Rating: 
Summary: Trying too hard to convince and not succeeding
Review: Patricia Cornwell is a gifted writer, and her knowledge of forensic and pathologic sciences has been thoroughly documented in many Dr Kay Scarpetta novels. Thus, I was expecting the same logical approach to the problem: theories with clear deductions and proofs - after all, she said in her title "Case Closed". In my opinion, she failed to close the case on Jack the Ripper, but she did succeed in presenting a plausible theory. The problem lies mostly with the structure of her book. There is no clear time line, as references are plucked from different time periods to support a specific theory. Most disturbing is the fact that many of her theories rest on the fact that Sickert painted dark scenes showing murdered/mutilated women. Too many of her theories are prefaced by "we have no evidence of this, but we could assume...". There are some very interesting half-proofs such as the watermarks on stationary used by both the Ripper and Sickert, but one cannot feel entirely convinced that this fact is sufficient to assume guilt. More perturbing is the fact that Patricia Cornwell has very little to offer in support of her theories that Sickert was a highly disturbed man. Excentric yes, but she acknowledged that nothing in writing - from wifes, families, friends, any one - has been preserved to support the notion that his behavior was arousing the suspicions of such friends and family. He may very well be the Ripper, but her book left me unconvinced. She tried too hard to bring up annectodal evidence, or at least this evidence is presented as annectodes and do not carry much weight to her theory: police reports were wrong about times the victims were last seen, the doctors were wrong about times of death, etc. She may be right, but she cannot prove it, hence, there is no case closed.
Rating: 
Summary: Not even a ripping yarn
Review: Perhaps appropriately for a book about one of the original "disorganised serial killers", Portrait of a Killer is a horrible mess which seems to have been written in a moment of rage. Murders and other events are described out of chronological order for no clear reason. Pictures and letters that are supposed to support Cornwell's argument are described, but not shown. A sketch of a short broad-bladed knife from one 'ripper' letter is not referred to in the text, and contradicts Cornwell's description of the knife she thinks the ripper used, nor does it resemble the knives in Sickert's sketches which Cornwell claims prove his guilt. I applaud her use of forensic techniques (at her own expense) to attempt to solve the mystery, and her exhaustive research of primary sources, but she doesn't explain why she went to so much effort to prove a case against Sickert to the exclusion of other suspects.As in some of her novels, Cornwell depicts the serial killer as a brilliant supervillain, elusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel. Her cunningly disguised Ripper disappears from the scene of the crime with scarcely a trace and zooms around England and France, taunting the police by writing hundreds of letters in different hands and putting obscure clues into his paintings. She blames him for assorted deaths that bear little resemblance to the canonical Ripper murders simply because some 'Ripper letters' were postmarked from the general area at a some time, yet claims elsewhere that while Sickert wrote many of the letters (i.e. those that seem to prove rather than disprove her case), he had associates post them for him to conceal his whereabouts. She uses "might not" and "possibly" so often that I soon lost count, and all she ultimately PROVES is that Sickert used the same brand of paper as the author of some Ripper letters, and that DNA from the envelope from one of the 'Ripper letters' may match that from other letters written by Sickert's and that partial fingerprints on the envelope may be Sickert's. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this letter or any of the 600+ others were written by the Ripper, and none of the Ripper's fingerprints or DNA has been recovered from the crime scenes. Cornwell is not the first to accuse Sickert, who titled a painting of a room in his lodgings "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" - but Cornwell neglects to mention that Sickert's landlady told him that the Ripper had lived there. Sickert was undeniably fascinated by the murders, and may have thought he knew who the Ripper was... but the same is true of many people, including Cornwell herself. A century from now, someone may look at her novels and, using the same reasoning, find them full of clues that 'prove' that she committed many unsolved murders - but I doubt that would be accepted as evidence beyond reasonable doubt. And neither should this book.
Rating:
Summary: Not worth your time!
Review: I am usually a big fan of Cornwell's; I have read all her Scarpetta novels and was looking forward to seeing the same page-turner writing applied to a real, historical case. I was sorely disappointed. _Portrait of a Killer_ was 400 pages of asides, with occasional installments of an interesting story that could have been told in 100. Perhaps a reader truly obsessed with the Ripper case would appreciate the extensive biographical information about Sickert's father-in-law and other quasi-relatives and the historical details about art exhibits, etc, during the time period of the killings. For most, it is too much detail and not relevant enough to hold a reader's attention. I finished the book, hoping for some suspense, but there was no climax. It seems that Cornwell was simply told that 400 pages was enough, so she stopped there. Thank goodness.
Rating:
Summary: An editorial nightmare
Review: Where was her editor? Although Ms. Cornwell's prose is well-written, the ideas in this book jump around in a very distracting manner. Just when she is developing one idea or factual scenario, she will go off on a tangent and either not finish the first idea or come back to it so much later that the reader has forgotten where he was. It's as if the whole book were written as an initial draft and any ideas that popped into her head ("that reminds me") were added right then and there. I thought her premise and much of her evidence were quite interesting, and I learned a great deal about the Ripper cases, which I have always found fascinating. However, I never thought that a writer of Ms. Cornwell's caliber and ability would publish a book so amateurishly constructed. Her points could have been made far more forcefully had the book been better organized.
Rating:
Summary: Body of no Evidence
Review: I hoped that some tangible new research would accompany account of the Whitechaple murders, however the result is a poor attempt to prosecute Sickert as the culprit. This tail gets more and more painful as the reader awaits any real hard evidence against the painter Sickert, unfortunately none is forthcoming DNA evidence, very very feeble, Sickerts damming paintings and drawings are even less convincing evidence - and as for him dressing up or being a master of disguise, dressing up as a sailor ect, come on its just stretching the readers imagination just a bit too far. The analysis of the different watermarks on the paper and ripper letters is laughable, it dose not make sense. Cornwall dismisses some of the true contenders far too easily, in particular Montague Druitt at least there is some evidence that he was in the vicinity at the time of two of the murders, and he knew the area very well, surly that at least puts him on a par with Sickert. But no lets stick seems to conveniently fits the bill of Jack. In Cornwall account Sickert is always in the right place at the right time. However the words maybe, possibly, probably, most likely and almost certainly appear in the text far too much, surprising given the fact that the case is supposedly "closed" As the author correctly points out sex killers such as the ripper do not just stop they escalate. If Sickert was the fiend do you honestly believe he would have been able to restrain himself in the years that followed the murders, I don't think so. Please Patricia stick to fiction as you are obviously very good at it For a unbiased appraisal of ripper theories and evidence read "the Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow
Rating: 
Summary: Case Not Closed...Still, It's Worth A Look...
Review: Unlike many of the other reviewers, I think her presentation of the facts was fair. She always let the reader know when she was theorizing, and the evidence presented was compelling. She consults with experts when needed to support her conclusions. The information was fascinating to me, although she does seem to wander a bit in her presentation, especially in the last few chapters. Her evidence wouldn't prove his guilt in a court of law, but Cornwell wasn't attempting to do that. All the witnesses are dead, and much of the evidence has disappeared. She does however, build a strong circumstantial case against Sickert, and the facts do point strongly to him. People ARE convicted on circumstantial evidence if the overall weight of the evidence is overwhelming. Do I think Walter Sickert is the Ripper? Probably...but "case closed" is a little too optimistic. Definitely worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: wonderful
Review: this book was writen so wonderfully i could not put it down. defianlty somthign i will read over and over
Rating:
Summary: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Review: I admire the intrepid readers who were able to slog through this tedious book long enough to form a conclusion as to whether Sickert was or was not Jack the Ripper. I'm willing to take Cornwell's word for it. Just don't ask me to try reading the book again.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: This is an excellent book. The author does an outstanding job at presenting the factual inforamtion she has found and explains at least some of the reason other theories are invalid.
Rating:
Summary: Where's Johnnie Cochran when we need him?
Review: Ms. Cornwell is like a football player who picks up a fumble and runs to the wrong endzone. She is so dogged and myopic in her determination to assert her thesis that she fails to step back and take a wider view. She rarely, if ever, considers that she may have missed the mark. The notion that the artist Walter Sickert was involved in the Jack the Ripper murders is not a new one. (And I'm not giving anything away here-even if you somehow managed to miss the media frenzy that surrounded the release of this book, Ms. Cornwell reveals her theory in its first few pages.) However unlikely, it may even be true-the case has remained unsolved for 115 years and seems certain to stay that way. Of course there are numerous other theories that are equally compelling; but given the lack of evidence in 1888 and today, it is as likely as not that none of the "solutions" that have gained currency over the years is entirely correct. While Ms. Cornwell may be an excellent writer of detective fiction, she is no historian and this attempt at nonfiction is feeble. She too often meanders into extraneous digressions, such as generic discussions of male violence towards women or ruminations on actual cases involving psychopaths who raped and slaughtered women. Often, these have not even a remote relationship to Walter Sickert or the case at hand. She fails to support her stated facts and opinions with footnotes or other reference citations. She frequently makes assertions and expects the reader to believe them, apparently for no other reason than that they fit her theory. For example, there is the business with the watermarks on the supposed Ripper letters and stationary used by Sickert and his wife. Most people who have investigated the Ripper case believe that the vast majority of letters written to the police and newspapers during the investigation were hoaxes. Ms. Cornwell acknowledges this, but says she thinks everyone else has been wrong and that most of the letters were actually written by Sickert, who, as she has already assured us, was the real killer. Her proof: Sickert was a talented artist, so he certainly would have been able to disguise his handwriting. It would have been nice if Ms. Cornwell had heeded the advice given her by an old friend, whom she quotes in Chapter 7: "Never look for unicorns until you run out of ponies." In fact, Ms. Cornwell needs us to make an unlikely leap of faith on this point because her case depends on it. Her murky DNA "evidence" and the watermark "evidence" require the real killer to be the person who wrote specific letters, which, in fact, may have been nothing more than hoaxes. At the end of the day, this book is like a trial, with Ms. Cornwell playing the prosecutor presenting her highly speculative and circumstantial case. Unfortunately, there is no adversarial process-no opposing counsel to raise objections or put up a defense. As the jury, we are asked to convict Walter Sickert based on our faith in Ms. Cornwell's intuition and a paltry collection of uncontested "evidence." This is where the book fails. While her conclusion may or may not be valid, it is impossible for the reader to judge because Ms. Cornwell's arguments tend towards the facile and, lacking the legs to stand on their own, are woefully unpersuasive.
|
