Rating: 
Summary: Too many "maybes"
Review: While the Walter Sickert theory presented in this book does seem quite sound, Patricia Cornwell seems not to have known where she was going with the story. Halfway between a crime novel and an exposé, she presents some valid facts to support the theory, but returns much to often to pure speculation. Maybe he was at the funeral, maybe not. Maybe he spoke to her, maybe not. In a book like this, the point is not to speculate and imagine, but to give concrete answers. Why call it "case closed" if there's still so much that's unclear?
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed!
Review: I bought this book with great anticipation. As I began reading it though I could tell I was in for a great disappointment. Ms. Cornwell makes some great connections and in fact I would love to see her focus more on the hard evidence. Perhaps she wanted to reach a wider audience so she didn't want to indepth of forensics. She makes way too many major leaps of logic. Her theories are often began or concluded with "I don't know for sure" or "I have no way of knowing if". There is alot of compelling evidence presented by her that Walter Sickert is the man, but its just as plausable that Walter Sickert knew the real Ripper like he claimed and helped write the letters to take part in the fame. Ms. Cornwell often leaves out alternative explanations and quickly jumps over alot of the shaky evidence. She also seems to only loosely connect some crimes that make no sense to connect either. It seems like this book was more a vehicle for Ms. Cornwell can't resist throwing in a few feminist cliches, blaming these crimes and the prositution on society, and relying on psychobabble to make conclusions she couldn't possible know for a fact. If she took out her personal agenda and relied simply on the facts this book would have been more enjoyable. I'm disappointed, but its worth the read just for curiosity and entertainment purposes.
Rating: 
Summary: Ha Ha - Can She Be Serious?
Review: I've read and generally enjoyed a number of Patricia Cornwell's novels. If she were a writer of a bit more credibility and stature, I might have taken this book as a clever literary joke -- something like Nabokov's "Pale Fire" -- in which an increasingly over-the-top narrator (in this case, Cornwell herself!) constructs an increasingly ludicrous fantasy world while slipping further and further from reality. Sadly, I don't think that was Cornwell's intention, and unfortunately, about the best I can say for this book is it might have made a good joke. Might have, that is, had her publishers bothered hiring an editor with at least a high-school education to clean up the hopelessly turgid and meandering writing style -- it still amazes me that a tale as compelling as the Ripper's could be told in as dull and aimless a fashion as Cornwell has managed. As for the "evidence" on which Cornwell has based her conclusion that the Ripper case is now closed, as numerous other reviewers have already pointed out, there is almost no substance there at all -- it's all a product of Cornwell's overheated imagination, which moves from mere possibility to probability to "fact" without ever skipping a beat. There are many, many moments of truly Kinbotian fantasy -- a visit to a country inn where Sickert "might have" stayed (no evidence whatsoever that he did) and entries in the inn's guestbook which Sickert "might have" written (had he been disguising his writing!!). For a while, the whole thing is so obviously ludicrous that it the book is genuinely amusing. Unfortunately, laughing with an author like Nabokov can be great sustained fun, but laughing at an author like Patricia Cornwell simply becomes tiresome after a while. Overall, I would agree heartily with Caleb Carr, who reviewed this book for the New York Times and called it "a sloppy book, insulting to both its target and its audience."
Rating: 
Summary: Very Researched book on Jack the Ripper
Review: Patricia Cornwell makes an interesting case on who Jack the Ripper maybe and in all honesty, she is very convincing. Whether you agree with her or not, definitely read this almost biographical study on the first known serial killer of the 20th century.
The reader will learn about life in London during this century among the 5 known victims and who they were. Cornwall is so concvincing at times, that you can't help but agree with her views and insights.
You will learn about the horrible crimes this madman committed, among who he is and why he may have killed. Cornwall tried to put to rest the souls that died by "Jack's" hands and the countless more that were also possibly his victims. Again, whether you agree with Cornwall is up to the reader but she makes a very good case.
If you love history and the criminal mind, this book is very recommended!
Rating:
Summary: The more I read, the more I agree
Review: The first half of this book was difficult to get through. It was like reading a college textbook. But, once the scene was set, and the characters were introduced, the pace picked up to the point where it read like fiction. I'm sure some people would say it IS fiction. As I read this book, I thought the author was really making leaps of faith to prove her point. But, as the book moved on, I couldn't help but agree with her conclusion. There is just too much evidence (circumstantial or not) to disagree with Cornwell. All right, maybe it wouldn't fly in court, as OJ learned, but I think Sickert did it.
Rating:
Summary: Do we really need an answer?
Review: One of the most enduring murder mysteries in Britain today, and possibly the one that causes the most drunken arguments in pubs from John O'Groats to Lizard Point, is who really was Jack The Ripper. There are many theories from the downright absurb to the almost plausible and this is where Patricia Cornwell's book comes into being. Her case for Walter Sickert is extremely good but that is only to be expected from someone with her background in journalism and ambulance chasing style of reportage. The case for ir having actually been Sickert is well presented, if a little confusing at times, and unless there has been very clever manipulation of the evidence it is a case with few glaring holes and inconsistencies. However, there are the usual leaps of faith taken that you would imagine from any book that aims to deal with a series of bloody murders over a century ago. Had they happened in the here and now I do not believe that catching the killer would have been any simpler than it was then. If the ripper was anything it was cold, calculating and intelligent enough to mask his movements. This book will have many tearing their hair out in disgust as Patricia Cornwell is so convinced that it truely was Sickert so much of the reasoning gets lost in a barrage of "Look at this, it must have been him can't you see it too". However, the case is, on the whole well presented and you do find yourself wanting to believe it if only because of the obvious hours and money spent on feeding her obsession with the case. At the end of the day you do feel a little dissatisified with the book, mainly because it does raise unanswered questions, questions that could only be answered by the ripper him or herself - now thats an interesting proposition to go out on, why would the ripper necessarily have to be male? If you are a ripper fanatic or just want to know more about social history in late 19th century britain this book will give you far more information than you really may require but it is well constructed wnough to keep you well and truly absorbed.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a gorey, gorey book.
Review: I thought this might be too much for me, but was amazed by the science used in researching everything about The Ripper. Think people should check this out, because at first glance you might think it is a detailed account of how he killed people. It was amazing about the paper trail they were able to follow after so many darned years. Highly recommend.
Rating:
Summary: I'm with Patricia
Review: I attended University in London, and a friend and I used to walk the East End at night. I've been on the Jack the Ripper walk with my students many times. I agree with Shelley Lyon's review: it's obvious that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I know that many people make their livelihood from this mystery. But after reading this book with its meandering, always interesting content, I'm convinced. Jack the Ripper joins the Dauphin, Anastatia and Salley Hemmings as another history mystery that's solved. Great work Patricia!
Rating:
Summary: An Interesting Read
Review: Patricia Cornwell presents a well researched book, attempting to solve murders that occured over 120 years ago. Given the time that has passed, her evidence is pretty shaky, and she makes some conclusions that are reaching, to say the least. However, because she offers evidence exonerating other popular suspects, in the end, I don't see any more plausible conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Reasonable Doubt remains....
Review: I have been a fan of Cornwell's for a long time, although I have dispaired of late how far the quality of the Scarpetta novels has fallen from the earlier books. Still I respect her forensic knowledge and was looking forward to this book. It doesn't quite live up to its promise. While Cornwell makes a very interesting case against her suspect, in a modern court she could maybe get an arrest warrant but would by no means be assured a conviction. I concede that given the gap of time and the lack of DNA evidence from her long-since cremated suspect, perhaps no one could do better - but where in the beginning of the book she seems to acknowledge those shortcomings, by the end of the book she is speaking to the reader as though the case is closed, when all she has done is given you (however compelling) circumstantial evidence. She also blatantly refuses to address the cases against several other suspects that have persisted through time, but with a case as lacking in "the smoking gun" as hers is, she would have been more persuasive if she'd spent more time examining how she ruled out these other men. Be forewarned that there are a lot of gruesome and graphic details which - while facinating and certainly not gratuitous - are tough to read. Not more gory than one of her Scarpetta novels, just perhaps more difficult to stomach because they aren't fictional. Still, despite these reservations, I would say that anyone who has a deep interest in Jack the Ripper shouldn't neglect this book - some of the theories and factual details presented are very persuasive, and coupled with other sources of information I'd think this book would have a useful place in any study of that subject.
| 
