Rating: 
Summary: FBI & Scotland yard expertsfound Sickert worthy of scrutiny.
Review: The author asked Scotland Yard's John Grieve about this book, and his reply was as follows: "I would immediately put Sickert under surveillance to try to find where his bolt holes were, and if we found any, we would get search warrants. If we didn't get any more evidence than what we've got now, we'd be happy to put the case before the crown prosecutor."FBI profiler, Ed Sulzbach, stated: "There really aren't many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence a coincidence is just plain stupid." Always go to people who are qualified to speak about a subject--like the two above. Anyone else here or elsewhere may have an opinion about this book, but such "opinions" may or may not have anything to do with reality. If you're still skeptical, the book is at the library.
Rating: 
Summary: Forcing me to give this a whole star is a sin
Review: When this book was first released, Cornwell was plugging it on 20/20. I happened to catch the show, and watched the interview. And I must say...I laughed quite heartily at what I heard. Watching her talk as if she were the first person to build a case against Walter Sickert was hysterical. Theories that Sickert was Jack the Ripper have been floating around for over a century...how very innovative of her to jump on the bandwagon. Her claim that the evidence she's collected would be enough to make the Victorians cry "Hang him!" may be true. But consider that when a man named Squibby, who was wanted for nothing more than a petty assault charge, was seen running from a policeman in 1888 Whitechapel, one man cried "Jack the Ripper!" and before you can say "Bob's your uncle," there was a lynch mob, foaming and screaming for Squibby's blood. Despite police efforts to calm the mob and inform them of their mistake, they still howled "Lynch him! String him up!" So you see, getting those Victorians to cry "Hang him!" would be a very easy thing to do. Now, convincing ME...that's not so easy. Why? Because I know too much about the Ripper case to be taken in by this claptrap. The Ripper letters that she based the whole of her research on were BOGUS. Though they were signed Jack the Ripper, they were not written by the killer. In fact, the ONE letter that was most likely real WASN'T signed Jack the Ripper at all. Why didn't she test that one, instead of testing letters that every Ripperologist in the world regards as frauds? Maybe because if she had, she would have come up with no "evidence" to link Sickert to the murders, and this preposterous best-seller of hers would have never seen the light of day. All in all, the unoriginality of Cornwell's theory, coupled with the overwhelming lack of evidence to support her overblown, self-agrandizing claim that she's solved a case which has remained open for nearly 115 years, make for a wholly uninvolving and repugnantly arrogant reading experience. Don't believe the hype. Cornwell essentially knew nothing about Jack the Ripper before she undertook this project. And so, even setting inaccuracies and outright deceit aside, this just isn't a good or competent Ripper book on ANY LEVEL. Pick up Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper" (AKA "Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook") instead. At least he knows his facts.
Rating: 
Summary: Cold Case Investigation at its Best
Review: If you like the Cold Case show on the A&E channel, you will thoroughly enjoy Patricia Cornwell's evidence on the cold case of Jack the Ripper. But--though she presents very hard circumstantial facts to persuade the reader that artist Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, Ms. Cornwell also presents rather lax circumstantial facts relating to other murders that may or may have not been the work of Sickert. This could leave the reader scratching his or her head as to "why?" All in all, it was a very enjoyable book even though it was on the technical side, but you wouldn't expect anything else from Ms. Cornwell. The circumstantial evidence she discloses is well documented and well versed. It is a shame she was not at the O.J. Simpson trial-the verdict might have been different. I will be glad when Ms. Cornwell gets back to the Scarpetta saga; but in the meantime, I thoroughly enjoyed this current book of her.
Rating:
Summary: The Ego is Evident in the Title of the Book
Review: I am no fan of Ms. Cornwall's; in fact, I dislike her work and her persona. I am, however, fascinated by Jack the Ripper, so, grudgingly, I gave this book a cursory glance, and was not surprised in the least, given the arrogance displayed in the title, that it fell far short of the statement: Case Closed. The world has waited all these years for P. Cornwall to come along and solve the case, (or so we are supposed to believe...)single-handed, well, not quite, in fact, not even close. It takes skills far beyond her grasp to ever have a resolution to this famous case, and buying the paintings of an artist connected to the actual killer (no, big surprise, it was NOT Mr. Sickert)does not a solution make, especially one worthy of the statement "case closed."
She takes the loosest of circumstances, many, if not most, completely unsubstantiated, and cobbles them all together into her own personal vilification of Walter Sickert, who has NEVER been considered a viable suspect, and now certainly will not be for anyone who reads this venomous and wholly inaccurate fabrication. It is a glaring example of an author's popularity going to her head and force-feeding her own opinions based on evidence as substantial as wet Kleenex, to her "public", bestowing her largesse on the populace. The one even remotely viable discovery was a DNA test of envelope glue used by the Ripper and some DNA found in Sickert's overalls...of course, if you read "The Final Solution" by Stephen Knight, that will be explained, for Stephen Knight's book actually puts many pieces together, in a far more coherent way, than does this mendacious and fallacious work of fiction. Happy and content with her own delusions, Ms. Cornwall can laugh all the way to the bank with her personal, vitriolic diatribe of Mr. Sickert published; one can only thank God she was not around in the 1880s, for she would have started a witch hunt to rival those of Salem in her blind zeal to punish her own victim, Walter Sickert; fortunate too, that he is not around to see her destruction of his works, which were more original and far more impressive than anything she will ever produce in her lifetime. One matching watermark, on a Ripper letter, and that of Sickert's stationer father, do not a conviction make...nor does the shredding on canvases convince anyone that she has in fact come even remotely close to being able to state: case closed.
Rating:
Summary: Ok...so the case isn't closed
Review: Even Patricia Cornwell admits that the case isn't closed when it comes to Jack the Ripper but she does come up with some hard and convincing evidence that Walter Sickert could have been Jack the Ripper. Most convincing to me is his art as well as the fact that she is able to make me see how THE RIPPER doesn't necessarily need to be a surgeon as one theory suggests. I believe Patricia is on the right track and look forward to hearing more when she is able to get more of the test results back.
Rating: 
Summary: An Irresponsible Piece of Pseudo-Journalism
Review: This book was an somewhat enjoyable tumble through the dark side of these horrible crimes. I've never had an opportunity to learn much about them, but it's always fun to place yourself in the seamy side of Victorian London once in a while. Unfortunately, that's about all I can say on the positive side. "Case Closed"? How can someone who purports to be something of an expert in forensic science make such a claim based on what she presents? I kept expecting Cornwell to drop some bombshell pointing to Sickert as the Ripper, but it never came. The so-called "evidence" was interesting, but far from dispositive. This is especially dramatic in the matter of DNA. If there is one thing that can blow the lid off an old case like this one, it is this use of this extraordinary new technology. But once again, no bombshell. Far from it. Nuclear DNA (the most decisive) was unrecoverable, and MT DNA was inconclusive. I was especially angry that Cornwell seemed to mislead the reader by inferring some significance into the fact that a couple of genetic markers were found in both the Ripper's and Sickert's MT DNA. She of all people should know that this is essentially meaningless. It's not unlikely that my DNA would have a correlation of that magnitude. But I assure you, I have an solid alibi. The book read far more like an "In Search Of..." episode on UFOs than a hard hitting piece of criminal journalism. Cornwell often admits to the speculative nature of her conclusions, but there it just too much of it to merit the book's subtitle. This left me feeling a little "had". Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed for her. I am not a reader of her fiction, but I had understood her to have a reasonably good reputation for "getting it right". I feel she has damaged that reputation with this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah
Review: I have read a number of Patricia Cornwell novels and this one is not in their class. I was bored to tears. I was convinced within 50 pages of the findings and the rest was too repetitive.
Rating:
Summary: "Portrait" is nothing but a blank canvas
Review: Patricia Cornwell has the arrogance to claim, "Case Closed" in the title of her new book. As an "amature Ripperologist" who has studied and read about all there is on Jack the Ripper, this is probably one of the worst books ever written on this subject. It is hard to believe that Cornwell actually did the research she claimed to have done, only to write a book filled with unlikely assumptions and "what if's" on evidence that at the very most, is barely circumstantial. The only thing that Cornwell proves is that there is a very strong chance that Sickert himself became so obsessed with the case that he interjected himself into it by writing and sending his own Ripper letters to the Metropolitan Police Dept. Her book claims that Sickert had no children, yet her research failed to point out one possability. Most Ripper enthusiasts will fail to recognize that she neglected to mention that Sickert possibly did have a son, which was mentioned in Stephan Knight's book, "The Final Solution." I almost gave up half way through, but held on hoping that at some point Cornwell would reveal some kind of smoking gun, or in this case, knife, but none was forthcoming. The only thing that Cornwell and her so-called research proves is that this case if far from closed, but still WIDE open.
Rating:
Summary: Skip It
Review: Although at times entertaining, this book was a real chore to plow through. In fact, I found myself skimming the last few chapters just so that it would end quicker. I agree with earlier reviews that call the book disjointed and disorganized. Cornwell makes no effort to put anything in chronological order, which is not necessary if there is another type of organization to take its place. But there isn't. Within each chapter, the information is haphazardly put together; many times a few different topics would occupy the same chapter. I wondered aloud if the editor ever even read the book. All of this really takes away from any that might be interesting. Cornwell's argument is so confusing and has no direction. She never builds up a case. The writing itself is poor and simplistic. That being said, her research has some merit, and I did learn a lot about law enforcement in London in the 1880s. However, I was VERY VERY disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: ME THINKETH THE LADY DOTH HYPOTHESIZE TOO MUCH
Review: I just don't buy Ms. Cornwell's assertion that the case is closed. Part of my reluctance to accept her conclusion has to do with the methodology used in building her "proof." She has a habit of introducing a possibility which somehow becomes a probability and then grows into an absolute. She seems to believe that enough assumed possibilities constitute overwhelming evidence. Hence, in her mind, "CASE CLOSED." The easiest way for me to illustrate this point is by opening the book to almost any page and let the author's words speak for themselves. Page 65: "I am inclined to suspect that . . . ." -- "It may also be that he was physically different . . ." -- "The repeated use of the phrase would have been humiliating . . . " Page 72: ". . . . could not have possessed the coping skills . . ." Page 126: "If the killer had been standing . . . the killer must have held the knife in his right hand." Page 162: "Many of the locations mentioned (in various Ripper letters) are places well known to Walter Sickert." Page 166: "It would have been in character for him to . . . ." These are but a few of the great number of "could haves" and "might haves" and "it is possible thats" that fill PORTRAIT OF A KILLER . . . CASE CLOSED." Assumptions abound. It is well known to scientific investigators that if you start an experiment with a predetermined result in mind, you will probably find enough facts that fit and that your experiment will yield the desired result. In Ms. Cornwell's case, I believe that, in the absence of hard facts, she was able to make enough assumptions to prove to herself that Walter Sickert really was Jack the Ripper. I suppose that it is sometimes possible that a correct conclusion can be reached using bad methodology, but it is stretching the point to call it a proof. Therefore, my conclusion: CASE STILL OPEN.
| 
