Rating: 
Summary: Portrait of a crank...
Review: I've never read Patricia Cornwell's fiction, so I can't comment on her usual writing style. I can, however, tell you that "Portrait of a Killer" is a disorganised mess that is a primer in how NOT to write non-fiction.Although I wouldn't say I'm a "Ripperologist", I've read a few other books on the subject; the main reason for writing a book of this sort is to convince the reader of the writer's point of view. Patricia Cornwell fails miserably in that aim. She doesn't fail due to lack of compelling evidence: what I was able to sift out of the miasma was as good as the evidence other writers have presented for their personal candidates. Where Cornwell loses the reader is her presentation. From page 1, she is stridently accusing Walter Sickert of being the Ripper. She assumes the reader is as familiar with who Walter Strickert was as she is, so she fails right from the beginning to give the reader a basic biography for her subject. Then, she fails to go over the history of the Ripper cases and the historical figures involved. Because Cornwell assumes the reader has a fairly extensive background on the subject, she jumps around in time, mentions people with no introduction or explanation of their role in the history, and fails to give basic references or citations for facts and opinions she relies upon. A good example of this is Sickert's first wife, Ellen. Approximately 100 pg into "Portrait of a Killer", the only coherent biography we have been given on Walter Sickert is that of his childhood. While discussing the 2nd murder attributed to the Ripper, Cornwell suddenly mentions Ellen in the context of people she introduced Sickert to. The reader has NO IDEA when Sickert met Ellen, how they married, how long they'd been married at the time of the murders; as a matter of fact, this reader would have had no way of knowing who "Ellen" was except that she is mentioned in the caption of one of the pictures included! Cornwell uses Sickert's acting career as a constant basis for assumption that he was able to effectively disguise himself and thus escape detection whilst committing the murders. Yet she never gives the reader any coherent idea of what that acting career consisted of. What training did Sickert have? When did he join Henry Irving's prestigious company? What did he do prior to that plum assignment? etc etc.These omissions make it difficult for the reader to be able to fully follow Cornwell's reasoning. Thruout this book, chapters have no coherent center, jumping about in both era and subject. Cornwell's tone is consistently that of a stridently hysterical believer who seems to think the louder she yells the more persuasive she will be. Her descriptions of life in late-Victorian London, while interesting, tend towards the sensationalistic; at times Cornwell treads dangerously close to "purple" prose. Personally, I recommend "Diary of Jack the Ripper" for readers getting their feet wet on the subject. Whether you believe the Diary is authentic or not, the author of that book at least presents information coherently and informatively. Patricia Cornwell fails on every count.
Rating: 
Summary: Open your eyes people
Review: I don't know how anyone could read this book and not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper. Yes, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but people are convicted on strong circumstantial evidence every day. Why? Because if the evidence is strong enough, even though circumstantial, it can leave no 'reasonable' doubt. Yes, anyone can say they're not convinced beyond a 'shadow' of a doubt, but 'reasonable' doubt is all that is required. And how often can a person be convinced about anything beyond a shadow of a doubt anyway? Rarely or never. Shoot, I heard enough evidence to indict him on Primetime! Anyone who reads the evidence about the 'Gurney Ivory Laid' paper...knows that Sickert, without a doubt, wrote some of the Ripper letters. That, coupled with the fact that some of his paintings resemble Ripper crime scenes that he couldn't have been familiar with unless he was there, would be enough for a prosecutor to take to a grand jury. Jack the Ripper:Case Closed? ABSOLUTELY!
Rating: 
Summary: A painful, arduous read.
Review: I couldn't wait to finish this book, not because it was so engrossing, but because it was a chore to read through her maze of "evidence" and her scattered, back-and-forth time frame jumping. I won't rehash other problems with the book, since other reviewers here have done such a wonderful job of poking holes in the author's theory and critiqued her writing style. I would merely like to add that it is telling that on the cover of the book the author's name is significantly larger than the title.
Interpret that as you may.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I cannot believe I wasted time reading this book. I usually enjoy Patricia Cornwell's novels, but this one turned out to be a huge disappointment. I agree with the previous reviewer, in that it should have been titled "Walter Sickerst's Biography". I found myself extremely bored with the book and would skip ahead to see if it got any more interesting. The writing is chopping and does not flow. And as far as convincing me that Walter Sickert is the Ripper, Cornwell has a lot more work to do. Don't waste your time or money on this. You'll definately be disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Jack the Ripper: Case Confuddled
Review: I love Patricia Cornwell's style of writing for her novels. However, it is not particularly suited to a scholarly research work, especially not one that purports to "close the case" in regards to one Jack the Ripper. The tome could have very well been half its size, were it not for her suppositions and verbal meanderings. Some of the verbiage contains obvious question-begging, such as the subsequent murders (1889) that were unsolved. Cornwell draws no conclusion to the fact that the cases were unsolved, and just leaves to information to hang in the reader's mind. The ending was decidely downletting: there was only a dramatic portrait painted of Sickert, who Cornwell asserts was the Ripper, throwing his late wife's ashes into the wind at his friends. What are we to conclude from that? Cornwell's book may very well have been a more conclusive work IF she had left the drama to be drawn simply from the facts of the case and not her own part in the research or her verbal prowess at argumentum ad hominem. Leave that to your fiction works, Ms. Cornwell, and please us with a new version of "Jack the Ripper" that doesn't insult our intelligence. Readers, I suggest checking out this book from the library, as I did; it will save you money.
Rating: 
Summary: Portrait of a Killer:Case Closed
Review: This book was well written. I could visualize being in the Whitechapel area of London back in the late 1800s. I knew very little about Jack The Ripper, no more. She did a excellent job of proving her case. Wonderful book.
Rating:
Summary: Artist paints London's East End red
Review: Noted artist Walter Richard Sickert (1860-1942) was Jack the Ripper. That's the position taken by author Patricia Cornwell in the first 20 pages of PORTRAIT OF A KILLER. She then goes another 341 pages to prove the point. Cornwell, otherwise known for her crime novels, has penned an exhaustive, and sometimes exhausting, investigation of the Jack the Ripper murders, which took place in London's East End in 1888. Since the premise of the narrative is that the Ripper was the renowned, German-born, English artist William Sickert, it's also an examination of that man's life, art and presumed psychology. Not to put too fine a point on it, he was a real whack-job. Certifiably psychopathic. Early on, the author asserts that Sickert's rage against the prostitutes he butchered stemmed from a physical inability to have sex, a condition resulting from several (botched) surgeries he endured as a 5-year old to correct congenitally malformed genitalia. Yup, I suspect that would do it. Cornwell details everything you ever wanted to know about the five murders traditionally attributed to the Ripper: the victims (Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly), the East End environment, the crime scenes, the condition of the corpses as found, and the autopsies. As background, she describes the state of the metropolitan police force of the time, and the reasons it was ill-equipped to find a serial killer, particularly Sickert. Of course, she also reconstructs the artist's erratic and eccentric London lifestyle that caused him to roam the East End, utilizing skills at disguise learned as an actor, in search of victims. Casting her investigative net wider, the author establishes links between Sickert and many of the more than 200 so-called Ripper Letters mailed to the police and newspapers during the period of the murders and the years immediately following. Furthermore, she notes details in Sickert's own paintings and drawings that suggest an up-close and personal familiarity with each individual homicide. He had to have been there. According to Scotland Yard, the circumstantial evidence compiled by Cornwell would be sufficient to place before the crown prosecutor. Cornwell also makes the case that Sickert continued his slaughters (beyond the traditional five) up to as late as 1907. Since the conclusion of PORTRAIT OF A KILLER is foregone, the author leaves the most hideous of the Ripper's killings, that of Mary Kelly, until last. Cornwell doesn't specifically say so, but perhaps this was the most gruesome because Sickert was indoors and safe from interruption rather than on exposed streets as with the previous four. He had the luxury of time and privacy to give full vent to his fury. It's a horrific vision. Though there's no evidence that Sickert ever had a child - certainly consistent with the hypothesis that he was physically unable to engage in normal sex - a story persists that he had an illegitimate son by a Frenchwoman. This is a loose end in Cornwell's narrative - one apparently beyond her ability to resolve at this late date. (Remember, it's her assertion that Sickert's inability to perform sexually was at the root of his violent frenzies.) Otherwise, PORTRAIT OF A KILLER, with its three useful sections of photographs, is a compelling and convincing indictment of the artist, and a must-read for Jack the Ripper obsessives and fans of Patricia Cornwell.
Rating:
Summary: Not enough proof
Review: Although I enjoyed reading the book, I simply did not find the definitive proof that Cornwell promises. One should not subtitle a book "Case Closed" unless one can provide far more proof than what Cornwell has provided. She makes a great circumstancial case, but that is not enough. The things that Cornwell says she sees in Sickert's works were a stretch for me to see. I saw her Diane Sawyer interview before the book came out. In it, she linked Sickert to crimes in Paris. Apparently, Cornwell couldn't cough up enough evidence to support that theory because no French murders were mentioned in the book. An entertaining story, but not the stuff that closes the book on a notorious case.
Rating:
Summary: Book Mis-Named
Review: I am a huge Patricia Cornwell fan. I have all her books. I realize this was a very different project for her to undertake. However, I feel the book should have been titled "Biography of Walter Sickert". I also feel that all the evidence sumbitted was circumstancial. I also found the book to have to much irrelevant information. However, I did find the book interesting but I am not convinced that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I have read other Jack the Ripper books which in my opinion were much more conviencing. I anxiously await the release of BLOW FLY in October and remain a huge Patricia Cornwell fan.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Thesis Obliterated By Poor Organization
Review: I've read several non-fiction books which I felt inadequately supported the writer's thesis. But, I have never read a non-fiction book where the thesis was lost due to the author's poor organization of the material. Unfortunately, I have now read such a book in Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper Case Closed. For some obscure reason, Cornwell chose to present the facts supporting her assertion in a haphazard manner. To give an example of this manner, one can look at Chapter Ten , which is titled "Medicine of the Courts". Given this title, one would reasonably expect a discussion about medical evidence presented in the court inquests surrounding the Ripper case. The chapter does indeed start out that way. However, Cornwell diverts off into a discussion of how the painting "Ennui" is further proof of Sickert being the killer, then discusses how Sir William Gull and the Duke of Clarence couldn't be the Ripper, goes back to the medical evidence at the court inquests, veers off to discuss a psychological interpretation for the victims' wounds, and finishes with various definitions for "Jack" and "Ripper". Sadly, the poor organization portrayed in this example isn't unique. Each chapter contains the same convoluted presentation of facts. Simply put, Portrait of a Killer is a mess. There are some interesting assertions in the book. However, the poor organization not only confuses the reader, it also clouds the evidence to the point that the central thesis remains unproved.
| 
