Rating: 
Summary: Poorly written, no proof
Review: Having been on a "Jack the Ripper" tour in London and having enjoyed several of Cornwell's Scarpetta novels, I had high hopes for this book. I was very disappointed. At best Cornwell has proven that Sickert wrote some of the letters, she has virtually nothing that proves he committed the murders. He paints some violent, misogynistic paintings, therefore he's a murderer? If that's all it took to prove someone as a murderer, surely the violence in Cornwell's books could indict her as a murderer as well.The book is at its worst when Cornwell plays forensic psychologist with comments such as, "Sickert's precise way of thinking and calculating was evident in his own description of his work, but also in the way he executedit. His method of painting was to 'square up' his sketches, enlarging them geometrically to preserve the exact perspectives and proportions. ... In the Jack the Ripper's games and violent crimes, the grid of who he was is faintly visible behind his machinations." Cornwell makes leaps of logic all over the book and continuously repeats herself about such things as the Sickert's alleged fistula surgeries and how as an artist Sickert could easily fake different handwriting. The book is somewhat tedious to read and has very little flow. As I said, it was very disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Hands Down a Waste of Money
Review: I think the most telling sign that Cornwell's claim isn't half of what she wants it to be is her use of the sentence, "I could find no record of his whereabouts or activities on August 6th, 1888, but there is no reason to suspect he wasn't in London," (4). Indeed, most of her evidence seems to based on the supposition, "if there's nothing to prove he didn't do it, then he did."
She completely ignores the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty, and structures every "fact"(and I use the term very loosely) on the idea that because she says it's so, it's so.
Often rambling for pages about irrelevant facts that do not support her case, her best evidence is present in the first few chapters, where she presents Mitocondrial DNA evidence, which she blanketly states rules out 99% of the population, when in fact it rules out between 90 and 99% of the population. Further, if you accept her 99%, than of the 5 million plus Londoners of 1888, you would have a list of suspects in excess of 50,000.
At best she paints Sickert as a troubled man, with odd interests, and a tradition of family problems. But this is about all she does.
I ask you're interested in the case of Jack the Ripper over a hundred years later, doesn't it seem likely that Sickert would have in interest in it too, when he lived era and locale of the ordeal? I would suggest that it is more likely that the appearance of "ripper like"(and again I use this lightly because her evidence in this regard is hardly conclusive or convincing) images in some of Sickert's work stems his own interest in the highly publicized case, than that it points to him as a serial murderer. I would also ask, if you had a troubled family life, and a dark view of the world, wouldn't you be even more inclined to take an interest in Jack the Ripper?
Perhaps most disturbing to me is the aloof way in which she claims to have "solved the case." "Case Closed" my foot. If anything, I have wasted my money on a theory, not a solution. Moreover a bad theory, which is full of holes, and perhaps goes so far as clouding the real facts of the case. Patricia Cornwell is lucky that Sickert is dead and has no descendants, or she would surely be sued for slander.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book
Review: This book was very engrossing and hard to put down. Cornwell builds a strong case with all her research with the limited evidence she had to go on. I also appreciated the background information she provided on the Whitechapel district, hospitals, and Scotland Yard to name a few. I look forward to reading more of her books.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Definitive, But Convincing--Badly Organized
Review: I agree with all those who said Cornwell picked her man and then looked for any evidence she could find that supported her case. I hate to be cynical, but this is no different than what Prosecutors and police do in the United States on a regular basis. The suspect is identified and then the evidence is gathered to convict. Cornwell's website contains a recent update in which her expert on papers and his company have concluded that two Ripper letters and two Sickert letters are conclusively from the same 24-count package of paper (the cut ends match up with one another microscopically). So I think we can conclude Sickert wrote many Ripper letters. The question is whether there is enough in these letters that suggests they could only have been written by the killer. On that score, I'm not entirely convinced. Did Sickert have a penile anomaly? He was married three times and fathered no children. He is not known to have fathered any children (Joseph Sickert's claims are a joke). He did not contest Ellen's adultery claim in her divorce papers, but back then "irreconcilable differences" was not a valid option for a woman to seek a divorce. He told someone later he was happy to be free of Ellen. Why contest it, then? He had nothing to lose. Someone earlier claimed there are several sources "proving" Sickert was in France when the murders took place. This is not true. While there are no other "London" sketches dated after August 4, there is nothing until September 6 to indicate he was in France. That is a letter by his mother. He could easily have arrived on September 1 (one day after one of the murders) and left after his alibi was established (September 6 or 7) in time for the Sept. 8 murder. There is another letter by his friend Blanche that says Sickert visited Blanche's father on September 16, but no murders were committed between September 9 and September 29. While his wife Ellen claimed he was in France, he frequently disappeared on her for weeks at a time without stating where he was going. It would be odd for him to go to France at that time, according to Cornwell, when all his friends would have left. It's true he titled a painting of a Dieppe butcher shop "The October Sun", but that's pretty meaningless if he is the killer, since he titled it himself. There's nothing inherent in the painting that proves it was painted in October. I think many of those dismissing this book are doing what Cornwell did--they decided to dismiss it even before reading it and are looking for 'evidence' to support their viewpoint. I think this book, taken in conjunction with Fellows' book on the same topic, is compelling although not 100 percent conclusive. I think the amount of time and expert analysis spent on the case by Cornwell goes further than any other treatise on the subject. DO we discount the initial police work done in the 1800's? I think you have to, given the tremendous advances in psychology, criminal science, and medical science. There was simply so much that wasn't known. These people still believed masturbation would make you go blind and that you could tell by someone's physical characteristics what kind of 'criminal' they were. They did the best they could under the circumstances, but they lacked the education, training, and science available today. (And let's face it, even today's police/prosecutors make mistakes--look at the Central Park jogger case.) My main compliants about the book are that it's too expository. There's a lot of fanciful imaginings of what Sickert might or might not have done (like going to see John Merrick at a freak show) that are not relevant to the case. A book like this should be presented like a scholarly legal argument, and it is not. There is no timeline (I can't believe there's no timeline!) and all the material about Cornwell's personal interest or issues with doing this book would be better contained in a preface. I think if the book were more concise and the facts presented in a more compact fashion, the book would have had more success in making her case. One of the problems with using Sickerts' paintings against him is that in those times, inquests were open and the media reported on the bodies. He would have had easy access to the bodies, and indeed not everyone who attended those inquests or followed the case was Jack the Ripper. Look at how many people watched the OJ trial. A fascination with the morbid (which some of us have or wouldn't have bought this book) does not prove a psychopath. I would have liked to see a more fair-minded presentation that included exculpatory evidence as well and credited the reader with the intelligence to reach a conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: NOT A TYPICAL CORNWELL THRILLER--BUT A THOROUGH BIOGRAPHY
Review: If you are looking for a typical Patricia Cornwell thriller....this is NOT it. The book is a little dry at times and hard to stick with. However, in the end, I was glad that I stuck with it and read the entire book. I have to give her credit for doing what I would call a thorough biography of Walter Sickert which includes much British history. Also, if you are interested in reading detailed descriptions and forensic theories of the Ripper murders then you've found a good book. For those who enjoy forensic analysis....this book delivers. Bottom line is that I didn't feel convinced that the murders where solved. I totally agree that the circumstantial evidence is compelling and I really wanted to believe that Sickert was the murderer. I know that Cornwell is convinced that he's the killer. I just don't see enough hard evidence to convince me. I believe that there was not sufficient detective work done back then and a lot of their work was down right shoddy. Obviously the technology and procedures were not developed yet...so some of the mistakes were not their fault. In addition, many of the reports that were done do not exist now making it very difficult to do a thorough review of the case. I just don't agree that the "case is closed" as the book suggests. I don't think the case will ever be closed....unless we could go back in time knowing what we know now and reinvestigate the case from scratch as it happened. It does bother me that someone (possibly Sickert?) got away with such sickness...I just don't think that this book proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rating:
Summary: Did anyone edit this book?
Review: As I read this book, I just kept wondering if anyone edited this book. And if so, has he or she ever heard that a narrative should have a certain flow and cohesiveness? This book was a jumble of personal thoughts and introspections, confused with a mixture of slanted "evidence," doused with many unnecessary historical facts, and that was just chapter 1. Needless to say, I was not impressed.
Rating:
Summary: Unconvincing pseudo-science
Review: Patricia Cornwell utilizes 300 pages or her new book to convince us of her belief that artist Walter Sickert was the infamous "Jack the Ripper." She is absolute in her conviction and has stated publicly that she is willing to "stake her career" on her findings. As a trained scientist and clinician, I would argue that Ms. Cornwell's findings are entirely unconvincing and that the majority of her conclusions are based on speculation. Although she makes an admirable attempt to link DNA in correspondence written by Sickert with DNA in letters purportedly written by "the Ripper," the results are not conclusive or exclusionary. She is forced to give this evidence (which had it been conclusive would have been very strong) short shrift in her text and builds her case by speculating on Sickert's psychological make-up, his behavior, and his whereabouts. Indeed, the amount of guessing she engages in is so extravagant that I found myself putting the book down and laughing at times. Just a few examples: 1. Speculating that Sickert was deformed, sexually impotent and hated women (and murdered them)due to a fistula of his penis. The speculation of psychological problems related to a physical condition might be acceptable, if she had convincing evidence that the physical condition existed, which she does not. 2. That most of the letters purportedly written to the press and police by Jack the Ripper were legitimate AND written by Sickert. First, it is extremely unlikely that the Ripper cases, which received so much press at the time, would not result in a multitude of false letters and correspondence. To think otherwise is absurd. Second, the penmanship and literacy of the letters varies greatly. Cornwell argues that Sickert deliberately disguised his writing from letter to letter and feigned illiteracy in some letters, but not in others. However, she never provides a believable justification as to why. Third, the letters are also postmarked from all over the country and she argues that Sickert went on extravagant journeys in order to postmark the letters from different locales, but again fails to convince as to the motive for doing so. In my opinion, were Ms. Cornwell's findings and arguments submitted to a peer-reviewed journal they would be soundly rejected. Or, to use her own analogy, were they presented in a court of law, the defendant would be acquitted. She appears to have formed an opinion and then presented the evidence to support that opinion, ignoring or failing to address the blatant leaps of faith she makes in the process. I had no knowledge of Walter Sickert prior to reading this book and, therefore, no pre-conceived notions one way or the other. Is it possible that he was Jack the Ripper? Certainly. But does the evidence convince me of it? Absolutely not. In fact, I would argue that Patricia Cornwell has done a disservice to the man and his surviving family members.
Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable demystifying, not the best writing...
Review: This is a decent book and a solid theory for the Jack the Ripper murders... I disagree with her that Jack the Ripper's killings were much a fantasy, probably more to do with suffering than actual delight, which came out in art, then in murder and again in art. Also, she attempts to describe for us the thoughts of people living at that time and how they viewed prostitutes and how there was a certain double standard for sexual "thrill". Well, I doubt there were many male prostitutes at that time, so how can we compare or judge what must have been on their minds because she also admits those intimate opinions weren't printed or even discussed? She repeatedly mentions the "thrill" and details how ignorant we were medically at that time. A lot of social issues just seem pointless and largely presumptuous, trying to be salacious and always viewing the ripper case from a gender/sex aspect (part of which helps us see things from Sickert's mind, but it seems to be the whole of her psychology -- very limited), in Sickert's paintings that she sees only artless evidence detailed with Sickert's supposedly pure hatred. The book is fascinating in it's subjects, but largely artless itself. She writes everything so that it will remind us that she is an intellectual, feminist woman, the book also seems like it's written specifically for women, which may be a trait carried over from her fiction novels. She peppers her narrative with annoying phrases of the time like 'coppers' and 'boys in blue'. Some of her phrases are placed in brackets to mock what she perceives as strict beliefs or outdated morality, others are to assume an unconvincing character, acting as a tour guide. .... The ripper letters feature words that are poorly scrawled and decayed, unfortunately they are each undeciphered without captions, which would have done a world of good for each reader. The chapters are far from being chronological, this is refreshing and even suprising sometimes, but keeps us from getting a clear view of the man, I enjoyed the pleasant chapter titles. The accused is W. Sickert (an artist, and self-proclaimed "Nobody") who seemed to want to implicate Mr. Whistler in his Ripper letters, dropping Americanisms every chance he got including where they both worked, hoping for a chance for contact with the po-lice and maybe in the back of his mind, even hoping to be caught. Whistler wasn't accused and he married an actress Sickert had some interest in. One wonderful moment was the opportunity to contrast between Walter Sickert (Ripper) and Joseph Merrick (the Elephant Man). Merrick was intelligent but not intellectually arrogant, he was far more deformed than Walter, but without his bitterness, he was very loving and harmless and much more underestimated and respected. I found it interesting how his sister was probably made to refer to her brothers as "Walter and the Boys", it probably sowed in Walter Sickert a point of reference for women the rest of his life, I can think of an instance at least once where he took some revenge against her. Though Cornwell strangely decides to depict her as the one woman he could not manipulate or control, I think that's because she wanted to input a female heroine into all of the tragedy, as she already mentioned the time he easily forced her into enacting a humiliating play. Sickert began writing his name on paintings in many different ways, one of them was 'Sick'. In my opinion, the case is closed, at least for me. This book will quickly be outdone, but for now it's all we really have for the theory and I have to give credit to the author for that. I guess some people want to continue believing in 'the man that got away', this book shows us however, that he wasn't so lucky.
Rating:
Summary: Patricia Cornwell should stick to fiction
Review: I am an avid reader of books on true crime and forensic science and have read many, including those about the crimes of Jack the Ripper. When I came across Patricia Cornwell's account of the crimes and her assertion that Walter Sickert was the killer, I was stunned. She has obviously done only the research needed to achieve the end that she was after, and has neglected one of the crucial elements of forensic science, that of criminal behavior. I have read many books on criminal behavior, written by those who have pioneered the field of Behavioral Science in the FBI, such as John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood, to name a few. Just by reading books written by these highly qualified individuals certainly does not make me an expert on the subject of criminal behavior, but I certainly feel that I have a much better understanding of the subject than Patricia Cornwell. To anyone interested in reading about Jack the Ripper, I would suggest "The Cases that Haunt Us" by John Douglas. Not only does he provide the history of the case, but he also profiles the killer and gives his opinion of who the killer might have been. It is a very interesting and informative read for true crime enthusiasts, written by someone with over 25 years of experience in his field.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting theory, case far from closed
Review: All Patricia Cornwall's novel convinced me of was that Walter Sickert was a man quite obsessed with Jack the Ripper. Does that mean he was The Ripper himself? Hardly. His obsession does appear reflected in his art and he may have written a few of The Ripper letters. Again, this does not make him the actual murderer - especially seeing that many of these letters were considered hoaxes. Sickert's seeming obsession with The Ripper isn't all that difficult to understand, given the sensationalism of the crimes and the furor they undoubetly created. The Sickert therory is an interesting one. But that's all it is, a theory based on circumstantial (albeit intriguing) evidence. I also didn't find the book particularly well organized. The chronology of events is choppy and difficult to follow at times. Her concluding chapters are oddly anti-climatic and, in my opinion, unconvincing.
|
