Rating: 
Summary: ...
Review: Patricia Cornwell should stick to writing fiction. Her faulty, incomplete evidence, combined with the lack of any real structure not only makes this the ultimate waste of time and money but a scholastic farce. Her theories are not new (see Walt Vanderlinden "Art of Murder"; Stephen Knight, 1976), she manipulates each fact to suit her premise, and leaves one to wonder if she has ever studied basic rhetoric. Even freshmen students know that you don't make outrageous claims without proof. She takes up a line of argument, then distracts the reader with details of life in 1880s London. She "links" Sickert to the scenes of crimes by saying that he didn't keep a diary so there's no proof he wasn't there. Imagine if our judicial system worked this way! She accuses him of having deviant tastes because he wandered the East End, attending plays and hanging out with artists and dancers and actors. (So did many men at the time; they had no television to occupy them.) Her "evidence" is selective and circumstantial. For example, she goes into great detail about the watermarks on the stationary used by both Sickert and Jack the Ripper. She does nothing to say that MANY other Victorians were using the same stationary or that it was probably readily available to anyone with a bit of money. Iron bedsteads, used in Sickert paintings, a fact she thinks is extremely damnable, were also found in the rooms of the murdered prostitutes. 'Convict him!' She says. But how many other doss-houses had iron bedsteads, a common piece of furniture in Victorian England?
She compares the speech and diction used by Sickert to Jack the Ripper. Did she do a full analysis based on general word usage common to the time? Or did she just look for what she wanted to find, based on a precursory scan using as a reference her modern experience of the English language? She includes very few of Sickert's paintings to prove the parallel between life and art and doesn't delve into his other paintings. Sickert was quite prolific and some of what he painted dealt with the seemlier side of life, but the majority is of landscapes and innocent topics. She has examined his paintings and determined that he hated women because of a botched surgery for a deformed penis. I've looked at his paintings and see nothing but the eye of an artist who wanted to depict life as it was-harsh, stinking, and dirty. And the question of his penis is backed up, not by objective evidence, but by the fact that there are no facts; therefore, whatever was done to him must have been bad. If our judicial system did convict based on evidence like that presented here, we'd be guilty right off and be charged with proving our innocence. What burns me is that I paid good money for this book, and I'm positive Cornwell will get very wealthy off this stink.
Rating: 
Summary: Portrait of a... guy who might or might not have killed.
Review: Patricia Cornwell's book left me very unimpressed. I have read all her Kay Scarpetta novels, and I don't remember feeling that they were full of holes and fluff, like I felt with this book. Unfortunately, I feel that instead of doing the research first and making her conclusion based on that research, instead she came to her conclusion and built the research around it. Her psychological "profiling" seems completely fabricated. She takes quotes completely out of context. She refers to artwork and paintings of Sickert's that she doesn't include. The whole book seems like an essay that she had a word count to complete, and she's filling in with alot of fluff because she doesn't have enough meat or real evidence to make her case.As far as the much-ballyhooed DNA evidence, even that wouldn't hold up in court, much less the court of my armchair. Even if it conclusively proved that Sickert's DNA was on a letter that was signed "Jack the Ripper" that couldn't possibly prove that the letter writer was also the murderer. I'm very disappointed in the book as I thought it would have a much more scholarly feel to it. Probably only dedicated collectors of all things Ripper will want to read this as it probably does, at the very least, bring a few new things to light.
Rating: 
Summary: Impressionists Can Get Away with Murder
Review: This is the very first book by Pat Cornwell that I have read and I thoroughly enjoyed it as I am fascinated by true crime and forensics. Pat gives an account of two people: the life of Richard Sickert and what anyone can glean from the evidence of Jack the Ripper and she lets the reader be the judge. All of us know that someone was indeed Jack the Ripper and it's amazing that the traditional suspects have continued to remain suspects all through the years when there was no shred of evidence at all other than the fact that these people were a little odd, such as Queen Victoria's son, or leading an alternate lifestyle as perhaps Montague Druit led and, therefore, open to all sorts of attacks and misconceptions and stereotypes. I love reading true crime but I'm not a Ripperologist. One thing the reader can walk away with after having read this book is that prejudices, stereotyping and the public's view of lifestyles and "occupations" was a perfect breeding ground for the Ripper to exist. To this day we have gone after and even executed people who were guilty of crimes because of their backgrounds or lifestyles and later on it turns out they were innocent and yet the perpetrators are still out there. We all can agree that Jack the Ripper was someone in a class above reproach and Richard Sickert with his background in languages, and ability to act out any person he wanted to be was perfect for the role of Ripper. I did know about Mary Kelly but Pat Cornwell, has researched the lives of his victims, putting a human touch to these women and showing the need for social reforms which are still needed to this day. We know that from the horrid things that were happening to those women in Vancouver just recently. Pat is very honest in her findings and does not attempt to force pieces of a puzzle to fit. Please understand that the evidence they do have is 100+ years old and I think that's what makes me believe even more that she's on the right track with her assumptions. And yes there is a DNA match, a mitochondrial DNA match. I encourage everyone who has read this book to go to their local library and see if there are any books on the painting of Richard Sickert. I went to my library and what I found was disturbing. Pat does talk about some of his paintings, such as Ennui. I'm not the type of person who tries to look for subbliminal messages in a can of cola or a Disney movie but when I looked over his work which, when it comes to his paintings of women, I find it, overall, to be eerie. Furthermore, the men and women never interact in a positive way. Men consistently have the advantage over women in his paintings, or the women appear to be sitting alone and yet if you look at a mirror, they're appears to a glimpse of a face in it such as "Rehearsal". In "Suspense" the girl is looking up at something and your eyes take you to an outline on the wall of what appears to be a figure. Again, look at the wall in "Maria Bionda". In "La Carolina in an Interior" the woman appears to have a horrified expression on her face as one who has just witnessed something terrible will happen and look in the mirror behind her. You see her image but another silhouette as well. However, this is Impressionism and therefore whatever he wants people to visualize in his paintings or what he wants to hide an Impressionist can easily get away with "murder". You almost sense that he is taunting us with these dark impressionist figures in much the same manner the Ripper taunted the police in his letter. "The Painter in his Studio" is of a man standing beside a torso of a woman. "King George V and Queen Mary" you get the complete profile of George's head but half of Mary's. "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" is nary to be found in the entire book. Funny ain't it! Richard Sickert is certainly a prime candidate for the role of Ripper more so than the other suspects and although he escaped the judicial system of this world, he certainly could not escape a Higher Judicial System. Pat, I loved your book!!
Rating:
Summary: Too Much Information. Not Enough Substance
Review: Endless and tedious investigation of circumstancial evidence. I am convinced that Sickert may well be "Jack" but the case is not closed. Mostly I was irritated bythe author's description of his paintings as evidence of his murderous personality, but without the corresponding illustrations, the basis escaped me. An okay historical perspective on the times of Jack the Ripper, an incomplete biography of Walter Sickert, a good but not complete attempt to convict him - the case is not closed. I only finished it because I kept hoping it would get better...in fact, the last few chapters became even more rambling and disorienting.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't cut it
Review: This book is just too circumstantial to close the case on the Ripper. A real let down after all the hype. Ms. Cornwell should get her $6 million back from the investigators that helped her reach her conclusion
Rating:
Summary: Highly speculative!!!
Review: I understand that it is difficult to trace the footsteps of a killer that struck a little over 100-years ago but any shred of evidence to substantiate the conclusion would be much appreciated. It's not that the author does not provide any evidence, but she fails to provide solid evidence that was credible. Without giving the context of the book away to the "would be readers," I want to share with you my frustration when reading this book and all of its "highly speculative" guesses. Example of my frustration arises with the Ripper Letters. There is absolutely no shred of evidence provided by the author to link the letters to her suspect. There are no sworn affidavits by today's experts to say that "he or she" was the author of ANY of the letters. It is all based on a hunch by the author. I think that this book needs to be reclassified as FICTION for there is nothing non-fiction, at least in my mind, about this particular piece of work. I am utterly disappointed by the author and all of the money supposedly used to research her conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Disapointed
Review: As a fan of Patricia Cornwell's fictional writing, I settled down to read this book with great anticipation. I was disapointed. It is conjecture from page 1. Patricia Cornwell had decided from the outset that Sickert was the Ripper and nothing -not facts or logic- was going to stand in the way of this premise. It is a little disorganised, some of the facts that she cites seem to not to have been understood fully. The writing is wooly and Patricia Cornwell has made a mistake that other authors have. "I have so much research material. Not all of it relates all that well to the subject matter. Oh, what the heck! I'll just use it all, anyway!" Patricia Cornwell fails to notice that some of the clues in the letters indicate that another of the supsects -an American doctor- might have been the Ripper and the author of at least some of the letters. Would any English person of the 19th century have used the word "guess" in the way that the Ripper did? No, I suppose not.
The word suppose would be used in those circumstances. And would be to this day, too. As a Patricia Cornwell fan this pains me, but please do think very carefully before you buy this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Case Closed?
Review: I've read a bit about the Jack the Ripper case and I was intrigued by this book because it was written by Patricia Cornwell. Frankly, I think she makes a rather compelling case that her prime suspect is the killer. The strength of the book is probably more in the psychological profile of the killer and her supporting evidence that matches the killer with the crime, than in the forensic evidence she presents. Sometimes the level of detail she goes into gets a little tedious but overall a rather compelling treatise.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but fascinating
Review: I finished "Portrait of a Killer" last night. The book was not one I would have chosen because I have lately tired of Cornwell's fiction, but as a Christmas gift from a friend,I read it. Only now have I looked at the Amazon.com reviews and guess what? I agree with almost all of the objections and petty complaints of the majority of the reviewers. Yes, it is overwritten, arrogant and sometimes illogical, but (and oh,what a "but") it is fascinating and compelling and altogether a great read. She has convinced me that Walter Sickert did write many of the Ripper letters although his guilt as the murderer remains in question. But never mind, for some reason I cannot explain, this flawed book is a page turner and I recommend it wholeheartedly.
Rating:
Summary: Freelance writer
Review: This book would make an excellent college casebook for teaching logical fallacies. It is replete with prime examples of the errors of circular argument and tautological inference. As history, it is beyond flawed.
| 
