Rating: 
Summary: Serious disappointment!!!
Review: I won't even get into whether or not the evidence Cornwell submitted proves that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. What drove me absolutely nuts was all the conjecture. Egad. How many times did she say someone could have, would have if only, might have, etc. All these things were made up in her mind, as if she's writing fiction. Hey, wait, that's what she normally does! What a coincidence. Seriously, all of her possible scenarios, many of which are just extraneous information, just detract from the presentation of "evidence". She should have written this as a newspaper article, not as a novel. The other really weird thing is part of this conjecture involved whether the Ripper started cutting a person up either here or there, and what that person may have felt. Yikes. First, she's completely guessing, second, what's the point of such sickening guesswork? I made myself finish this book. She might have a good point, might have found the killer, but could have written about what she found in, oh, say 20 pages.
Rating: 
Summary: A Disappointment at the End
Review: I'm not a fan of Cornwell's fiction, but heard her discuss this book on Imus last month and was curious enough to read the book, that promises to bring modern crime solving methods into play, but in the end, depends more on speculation than proof, and proves a disappointment. While I do not doubt that the author really and truly believes artist Sickert to be the Ripper, her evidence, though thought-provoking, simply isn't conclusive. I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan and at some points in the book considered that should Mr. Holmes be real, some of the "evidence" that Cornwell applies to Sickert could just as well be pinned on Sherlock (i.e., he lived in the same city, was a well-known miscogynist, loved sending telegrams, obsessively read the newspaper.. etc.) In the end, what we have here is enough evidence to present a modest case to a grand jury, but certainly not enough to label a long-dead artist a psychopathic murderer. I'd also like to note that Cornwell's apparent outpouring of compassion for the Ripper's "unfortunate" victims rings a little false, given that she displays their gruesome autopsy photos so blatantly, which is surely as exploitive as you can get. God knows these women were exploited enough in life; did they have to be violated not only in their horrendous deaths, but ever after?
Rating: 
Summary: Too Tedious for Me
Review: I'm an avid reader and typically read 1-2 books per week. I've read many of Cornwell's previous Kay Scarpetta novels so I was thrilled when I saw this book available at a new library in my area and snatched up a copy. My thrill quickly faded to disappointment and my eagerness for the knowledge the normally brilliant Cornwell imparts in her writing quickly turned to boredom and tedium as I tried to slog through her far-too-detailed, gory descriptions and minutae. It seemed that Cornwell was being overly verbose as a way to justify the million or so dollars I heard she spent trying (and I feel she succeeded, I just couldn't finish this beast) to prove her theory that Walter Sickert, a well-known painter of the Victorian era, was none other than Jack the Ripper. I made it through a little over 200 pages before I caved, ready to scream, "OKAY, ALREADY, I GET IT -- YOU NAILED YOUR MAN!" The book jumps around from victim to victim going into WAY too much detail about their injuries and supposition upon supposition as to why the hapless British police couldn't determine what Cornwell used millions of dollars, modern-day technology, 20th-century forensic science and psychology to prove. Hey, they did the best they could. They didn't have much to work with. The history lessons early in the book about the sociological fabric and descriptions of Victorian-era England was, to me, more interesting than her tedious description of why she felt Sickert was the killer. I agree with her, he probably was, but at this point in time -- who really cares? She could have made her point just as well and made it a lot more readable and more quickly in about half the number of pages. For those who enjoy her usual fast-paced, gripping style, this book will be a disappointment. Save yourself a lot of time and twenty-five bucks.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed and Disturbed
Review: After seeing Cornwell on ABC's Primetime, I was intrigued and keenly awaited this book. I have to say, however, that I don't believe she really makes her case. She uses bits and pieces of data to support her theory and dismisses others out of hand when they don't suit her needs. Perhaps the most damning bit of evidence is the art of Walter Sickert which in and of itself is disturbing, although little of it is seen in the book. I found myself slogging through the last half.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell's Case Faulty
Review: Patricia Cornwell's recently released Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed claims to have brought closure to the century old Jack the Ripper murders. She stakes her claim on the innumerable number of "coincidences" tying Jack the Ripper to Walter Sickert, a famous British painter. She applies modern forensics, psychological profiling, and DNA sampling to once and for all resolve the identity of Whitechapel's infamous butcher. Throughout the book, Cornwell's talents as a best-selling fiction writer are evident. Her descriptions of 19th century culture and forensic technology are extraordinarily vivid, with a rich, story-like detail throughout. Biographical sketches, the biting taunts of the Ripper letters, and eye-witness accounts are impressively presented and bring to life the circumstances surrounding the crimes. But little is offered that will supplant a host of other theories on the actual identity of Ripper. Cornwell's logic is faulty and at times self-contradicting. Oversights are common and alternative scenarios that point away from Sickert are either unmentioned or ignored. Contrary evidence is manipulated until it somehow points back to Sickert, and the validity of every point hinges on a profane number of conjectures and speculations, few of which are supported by a single scrap of evidence.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Difficult Read
Review: Although I enjoy her fiction very much, this book is extremely difficult to read. Her thoughts appear jumbled and disjointed. Very difficult to follow. I seriously considered not finishing the book. In addition, although she does provide some interesting information, it is clear the she is overreaching to "prove" the identity of Jack the Ripper. Too much speculation to be of any real worth. However, the photos she provides are intriguing.
Rating:
Summary: sloppy, haphazard and tedious
Review: Who'd have thought it was possible to write a boring book about Jack the Ripper? Tedium aside, none of Cornwell's "evidence" comes close to establishing that Sickert was the killer. She writes that the fact that one letter attributed to Jack the Ripper appear similar to Sickert's handwriting is proof they were written the same man. Of course, the fact that even more of the letters show no resemblence is also proof; she claims Sickert probably used his artist's training to disguise his handwriting. Logically, the most this establishes is that Sickert *might* have been one of the dozens of cranks who sent in letters. Even a spurious Ripper letter found in a bottle is laid at Sickert's doorstep, since he was fond of visiting France and he could have tossed the bottle into the ocean. (Cornwell doesn't let herself be bothered by the fact that Sickert was out of the country for at least two of the murders: she argues that there's no way to prove that he couldn't have slipped back into London without being missed in France.) The most laughable bit of proof is her contention that since Sickert and the Ripper both enjoyed sending telegrams - while, of course, being unable to prove the Ripper did, in fact, enjoy sending telegrams. Conan Doyle and Mark Twain (along with half the population at that time - it was the 19th century version of making a phone call, for crying out loud) also sent a great number of telegrams. Has Cornwell bothered to exclude them as well? The bottom line is this: Cornwell decided that she disliked Sickert so he must have been the killer. That's it. She twisted and stretched every scanty shred of evidence that might point to Sickert, and blithely dismissed everything pointing away from him. I doubt there was a single page without a "possibly," or a "could have" or a "some experts believe." It's full of shoddy research, and shoddy science, and shoddy writing. Don't bother.
Rating:
Summary: Well, it made some money, didn't it?
Review: This is a book made to generate income. It worked. As a plausible case for the identification of Jack the Ripper, it's lacking. Of course it is. It's a crime novel. It has to return to the excitement and gut-wrenching details; it can't -- it's not allowed to, in this genre! -- linger too long on the science or the law or the history. It already "errs" in that direction too much to be an effective crime novel. And unfortunately too little to be an effective legal or forensic assessment of the Ripper or of Sickert. I think the author, editors, and publishers -- and all the other media folks who jumped on this bandwagon -- played their game very well. And the rest of us can enjoy the ride, remembering that is an amusement after all.
Rating: 
Summary: ONe of the most riveting , frightening novels written
Review: This book was amazing. It details life in Victorian England like no other story written. The evidence all adds up and points to this man Sickert. The story will repulse and intrique you at the same time. Her research is thorough and the case is closed! Jack the Ripper is at rest. A great story. It jumps around a little, but is easy to keep up.
Rating:
Summary: Take another look
Review: You people that wrote reviews...Have you ever experienced art? The whole point is that no one really knows for sure who did the treacherous murders but take this: Some murderers look at murders as a type of art and since Sickert's paintings may create an angle as to how they affected him and his involvement. Obviously he was a very smart man and a talented painter and by the looks of it his attire and tendencies as an individual link him in some way to the murder. Cornwell's account may be far fetched in your eyes but as an artist i think he is a possible candidate.
|
