Rating: 
Summary: Appallingly poor piece of work
Review: I find it hard to believe that this book was even published, or that the editors actually permitted it to go to press in this disordered, rambling, repetitive mess of words. The writing is so poor that I was appalled. Cornwell may be able to crank out some detective fiction, but she is certainly completely deficient when it comes to putting together an argument concerning a topic of non-fiction. A publication attempting to implicate a person in crimes as horrific as those of Jack the Ripper should not only resemble a more scholarly work, but should be written by someone capable of presenting the case in a straightforward and intelligent manner, without dramatic embellishments or overtly self-conscious opinions as Cornwell does.
While subject of Jack the Ripper is an interesting one and may keep you barely hanging on to this book, Cornwell's assumptions and misjudgments about the "evidence" will leave you hunting for information from different, more reliable sources. Her connections are shaky at best, and her writing form and organization (or lack thereof) destroy any hope she might have had at convincing anyone of Walter Sickert's guilt. This is unfortunate, for it may be possible that Sickert might have been the Ripper.
In the end, the self-indulgent "Case Closed" title is laughable.
Jack the Ripper himself must be "Ha ha"-ing in his grave.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: What could have been a fascinating topic and analysis of evidence turned out to be a poorly organized and awkwardly written account of the author's attempt to "expose" Jack the Ripper. The book is difficult to read because of the way the author jumps around from idea to idea.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed
Review: While I don't disagree with Cornwell's assessment that Walter Sickert could have been Jack the Ripper, I found the book a very disappointing read. From her Scarpetta novels, I expected a tightly wrapped story. Instead I felt she was all over the place -- her personal struggle with the material, as ourlined in her conversation with her editor in the 1st chapter, added nothing to the story in my opinion. Her constant harping on what would be done today in an investigation did not add to the original thesis of the book -- to prove that Sickert was the killer -- and was distracting. Her laundry list of unsolved murders post 1888 was reptetitive and redudant.
Rating: 
Summary: not even an interesting theory
Review: I was really looking forward to reading Portrait of a Killer, I've been interested in Jack the Ripper since a trip to England and read some other works about him, mostly just this-is-what-happened casebooks. But this book was awful. The author blatently states that "Ripperology" is just something she picked up one day and decided to write a book on, and she didn't seem to to a very good job getting her research on the cases and the theory she has. After reading the speculations of Ripperologists, much more creative, I found her speculations boring, and it was the same old thing over and over again for pages, just "look at the watermarks! Look at his pictures!" This was the only real evidence the author had. This book was very boring. If you want a good read on Jack the Ripper try Donald Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper, it's a much better read and better written as well. Save your money on this one.
Rating:
Summary: A "Circumstantial" account of Jack The Ripper
Review: At first, I was excited to read this account because I have been such a fan of the case. However, upon conclusion of the last page, I was still asking the question, "Who Dunnit?"As a few other reviewers have already noted, Ms. Cornwell bombards the reader with a more circumstantial "evidence" like similar handwriting and watermarks used by Sickert, and an overabundance of verbiage. The closest she comes to any type of proof is a few traces of mitochondrial DNA on an envelope which does not even lead back to Sickert himself. She seems to spend most of her time with quotes such as "Sickert most likely was here..." or "Chances are Walter Sickert used the same...". It appears she felt more of a need to prove to us her knowledge of foresnics rather than prove the case.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing, yet difficult to follow
Review: Having just finished this book, I am convinced that Ms. Cornwell "got her man." In light of my belief, almost all of the evidence presented is circumstantial and her supposition based upon coincidence but as is stated in the book, coincidences don't routinely occur without reason (or something to that effect). Ms. Cornwell presents ample alibis for other suspected Rippers, effectively discounting many alternate theories to the killer's identity while bolstering her case against Sickert. Saying that, I did find this book somewhat disjointed and difficult to follow. Ms. Cornwell jumps from victim to victim, chapters are not in chronological order and a timeline is difficult to establish. At one point during this read I was tempted to get out a pencil and paper to visualize the crimes and the concurrent location of Sickert. I was also disappointed in the unexpected "blunt" ending of the book. The way it ended left me expecting another chapter when I turned the page. How surprised was I to find the author's acknowledgements! I plan on reading this book again to see if my opinion changes. If you are into forensics (as is in vogue these days) you will probably enjoy this book despite its organizational difficulties. The process is fascinating and her theory is quite plausible. Give it a shot, you may enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: Use it as a reference book, not a novel
Review: Patricia Cornwell's attempt to pinpoint Jack the Ripper is presented in this novel. However, this account is somewhat presented as a reference novel; that is, this book goes through historical material and heresay. What "Portrait of a Killer" is not is a historical fiction novel that takes you through the events as if it is 1888 and you are able to see Scotland Yard unfold with Sickert as Jack the Ripper. If you're looking for an entertaining historical-based fiction novel, this is not it.
Rating:
Summary: But is it true?
Review: I found the book interesting reading, but not powerful science as the other reviews would indicate. Rather than take my word on some of the issues, you might like to read what a DNA specialist says about some of the flaws of Cromwell's DNA evidence: "Neither History Nor Science" By Terry Melton
_The Scientist_, Volume 17, Issue 3, p.16 (Feb.10 2003) ...
Rating:
Summary: What A Mess!!
Review: I've read several other reviews and just had to throw in my 2 cents worth. I too re-sold my book, which is something I have never done with a brand new book before. Sure I lost money, but I also lost several hours reading!! I've enjoyed the author's fictional books and couldn't wait to read this one. How disappointing! Disjointed, full of conjecture, information notated under photos that was never mentioned in the text, with a totally lousy ending that kind of petered off. The book felt unfinished, like that of a pre-teen writer who had to turn in a book report on Monday morning and wasn't quite done. (I've been there, so it was easy to recognize.) I was unfamiliar with Walter Sickert and would have really appreciated seeing at least one picture of his work to realize what a talented artist he was and why he was famous. Maybe he was Jack the Ripper, but Patricia Cornwell's argument was absolutely unconvincing. I think she's damaged her reputation with this one.
Rating:
Summary: Waste of Money
Review: I got a headache before the first fifty pages.
By the ,,,, next ten I know I was wasting my time
I hope you find much better Books to buy and read
|
