day into an obsession over who Jack the Ripper was-even spending much of her own money on forensic tests in order to further her theories, and buying some letters and other Ripper memorabilia, including around thirty paintings done by the man she thinks was Jack the Ripper.

When reading the book, I got an overwhelming tone of superiority from Cornwell. It's almost as if she's smugly telling the reader that there is no room for doubt in her opinion of who committed the murders, even though her evidence is mainly circumstantial and based upon conjecture as to the character of William Sickert, her suspect. It is Cornwell's theory that Sickert, a semi-famous painter and actor of the time, was so upset over the marriage of his mentor James Whistler to a woman that Sickert himself was entranced with that he went on to kill five prostitutes over a few months in 1888, and coined himself "Jack the Ripper" in letters to the police.

There is nothing wrong with Cornwell's theory, but the evidence she presents is hardly conclusive that the man was, in fact, the killer. She does manage to prove, to me anyway, that Sickert was probably the author of several of the Ripper letters to the police that included sketches, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he killed the women-- only that he liked to mess with Scotland Yard along with other citizens that wrote similar letters. Sickert also painted quite a few disturbing paintings of women being killed, as well as painting a picture entitled Jack the Ripper's Bedroom, all of which Cornwell uses to profile him as a highly disturbed man.

What I found just as interesting as the subject of the book was the descriptions of London's East End and it's people at the time of the murders. None of the information would probably be new to an avid Anglophile, but to an amateur like me it was a detailed glimpse into the poverty and social issues of the time, giving glimpses at everything from the creation of Scotland Yard to the rampant alcoholism present in the lower classes.

One thing that didn't change from Cornwell's Scarpetta novels to this book was her reliance on detailed descriptions of forensic science. I did skim through several pages on types of DNA testing, but found the descriptions of arterial blood spatter patterns less boring, as well the detailing of what type of person can be considered a psychopath, and the different ways to preserve human organs. At the very least, this book will save me having to watch countless episodes of CSI for the same forensic voyeuristic feeling.

There is also something to say for not wanting to know the identity of the killer. Somehow, knowing all the gruesome crimes have not been solved or explained makes the story even more thrilling. The true stories of Jack the Ripper have achieved an almost mythic status, prompting movies, comics and stories around the campfire. Some part of me thinks that approaching something akin to a legend with science and facts takes away from it's cultural impact and leaves the world a bit less interesting.

Rating:
Summary: Not Guilty M'lud
Review: Despite what evidence is presented in "Portrait of a Killer", any jury would be forced to return the above verdict if artist Walter Sickert were tried for the Jack the Ripper crimes.

Does this attempt by Patricia Cornwell close arguably the most famous series of crimes in history? No it doesn't.
Does "Portrait" satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt that Sickert killed any of the prostitutes who fell victim to the Ripper? Again, no.
So, what does "Portrait" succeed in doing?

To begin with, it serves as a thorough background to many topics. The Ripper's victims appear in pen portraits, and it is particularly interesting to read their stories (no matter how truncated) than simply have them as de facto "plot devices".
Cornwell also provides a similar service to the policemen who were involved in the hunt. While her pen may not flatter these men, it does inform the reader that the efficient police force of today has not always been the way.
London of the late 1800s is also well described and in more than the bare academic terms found in works of history. As a history student, I have often been frustrated at attempts to explain the squalor and deprivation of the "Unfortunates" - Cornwell's attempts at putting human faces on them is not perfect, but certainly works quite well.
Insight is given into modern forensic techniques by a woman who, of all contemporary authors, is probably most qualified to do so. There is also an interesting diversion on the history of the role of the coroner.
An attempt is made at explaining the mental condition of psychopathy.
Finally, the lives of Walter Sickert (about whom I had never heard before reading this book) and some of his associates are described.

Cornwell's "proof that Sickert was the Ripper" falls into the very old trap of selecting evidence to match one's hypothesis, rather than the other way around.
We are told, for example, that there are a great many letters purporting to be from Jack the Ripper. Experts have historically dismissed these letters as irrelevant to the case. Cornwell, on the other hand, works not only from the hypothesis that the letters are relevant but that they were all written by the same hand. How can this be when the writing styles are so different? Sickert was an artist and could thus disguise his handwriting. How can we be certain that Sickert could disguise his handwriting? Look at the Ripper letters, they have such different handwriting styles.

Another theory deals with the apparent differences in literacy levels from letter to letter. Why do some letters feature bad spelling and poor grammar while others are immaculately written? Sickert wanted to fool the police. Why do the misspellings vary within letters ("will" being spelled both correctly and as "wil" in a single sentence)? Sickert wasn't very good at maintaining this illusion of illiteracy. This comes after Sickert's acting past has been revealed as a means of fooling the police - as the actor could disguise himself.

Did Sickert write one or more of the Ripper letters? Maybe. Cornwell tries very hard to prove that he did. Watermarks are analysed and words which appear frequently are written down. In the end, all this proves is that some Ripper letters were written on paper from the same source as Sickert's writing paper and that Sickert shared a fondness for some words with a few of the letters. Sickert's "mania for writing letters", as it has been described, was nothing out of the ordinary at the time. London in 1888 was without so many of the communication devices we take for granted. Thus it is not surprising that Sickert wrote to friends almost constantly.
The centrepiece of Cornwell's investigation appears to be the DNA testing of parts of some of the Ripper letters with Sickert's own letters. What emerges is that Sickert could well have written some of those tested. Cornwell herself admits that the results are inconclusive, thus those who trumpet the "DNA Proof" that Sickert and the Ripper are one and the same are sadly mistaken.
Even if Sickert, who Cornwell points out on many occasions had a rather eccentric manner, did write one or more letters, he is still not placed at the scene of the crime. Writing these letters may have caused some nuisance, but there is the world of difference between that and disemboweling prostitutes.

When it all comes down to it, the evidence against Walter Sickert is circumstantial at best. Some of his pictures appear to have clues in them as to his "secret identity" or the manner in which he killed his victims. None of this is readily apparent when the reader looks at the pictures in question - much of the case hinges on a shadowy form in one picture which just seems to be a blob, not "the face of a man coming up behind the woman" as it is suggested to be.
Indeed, one section of evidence is described in such detail as to be farcical. Cornwell somehow theorises that Sickert would have stayed at a certain guesthouse. When she examines the guestbook for 1888, she discovers drawings and poetry which bear striking resemblances to the Ripper letters. Her suggestion that this proves anything is unconvincing in the extreme: doubts persist as to the authenticity of these drawings and as to the reason that these drawings did not see the light of day earlier.

Walter Sickert could well have been Jack the Ripper, although this effort in proving it has quite possibly torpedoed any further attempts at doing so for some time.

Those whose interest in the Ripper has been piqued are heartily recommended to make the trip to London and go on the "Ripper Walks" on offer. Of particular note is the "London Dungeon", featuring an evocative walk through Newgate Prison and then into the streets of "Victorian London" where the guest is to try to catch the Ripper. Perhaps that is the closest anyone will ever come to being able to write "case closed" on this infamous series of events and actually mean it.

Rating:
Summary: ANOTHER RIPPER MURDER!
Review: I belong to a book group, and this is our pick for June, Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer -- Case Closed. This is my first reading of any of Cornwell's books and will likely be my last. I did not find this book gave me any concrete evidence, but, lots of circumstantial evidence. I couldn't find any hard evidence to support her contention that WS was the Ripper. I suppose I expected something quite diffrent from a woman who is a forensic expert and should not jump to conclusions. Besides, who wants to know who the Ripper really was, not me. I prefer to keep on reading various books about Jack and drawing my own conclusion. I am going to London on June 1st and I will take in the Ripper Walks, the London Dungeon and Victorian London, I am sure I will enjoy this more then I did Cornwells book.

Rating:
Summary: fascinating, though poorly written book
Review: Patricia Cornwell admitted that due to her controversial theory she would be ripped apart by all the Ripper experts who have been on this case for ages and had read everything on the Ripper, while she was someone with only a superficial knowledge of the Ripper case until she started her research. Even by the end of her research when she began to write her book, it can hardly be said that she had a thorough understanding of all the evidence and theories in the case. However, when she was examining the suspects, her subjective intuition told her that a highly unlikely and improbable suspect named Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The result was a book which is far from proving that Sickert was the Ripper, but it is a fascinating account, which nevertheless DOES prove certain things about Sickert and his knowledge of Jack the Ripper.

Here point-by-point is what I objectively believe Patricia Cornwell DID prove:

1) Sickert was obsessed with Jack the Ripper, to the point that some of his paintings are strongly influenced by this obsession.
2) Sickert might have sent one or more of the Ripper hoax letters to Scotland Yard
3) Sickert fits the psychological profile of the killer.

Scientifically speaking, this is all that this book proves about Walter Sickert. I believe Cornwell would have come up with much more convincing results if she had put all that time and money into investigating a much more promising suspect, like Francis Tumbelty. Among the amazing articles of evidence agianst him are the fact that he was known to have a collection of bottled uteruses (an organ which was removed from the Ripper victims), he was known to commonly frequent the East End slums, he had a violent hatred of women, especially "fallen women", he was known to have murdered at least once as a quack doctor, he committed obscenity offences on the days of the week of each Ripper murder, and most telling of all, when the nuns who looked after him went through his personal belongings after his death, they found all the things you would expect a fancy gentleman would own--gold pocket watch, all kinds of expensive jewelry, and then last on the list, two cheap immitation gold rings IDENTICAL TO THE TWO THAT WERE STOLEN FROM VICTIM ANNIE CHAPMAN'S FINGERS.

David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"

Rating:
Summary: Contemptible slander
Review: Patricia Cornwell seems to have needed to recover some of the cash she spent in her alleged "investigation" of Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Why else would she publish such unfounded trash? Not only is the book poorly written (need a new editor, Patricia?), but the alleged evidence presented is never more than pure speculation from an accomplished fiction writer! The only thing I got from this book was a sincere desire to sue Ms Cornwell on behalf of Mr Sickert for "slander and Libel! I should hope that this book will not be purchased by anyone else so as to deprive the author of any more revenue that may encourage further garbage. I like a good speculation about the identity of "Jack" as much as anyone might, but to offer such flimsy, rambling, accusation about a single person is contemtible and should not be rewarded.
I am not a fan of Walter Sickert. In fact I only had a passing knowledge of him as an artist before reading this book. Therefore, I am not making an attempt to clear his name, only that I would like to add my review to the others that call this book what it is - SHAMEFUL, LIBELOUS, NONSENSE! Of all the good reviews of this work I read they all seem to come from long time fans of Ms Cornwell. I had never read her works before this one and after reading this I shall not waste my time. Perhaps I will entertain the idea of authoring my own investigation into the "Whitechapel murders" and implicate Patricia Cornwell as my suspect. I could easily present at least as much "evidence" against her as she did Mr Sickert as being the culprit!

Rating:
Summary: Bad
Review: Can anyone say "redundant?" Do publishers no longer employ editors? This book is a excellent 25-page paper crammed into a 300-page book.

Rating:
Summary: Case Closed? -- Hardly!!!
Review: This was by far one of the most disappointing books I have ever read. With all the publicity and build-up going around about this book, I was eagerly looking forward to reading it. What a let down! This case is closed ONLY if you buy into theories and circumstantial evidence. The author presented not one bit of hard evidence to support her contention of who the Ripper was. Her book is full of innuendos and possibilities: He could have done this... He was in the habit of doing this... He would most certainly have known this... and so on and so on and so on. I kept reading because I kept waiting for a payoff that never came. Don't waste your time on this one!!!

Rating:
Summary: Not One Shred of Real Evidence
Review: Cornwell's attempt to name the person who was "Jack the Ripper" fails miserably. She does not have one shred of real evidence to back up her theory. My recommendation is that she stick to fiction. Oh, wait! That is what this book is!