Rating: 
Summary: Truthful...Case Closed!
Review: Oh, please. I detest armchair critics, amateurs who purport to know more than the author of a well researched, and well written book. Ignore such wannabes, and read this book. Ms. Cornwell's expert, investigative, and convincing expose on Mr. Ripper, is one of THE MOST exhaustive of the many books on the subject. The problem is, people have such entrenched notions, and narrow minds when it comes to new information that might possibly render their "knowledge" obsolete. So, they write negative reviews like the ones above. They are wrong. Yes, this book may challenge every preconceived idea you have had about the killer, but truth doesn't really ask anyone's opinion. It is what it is, and this book is worth considering truthful. A job well done, Ms. Cornwell. Jack the Ripper would be proud.
Rating: 
Summary: Case wide open
Review: While I have tremendously enjoyed the Kay Scarpetta series of Cornwell's, her attempt at real-life detective work and forensics in the Ripper case is probably heroic, but ultimately, unfulfilled. There is no denying that she has approached the Ripper riddle armed with the latest in forensic technology and has made a credible argument for Sickert. However, the case is far from closed. Cornwell's success with her body of fictional work lends credence to the title of the book, "Jack the Ripper Case Closed," but to say that the case is closed is misleading at best... Moreover, the book was far from a pleasant read, and not for reasons of blood and gore. Rather, poor grammar, tortured syntax, and lack of overall organization all combine with the oversold title to make this Ripper book a [bad choice].
Rating:
Summary: A novelist but not a historian
Review: It's almost redundent to add anything to the already vast pile of reviews from fans of Cornwell's fiction work that agree that this is attrocious bilge.Cornwell's fiction career points to the two problems that ripple through the existence of this book. Firstly, without the success of the Kay Scarpetta books, there would have been no way that a respectable publishing house would have published her theories on the true identity of Jack the Ripper. Secondly, as a novelist, she's used to re-shaping reality to create her story and putting the guilty party on the spot, leaps of logic not withstanding. When she tries to incriminate painter Walter Sickert as the killer, she has to ignore every single piece of evidence produced to date, most especially the fact that the London Police actually had a suspect at the time and lost him (a quack named Tumbletee, not an artist named Sickert). There is no evidence to point the finger at Sickert whatsoever, beyond some vastly mis-guided art interpretation. Basically, her theory comes down to the belief that Sickert must have been a killer because he painted killings. Since Cornwell writes about murders, is she telling us something about herself? Some clue to a butcherous little side-line? Of course not. This is 'research' on a par with that which concludes that the pyramids are lighthouses for UFOs. It's just the latest in a long line of cod-historical novels that have tried to claim that Jack must have been someone famous, like Royal Surgeon Sir Withey-Gull or prime minister Gladstone or even Queen Victoria herself. Avoid under all circumstances.
Rating: 
Summary: Kudos for Cornwell
Review: I'm amazed at the number of negative reviews that readers have posted. The most common criticisms are that all the evidence Cornwell presents to connect the Ripper to Sickert is "circumstantial," and that the book is disorganized, and that it ends abruptly. Each of these criticisms is inaccurate. To begin with, the Ripper murders occurred over a century ago. Without a time machine and a video camera, all evidence discovered will be by its very nature circumstantial. Most criminals nowadays are convicted on circumstantial evidence. This being the case, Cornwell does an excellent job in presenting the common characteristics of serial killers in general and the Ripper in particular, and showing how Sickert's history and life-patterns overlap. As for being 'disorganized,' the book follows chronologically from the first to the last murders. The narrative often goes on tangents to flesh out the details of 19th Century London, but these are some of the chief pleasures of the book. Cornwell's research was exhaustive, and the fruits of that research are remarkably detailed and clearly presented. Lastly, the book does have an abrupt end, but this is merely because the conclusion -- the final summarization of evidence and what it all means -- is put at the beginning of the book. It is the first chapter, and provides a 'road map' for all that follows. This may strike some readers as unusual, but it is a device used for clarity in all legal writing, and is completely appropriate for a non-fiction work. In short, my wife and I truly enjoyed this book, and encourage all who are interested to read it. I would like to add that whether you agree with Cornwell's conclusions or not, she has done something that no one else has: switched the focus from the Ripper -- a cypher if ever there was one -- to his victims. Her sympathetic portrayal of the women who died so terribly is an admirable tribute to the victims, and a condemnation of the (often glorified) Victorian Age.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly edited, poorly written!
Review: Did this book have an editor? It is so jumbled, it's hard to read. In my view, Cornwell MAY have proven that Sickert wrote one or more of the Ripper letters, but does that make him the killer? Otherwise, she seems to read a lot into his "dark, violent" art work- so much so that it almost becomes laughable. Does every drawing or painting of a woman really look dead? I don't think so. What Cornwell proves is that Sickert was probably a sicko, but she really stretches and uses a lot of supposition to link him to the kiilings.
Aside from all that, the book is just plain poorly written- jumping from subject to subject with a few paragraphs thrown in that have nothing to do with the surrounding text.
This comes off as an unworthy vanity work by a successful novelist.
Rating: 
Summary: Reasonable doubt?
Review: I think the case was made that Walter Sickert wrote some, maybe all, of the "Ripper Letters", and that some of his paintings reflect the Ripper's handiwork. However, I think that a defense attorney could make a good argument that Sickert was just an "aficionado", a fan, a Rippermania groupie. Modern cases still attract such people, including those who "confess" to the crimes, as many of the Ripper letters did.
I agree with most other reviewers that the book needed more editing. What a shame to put all that work and money into research and then to rush (so it seems) the account into print. Perhaps she feared that the meat of the story would scooped by the news media.
I have read most of the theories on the identity of JTR, and hers is the most believable, but "case closed" is stretching it.
Rating:
Summary: Unlike other reviwers, I found this book fascinating!
Review: After reading this book, I am convinced that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I found her book fascinating and hard to put down. I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Little Substance, Much Inuendo
Review: Cornwell presents absolutely no facts for her case. Moreover, she reveals an overall lack of knowledge about the case; not suprising since before she started the book she admitted she knew hardly anything about the Ripper murders. Instead of presenting facts, Cornwell shamelessly maligns a great artist with her blind, baseless assumptions. At best, she might have a case for Sickert having written a few hoax letters, but there were thousands of such hoax letters and absolutely none of them have ever been successfully tied to the killer. I think Cornwell should stick to writing fiction, for she certainly is no journalist and doesn't seem to understand the difference between investigative reporting and stroy telling.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of an idiot!
Review: I really have enjoyed nearly all of Cornwell's fiction. I have admired the versimilitude of her work and respected her as a former coroner in Virginia. I have even enjoyed some of her non-fiction as well--"Recipes to Die For" is a hoot and I have enjoyed using her mandatory literary cookbook. Portrait of a Killer, on the other hand, is a sad effort. If you enjoy sophistries, non sequitors, logical fallacies, and a myriad of assorted inanities then this is the book for you. I found this one of the most annoying books I have ever read. She spent a lot of money producing this book and seems to have gotten caught up in the process. Poor Walter Sickert and his descendents! I hope that the family successfully sues Cornwell. One piece of advice: Don't Bother!
Rating:
Summary: Case not closed for me...
Review: I was so excited about getting this book after seeing Patricia Cornwell interviews, articles about the book, and reading a couple of excerpts from it. Generally I don't read non-fiction, but I felt that I would try the genre. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Case Closed? Not really. At least not for me. It took me a lot longer to finish this book then it does most the ones that I read. There was no sense of organization to the book. It jumped around so much that I was easily confused. It was like Cornwell just started writing and when she remembered a detail, she stuck it in.
After spending millions of dollars of her own money and writing a book, I expected the case against Walter Sickert to be airtight. But it wasn't. At the end of the book I was still asking myself who had really done it. While there are a few things to connect Sickert to the crime, there are a lot of things that just don't pan out. I just think there are too many "possibilities" that will sadly never be proven and seem a little far-fetched.
Now I did get a lot of information and learn things that I otherwise would not have known. But as a whole I felt gypped into reading a book that promised something that it wasn't. There were no shocking revelations or airtight cases. And for that, I gave it 2.5 out of 5 stars.
|
