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

Rating:
Summary: Not the greatest book I've read lately.
Review: This book is subtitled "Jack the Ripper: Case Closed". That is a bit of a leap. Then again, "Jack the Ripper: Yet another loosely based theory" just doesn't sound too catchy, does it? I thought this book presented an interesting case, but it had a few definite flaws.

First of all, it's very difficult to take "evidence" seriously when the person presenting it is blatantly biased. Cornwell has obviously made her decision about who commited the murders and is unwilling to present material objectively. One of the biggest things that bothered me was that she used quotes out of context to support her point. This bias hurts the purpose of her book greatly.

Secondly, this book is disorganized and disjointed. I'm not sure whether it's the fault of the editor or the author, but this book could have used another year of work. Anyone knows that if you want to convince someone of something it's best to be organized. It was clear to me that Cornwell had done a fair amount of research, however, research means nothing when it is not presented in a manner that is understandable.

All in all, I enjoyed this book even though it left me somewhat confused and unfullfilled. I wouldn't say that Walter Sickert is without a doubt Jack the Ripper, but I'm willing to accept him as a likely suspect. If Cornwell had been able to abandon her bias and put together a reasonably organized book I think her case would be much easier for me to stomach.

Rating:
Summary: Great job, Patricia!
Review: Case closed? Hardly! Even the author herself, if you bother to actually read the book, admits that her evidence isn't iron clad, that such testing will continue, and that subsequent advances in the technology could yield much more significant results. Regardless, based on the evidence to date, the author obviously holds the opinion that her suspect was the Ripper; but heh, we all have the right to have our opinions!

But if your goal is to sell a lot of books, then nothing works like a controversial and provocative title. To that end, the addition of "cased closed" worked admirably. The author presents for your consideration, Walter Richard Sickert, who once was considered one of the best artists in England. But just how close does the evidence that the experts the author hired come to implicating one Walter Richard Sickert?

Results from a Ripper letter yielded a single-donor mitochondrial DNA sequence that was scientifically accurate enough to conclusively eliminate 99.0% of the populace as the person who licked the stamp. This same 99.0% accurate DNA sequence was revealed in another Ripper letter, and two Walter Sickert letters. The author admits that this isn't conclusive in the very next paragraph however, but it's very striking nonetheless when viewed in the context of a vast amount of circumstantial evidence that seems to link Sickert to the Ripper.

Forensic scientists as well as art, paper, and lettering experts again consulted by the author found the following evidence: a Ripper letter that's written on artist's paper (hardly the likely stationary of an impoverished East Side madman); uncommon watermarks on a type of paper used by a minority of people in that area and era yet strangely enough both are used by Sickert and Ripper letters ;letters written with a waxy-soft crayon-like lithographic ground (again hardly the writing utensil of an East Side unfortunate but quite common for an artist); Ripper letters with ink or paint that's applied with a paintbrush (need I point out the obvious again?). Microscopic examination of "dried blood" on some Ripper letters is consistent with oil-and-wax mixtures that were utilized in etching ground (an art media), and under UV light it fluoresced milky white, which is scientific corroboration of it being just exactly that.

Art experts, who were hired by the author, all concurred that sketches in the Ripper letters are consistently professional and bare a strong resemblance to Sickert's artistic work and technique. Some of Sickert's paintings bear a striking resemblance to the post mortem photographs of the murdered women, and it is a documented and undeniable fact that violence against women was a common them in much of Sickert's art. Indeed, art historian and Sickert scholar Dr. Anna Gruetzner Robins of the University of Reading stated that she does not understand how anyone who has studied Sickert extensively cannot help but come to the conclusion that he was Jack the Ripper. Furthermore, Sickert, in 1908 actually painted a dark and gloomy painted entitled, "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom."

The hand writing experts hired by the author attest to the fact that the position of the Rippers hand and his handwriting quirks when he wrote his taunting letters to the local police are also present in letters written by the late Sickert. It is the opinion of the lettering expert, Sally Bower, that some Ripper letters were actually disguised by a right-handed writer writing instead with their left hand. It is an acknowledged fact that Sickert was right handed; however, film footage of Sickert clearly shows that he was very adept at using his left hand as well.

It is a known fact that Sickert had many hidden art studios throughout England-including several the East End where the Ripper murders occurred and where Sickert is well known to have gone slumming quite regularly and thus knew the area very well indeed. It is also interesting to note that Walter Sickert "just happened" to be out after 1 am on the dark streets at the scene of the notorious Camden Town Murder, and Sickert requested and was allowed to make several sketches of the deceased on site as reported in the November 29th, 1937 edition of the Evening Standard. And this is just the tip of the iceberg...

Sure, everybody has an opinion, but after reading the less than positive ones, one cannot help but suspect that these same critics never read the book and were simply incensed by the "cased closed" part of the title, or that they read it but had their minds already made up and resented somebody else coming up with an alternate (and dare we say superior) theory refreshingly based on some hard 21st century science rather than the same tired old arm chair theorizing. It's really appalling how inappropriately personal some of the critics of this author have been. One gets the impression that they think that they own the Ripper and therefore these same critics think they are the sole arbiters of what constitutes appropriate and true Ripper theorizing. Yeah, right. Get a life people!

Each piece of the aforementioned evidence taken individually clearly wouldn't hold much weight, but how about when they are all taken together? The author asked Scotland Yard's John Grieve the same question when she presented him with the preponderance of the evidence. He said the following: "I would immediately put Sickert under surveillance to try to find where his bolt holes [secret rooms in the East End] 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."

The author quoted FBI profiler, Ed Sulzbach, as saying the following in regards to all the aforementioned evidence above: "There really aren't many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence a coincidence is just plain stupid."

Rating:
Summary: At last! The mystery is solved!
Review: Frankly, the people who have trashed this book haven't fully thought about its content. Granted, it doesn't read like smoothly like a novel. It's not supposed to! It's a CASEBOOK. There is WAY too much evidence for the Ripper NOT to have been Sickert.

Let's see ... whom would I trust: someone who hasn't researched the case and has only read about it in crime novels and maybe a factual book of info OR a woman (Cornwell) who has viewed more crime scenes than most people in the USA, has done vast amounts of research and has actually found MATCHING DNA? I trust Cornwell. She knows her field.

Rating:
Summary: What A Load of Hogwash
Review: Patricia Cornwell is an excellent writer of fiction. Unfortunately, this book is not supposed to be fiction.
This is, without a doubt, the worst piece of journalistic research I have ever read, and I read a lot. Cornwell spent millions of dollars, apparently, and 365 pages to amass not one shred of real evidence. She makes leaps of logic so startling that one is left literally breathless. In the course of the book, she constantly loses sight of what is fact and what is merely her supposition. Referring to Sickert and Jack the Ripper interchangably from the very beginning is just bad journalism, no matter how convinced she may have been. The only real reason that I can see as to why she was so convinced is that she did not like Sickert and really wanted him to be the Ripper. Her evidence amounts to the facts that Sickert lived in the area, liked to paint prostitutes, was fond of the musical theatre, had a low opinion of women, she says, and had very eccentric habits. She seems to think that every letter written by someone claiming to be Jack the Ripper was written by Sickert, no matter that in one case the letters were mailed from 8 different cities on the same day, and all with different handwriting. When evidence contradicts her theory, she simply dismisses it as obviously wrong. In my opinion, any reasonably intelligent 6th grader could find the holes in these arguments, and it is lucky for Cornwell that Sickert has no legitimate descendents to sue her for this slander.
On the other hand, I did read the whole book. I can only explain it as the same kind of fascination which causes otherwise intelligent people to read tabloids. But the fact that she managed to keep me reading is the only reason that this book got 2 stars from me, rather than 1.

Rating:
Summary: Absolute garbage.
Review: Not in all my years of reading have I encountered such a poorly organized, badly written, and atrociously edited piece of fiction masquerading as truth. Nor have I felt like such a complete sucker for quite some time.
From the haughty title of "case closed", one would presume to find rock-solid evidence inside to substantiate the author's claim that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. But after reading the book straight through, all I came up with were a bunch of "maybe's", "possibly's", and "could have's". All "case closed" assertions aside, the book might still have been an interesting, if not truthful read had Cornwell's presentation been something more than a cluttered, sloppy tirade of man-hating psychobabble.
And "cluttered" barely begins to describe the whacked-out narrative here. This book has no flow. It reads like a free-association session on a thereapist's couch with Cornwell shifting gears like she was driving an 18-wheeler. I found it impossible to accept even the illusion of Sickert's guilt, much less become factually convinced. The lack of footnotes, careful consideration of ALL suspects, and any kind of objectivity further infuriated me (at myself) for forking out $25 for this swill.
If you don't mind rambling fiction then, by all means, feel free to donate to the Patricia Cornwell fund. Otherwise, if you want a truly objective, massively comprehensive, painstakingly researched work on Jack the Ripper, get Philip Sudgen's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper". You'll be glad you did.

Rating:
Summary: Case Presented
Review: Cornwell has succeeded where too many other Ripper writers have failed -- she has revived mass interest in one of the most notorious murderers in history. Her case is carefully examined and thoughtfully presented in her famous concise style. There is little reason to question her research or the validity of her findings, even if one disagrees with her final conclusions. Perhaps the subtitle, "Case Closed," has engendered a backlash among Ripper experts, but it would be foolish to judge an entire book on one unfortunate term. This is probably the best overall Ripper book penned for sheer writing style alone, and an excellent introduction to the London that produced the monster. David R. Bannon, Ph.D.; author "Race Against Evil."

Rating:
Summary: Is Jack the Ripper case really closed?
Review: I've been a fan of Patricia Cornwell for a long time. Kay Scarpetta is a really a great character for her novels.
This book was really different for her. It was hard to get into this novel. Unlike her others you knew it wasn't true but you read it anyway. I expected this novel to be somewhat in the same format as her others, knowing this was supposed to be somewhat factual.
Although Cornwell had many facts on this Sickert person alot of the evidence against him were circumstancial. This seems to be more of her theories than actual proof.
I somewhat liked this novel because the history was interesting, but disappointed because there's still doubt on whether he was the true "Jack the Ripper". I think there needs to be more investigating to be done. Maybe some day we'll find out, very doubtful though.
Thank you Patricia for a facinating theory. You are still one of my number one fan.

Rating:
Summary: A BIT CONFUSED
Review: I READ MY FIRST BOOK BY PATRICIA CORNWELL AND I HAV'T TO SAY THAT I WAS A BIT CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE THE AUTHOR WAS GOING. THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN WERE IT WOULD TAKE A POLICE DETECTIVE ; OR A FORENSIC SCIENTIST TO UNDERSTAND. I NOTICED THAT SHE KEPT REPEATING HERSELF WHEN IT CAME TO THE FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE BOOK. SHE KEPT REPEATING OF WHAT WE COULD DO NOW, IF WE HAD THE EVIDENCE NOW THAT EXISTED BACK THEN. WELL THIS IS 2003 AND WE DON'T . SO I DON'T BELIEVE 100% THAT WALTER SICKERT WAS JACK THE RIPPER. CASE CLOSED!

Rating:
Summary: Case Closed? What Case?
Review: This is the only Patricia Cornwell novel -- Oops! Make that book -- that I have ever read. From everything I've heard (mainly from my mother, who is a big fan) her fictional novels are riveting and highly researched. I don't know that I shall ever be able to believe in her research, however, having read "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper-Case Closed." Actually, I take that back, the research itself isn't the fault of the book, but rather, the author's reckless twisting of the facts to suit her hypothesis.

To decide based on similarities between letters signed Jack the Ripper and letters signed Walter Sickert, that Sickert was Jack the Ripper is a leap. The most that any of Cornwell's mitochondrial DNA evidence proves is that Sickert may have been one of many people who sent hoax letters. This seems in keeping with the Victorian public's fascination with the Ripper cases, and the many facts available in the tabloids at the time. Most other people who are Ripper experts believe that all but one Ripper letter was a hoax. Several people were actually brought to trial for writing these hoax letters, which Cornwell never mentions. Cornwell never proves that the Ripper letters were written by one person (Walter Sickert, of course) just that they really, really could have been, if you really stretch the facts, since an artist could disguise his handwriting, and spelling, etc. As for the watermarks found on the stationary, is it surprising that after digging through hundreds of Ripper letters and hundreds of Sickert letters that Cornwell would come up with similar watermarks from one of the largest stationary companies of the time?

She constantly points to similarities between Sickert paintings and mortuary photos. Surely the killer would be painting the subjects as he left them at the crime scene if he wanted a souvenir of the crime, not from mortuary photos that it is unlikely he ever saw. Cornwell's constant judgment of Sickert's paintings seems shallow and unimaginative. He painted macabre scenes (Cornwell's judgment, not mine.), thus he must have been a tormented psychopath. What tripe! How many other artists have painted disturbing paintings and never been accused of such crimes? Besides which, to prove her hypothesis, Cornwell has pulled a few painting completely out of the context of the bulk of the artist's corpus, a body of work which is highly sensitive, and in keeping with the Impressionistic tradition. I think that this reactionary thinking about art offended me more than anything else in the nov...-(there I go again) book. To find out that Cornwell actually cut up a Sickert painting in a quest for evidence struck me as mad and highly insensitive.

Nor did Ms. Cornwell ever convince me that Sickert was impotent or that he had a rage against women. She never found any evidence that Sickert had a fistula on his penis other than the hearsay of a nephew. She never shows any evidence of him treating women in a cruel or abusive way. He is portrayed rather as a wastrel and an adulterer (an impotent adulterer?)-geez, how many other artists could that be pinned too? Does that mean they all hated women and had the tendencies of serial killers?

My overall impression after reading this book was that Ms. Cornwell had an overactive imagination in some areas and too little imagination in others. Her twisting of the facts was evident about half way through the book when I came to the DNA evidence I was waiting for and nothing was proven. Case closed? I don't think so. And since Ms. Cornwell is staking her career on this case, I don't think I'll be interested in reading any of her other novels, err books.

Rating:
Summary: Case Closed? I Don't Think So.
Review: What a huge disappointment. Even after reading this book, I don't know how Cornwell can say, with confidence that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I've never read a Jack The Ripper book but I have seen a few documentaries on TV and I'm not convinced at all with Cornwell's conclusion. I think that when she wrote this book, she did so with blinders on. It seems that she was so focused on Sickert that there could be no other possibilities. I don't know that the Ripper identity will ever be solved, and it surely hasn't been with this book.