Rating: 
Summary: A useful addition to the Ripper pantheon, but "not guilty."
Review: Patricia Cornwell bases her conclusions about the "guilt" of Walter Sickert on a number of pieces of "evidence," none of which, taken in isolation or combination, serves to build a damning case against the man. Her evidence, such as it is, is frequently self-contradictory, thus:1. Sickert was supposedly left impotent by a series of childhood operations to correct a genital malformation. This lack of ability to perform sexually is alleged to have led to a hatred of women, leading to formation of a motive . Cornwell neglects to mention a child (Joseph Sickert) he fathered illegitimately and who survives to this day. Joseph Sickert, in fact, was a key source of information for Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" (1976). Whilst lamenting that no Sickert DNA survives to be compared with that obtained from various Ripper letters, it appears to be a gross oversight to not have considered approaching this man for a simple blood sample. Had this happened, I suspect the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down in any event..... 2. Cornwell asserts that Sickert's preference for painting "ugly" models in his art is an indicator of his hate for women, his choice in this regard lessening any sexual threat that attraction to a woman might have posed. She staes that he chose, presumably as an extension to this line of reasoning, to murder unattractive prostitutes, whilst describing at least one of his victims as having been extremely attractive. Sickert's second wife, indeed, seems to have been particularly attractive..... 3. Over 200 letters puporting to have been sent by Jack the Ripper were received by the investigating police of the day. Most of these were written off by the police as being hoaxes, an opinion confirmed by the vast majority of serious Ripperologists in the decades since. Cornwell chooses to accept (?most of) these as having been sent by Sickert, and uses what is known about his whereabouts at the time to match his location with the postmark of various letters. Where certain knowledge of his location is lacking, she resorts to the "could have.....no evidence that he did not......may well have been" sort of woolly argument that fails to advance her case. That many of the letters she uses to advance her cause were written in different hands proves no obstacle...Cornwell asserts that disguising one's hand would be a simple matter to any accomplished artist! She further asserts that Sickert loved "playing games" and was a prolific writer of letters to the editor, frequently under assumed names, yet fails to acknowledge the possibility that he may indeed have written some of the "Ripper" letters, but as a hoax! 4. Cornwell attempts to argue that Sickert was a psychopath (ie. that he had an antisocial personality disorder), and indeed she presents a large amount of evidence from his published correspondence, and from that of his relatives and associates, that he lacked empathy and was interpersonally manipulative ( key components of ASPD). he appears to have had, however, no criminal record, and Cornwell fails to provide any evidence from her sources that he was interpersonally violent at any point. Even if he were a "psychopath,' so are 4% of the general population! Psychopathy on its own does not mean he was the murderer. Overall, Cornwell's book provides an interesting, yet incomplete portrait of a fascinating man, and paints a vivid picture of both investigative methods and the squalour of Victorian London. As such, the book proves essential reading for anyone with more than a casual interest in the Whitechapel murders, but is otherwise seriously flawed.
Rating: 
Summary: Circumstantial at best...
Review: Once you get over the arrogance of the subtitle: "Jack The Ripper, case closed", and start reading the book, what the reader finds is a collection of mostly circumstantial evidence. A previous reviewer had already mentioned the mDNA evidence. At best this proves that Sickert wrote some hoax letters. From what Cornwell describes of Sickert's unpleasant character, I can readily believe that he indeed did pen some hoax letters. This is the strongest thread connecting the Ripper to Sickert. As for the rest, it is merely circumstantial. The case for Sickert as the Ripper that Cornwell builds is certainly a possibility, but nothing more than that. A possibility. For Cornwell to describe the matter as case closed is a case of sheer arrogance. She does very little to rebut the case for the other key suspects. Druitt is a suspect she does dwell on, as is the Duke of Clarence, for a short while in the book. There are as most Ripperlogists will know other likely candidates; Ostrog and Chapman are two such candidates that spring to mind. Cornwell's book is interesting reading, mainly because it is a splendid example of fitting the available evidence to suit a particular suspect. I chose to give the book only 2 stars, partly because of the title, but also because I felt the subject matter is unbalanced. Cornwell comes across as being one eyed; she was out to get her man, and damn any evidence that might suggest some other person (or persons) may be responsible for the Whitechapel murders. It is still a worthwhile read if only to see how a case for a particular person can be built from circumstanial evidence. I became interested in the Jack the Ripper legend since watching the movie "From Hell" (which requires perhaps an even greater suspension of belief than is needed for this book; none the less the movie is quite good) and have since read a few books on the subject. Philip Sudgen's book is an excellent read, and I recommend it to other readers. What I have gathered from the material I have read, it is that we will never know who Jack the Ripper really was. Too much time has gone by, evidence has been lost or destroyed, and there are too many suspects. Any book that closes the case to this story has yet to be authored, and probably never will be.
Rating:
Summary: "Case Closed?" Um ... No.
Review: I enjoyed some of Patricia Cornwell's early Kay Scarpetta stories, but I'm afraid she's permanently lost me with this book. I can't believe that someone who prides herself on how closely she's studied criminal science and forensic practices could fail to see how weak a case she's built here. Early in the book, in a spate of hilariously self-indulgent whining about how the evil Sickert was taking over her life, Cornwell tells us that her agent offered to get her out of having to write this book. If only she'd listened. Her "smoking gun" appears to be DNA evidence that could still encompass thousands of people in the general area at the time of the killings (no matter how many times she repeats the misleading "DNA that excluded 99% of the population" figure), found on letters that are widely considered to be hoaxes. And things go downhill from there. She recounts key moments of Ripper history and tries desperately to get Sickert to fit into the picture, as if Sickert were the only artist in recorded history to be drawn to eccentric behavior or violent and disturbing imagery, or even the only artist of that time period to produce works clearly influenced by the Ripper murders. I did find one redeeming feature in this whole mess -- I hadn't heard of Walter Sickert before reading "From Hell," but I found the Sickert artwork reproduced in "Portrait of a Killer" rather interesting and want to seek out more. Maybe I'm a psychopath too. If you want to read a profile of a potential Ripper suspect that's far less flashy but probably closer to the truth, read John Douglas's chapter on the Ripper in "The Cases That Haunt Us" (it's worth noting that even the notoriously egotistical Douglas shies far away from claiming that he's "solved" this case). If you want to read a fantastic and imaginative Ripper narrative that has no pretensions of being a final solution, read "From Hell." If you're a Cornwell fan who wants to continue to have a shred of respect for her, stay far away from this one.
Rating:
Summary: An Exercise in Self Absorbsion
Review: I found the author to be verbose. Too much of the book is information that only serves to fill pages with words. I found her research to be excellent, but her interpretation of this evidence takes one too many a leap of faith that is just not supported or justified. Time and again she says that she has no evidence to prove Sickert did certain things or was in certain places. She then turns and says she has no evidence to prove the opposite. When you base an entire book on the premise that it is impossible to prove a negative, you end up with the self absorbed clap trap that is the logic this author has produced in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, but convincing? I'm not sure...
Review: I finished Patricia Cornwell's Ripper book late last night, having read it in about a day and a half. Once I picked it up and started reading it, I was hooked. Cornwell has a style that is both compelling and suspenseful. I have thoroughly enjoyed her fiction, and this latest book is consistent with her others in that "can't put it down, gotta read it" sense. But when I finally did put it down, I was disappointed. When all was said and done, I wasn't so sure she'd convinced me that Sickert was the Ripper. Yes, she has put forward some interesting theories and research, and yes, it is possible she is correct. I agree with some other reviewers that the book bounces around quite a bit. Several times I, too, had to go back and make sure exactly what dates/years she was writing about. I would have appreciated a somewhat more linear approach so that the timeline was more distinct. She spoke about several paintings, but only had a few as example. She has some letters and pictures reproduced that she barely discusses, or doesn't even discuss at all. If an author is going to bring something up, they need to at least discuss it. I think the thing that bothers me most about this book is that there isn't enough facts to thoroughly convince me. I found it extremely thought-provoking, and some of her insights about the Victorian era were quite illuminating, and I actually found those segments in some ways more interesting than Sickert himself. As an English teacher and former Debate coach, I found her organization and the development of her argument weak. She starts out from the get-go with Sickert as the Ripper, and doesn't stop to put it in perspective during the course of the entire book. I think I would have found it more convincing if she started out much broader, introducing her subject in context of other suspects, and then showed the reader exactly how she came to her conclusions, following her conclusions with the evidence to support her claims. Instead, as a reader, I get the feeling that she is trying very hard to show us why she is right, instead of validating her argument against other, previously established theories. My rating is based on the readability of the book--I found it really interesting and couldn't put it down. But I hold back on giving it more than three stars because it was confusing, and because it lacked something more substantial (and what that is remains elusive to me, as I don't know that I can really name it) that would convince me that Patricia Cornwell has finally solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper. To be fair, she does admit that part of her research was difficult due to the lack of records and the loss of important documents through time. But still...something nebulous nags at me, and makes me feel disappointed in the end, as if the much-anticipated dessert just wasn't the right capper to the end of an otherwise enjoyable meal.
Rating: 
Summary: Case Closed
Review: There is no reasonable doubt that Cornwell has not reached an accurate conclusion. There is no smoking gun, no arrow pointing to someone wearing a shirt with "KILLER" written on it. This is a factual presentation of the evidence, including DNA evidence that is astonishing when one considers the age of this case.
Mitochondrial DNA is not as conclusive as nuclear DNA. It will only eliminate 90-99% of the population. In a case that is 115 years old that, along with an amazing amount of physical evidence including handwriting samples, is good enough for me.
This is reality, not Hollywood. There is no romaticized Ripper in a top hat and trenchcoat. There is no great conspiracy. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer. Serial Killers keep killing until they are caught. Sickert's crimes went on long after the initial five victims. Anyone who disagrees has seen way too many movies.
Rating:
Summary: Well Done, Patricia Cornwell!
Review: "Solving , or attempting to solve, old 'unsolvable' crimes of murder is finding truth, justice, compassion and dignity denied to those victims who have no voice." People have pet theories about Jack the Ripper.....like the Kennedy assassination. People chose to believe only what they want to believe. ... An open mind and a balanced viewpoint are needed to appreciate this remarkable book. The Ripper murders were almost certainly committed by a perfectly sane, psychopathic serial killer who was also sexually frustrated and/or impotent....P>Walter Sickert was a talented actor and artist who, in his personal life, showed a type of psychopathic personality. He probably was a classic psychopath. He was possibly impotent. Many of his paintings were very dark and disturbing, sometimes morbid and violent. . Some of his art could easily be called "psychopathic murder art," "horror art," or "snuff art." He drew his own violent pornography...mutilated women..... or erotic and/or sinister sketches of women being attacked or menaced by men. He was prolific in this "pastime;" somewhat similar to a modern-day psychopath collecting violent magazines, videos, or snuff movies. The strongest evidence is mitochondrial DNA from saliva on the back of a stamp on a Ripper letter. This was matched to DNA from his personal stationery. With a probability of 90-99%, he was almost certainly the author of two to three of the 211 letters supposedly sent by the Ripper to the Police and to other places.
There is more than a coincidence here. One or more of these same letters was a "confession." This is very strong prima facie evidence. Other, unmatched, evidence (stationery watermarks and handwriting analysis) shows that the writer of these same letters was almost certainly an artist. He was very possibly the author of most of the others. The strong anecdotal evidence of his psychopathic personality and some evidence of alleged sexual dysfunction do closely tie in with Douglas' profile of the Ripper in "The Cases That Still Haunt Us" There is a link here that is not final, not definitive, but much too important to ignore.
Together with the other "evidence" it compels and points to one person who might today possibly be committed for trial on the total evidence available. (A conviction might be difficult with a good defence lawyer!) At the time of the killings, with the absence of any other clear suspects and with today's evidence and knowledge, there is no doubt that he would have easily been convicted. In his life he was a misogynist (not uncommon in that age!) and a compulsive, almost pathological letter writer, a night-time street rambler and insomniac, very familiar with Whitechapel and the East End of London, where the most publicised murders occurred. He had a habit of disappearing for long periods. He was known to have several "bolt-holes" (secret residences) in the area at all times. He had an unpleasant habit of staring fixedly at people for long periods. All of this behaviour may not be unusual for an artist. It also, however, provided him with ample opportunity. The "prolonged, fixed stare" is a universal characteristic of psychopathic people. If he was not the actual Ripper, there is a strong suggestion that he had deep fantasies about being the Ripper and possibly committed several "copycat" or "imitation" murders. There is also a powerful reason to suspect that if he was not the actual murderer, he had some very sinister connection with the crimes. If definitely not the actual murderer, there is an overwhelming sense that he at least knew the Ripper intimately, and personally, and sketched the actual killings. He may also have written letters claiming to have committed other similar murders in other parts of London and England. He travelled extensively across England and also to France. On the evidence of the DNA, the Artist type letters, and his psychopathic personality, I would say that he is the definitely "the very, very best, most promising, suspect to date." It's ridiculous for Cornwell to suggest that the book has been criticised because she is female and American. It has mostly been criticised because it pretentiously claims to be "case closed" (when it is nothing of the sort), and because she colours most of the work with an assumption that because Sickert was a famous misogynist, then he must have been guilty. (In a misogynist age? He was only one of a number.) But its critics do not understand that her work is groundbreaking and very important, and delivers probably the best, most believable theory to date. The book is full of irritating structural problems, omissions, irrelevant details and useless tangents. It has no useful footnotes, cross-links or cross-references to other crucial experts and evidence. .... but no other book has been able to thoroughly cover all of the available evidence or discuss completely all the non-available Ripper evidence anyway. The book has many flaws. It does promise a lot more than it actually delivers. But....no other book, to my knowledge, has delivered such a compelling result, in 114 years. This is the first time a Jack the Ripper suspect with a classic psychopathic personality has been possibly linked to strong DNA evidence. At its worst, it's no worse than all the other Ripper theories...at its best, it at least has some tangible evidence to show.......the other theories don't. A large quantity of sometimes-ambiguous circumstantial evidence completes a very creditable theory on this 114-year-old case of the first modern serial killer. Absolutely not "case closed." But Walter Sickert, definitely, for this reader at least, has "a prima facie case to answer." Well done, Patricia Cornwell!
Rating:
Summary: ego unleashed
Review: When admitting that her assumptions are in no way demonstrable as fact, Cornwell puts the word "proof" in quotation marks (p. 192) "Proof" therefore becomes questionable, as in 'so-called-proof.' As in 'let's not allow PROOF to get in the way of a good story.' She doesn't. I believe the well-intentioned author could have saved herself some embarrassment by reviewing some of the Ripper books published over the years. Anyone can marshall this mess of evidence to convict their favorite suspect. She's just the latest (and perhaps most arrogant).
Rating:
Summary: Jack the Ripper still unknown, 400 jumbled pages later
Review: I've been interested in "Ripperology" (a term Cornwell hates) for a few years and have read a few interesting works, namely, Alan Moore's very inventive graphic novel "From Hell." I was interested to see how a novelist with forensic experience would interpret the mysterious serial killer. I have to say, Ms. Cornwell has really done her research- reading all of the Ripper letters, genuine or no, tracing back histories on inspectors, victims, other suspects, and on occasion, witnesses. However, her research as presented in the book is completely disorganized and unreadable. She jumps from brief anecdotes on Sickert's life to murder scene mood settings, London commonalities, related murders, epistolary comparisons, and a too incomplete to be valid DNA analysis the way most of us change our socks. Cornwell may have something that Sickert is the killer, but if he is, the argument needs to be much more clearly made. The fact that it isn't creates speculation that perhaps the evidence she has is not that compelling. Unless you are REALLY interested in the Ripper case, or perhaps Walter Sickert (who I'd never heard of, despite claims that he was England's most famous painter in the early 20th century) you will definitely want to stay away from this book as it about as coherent as the amass of Ripper letters the police had to work their way through in the late 1880s. I was incredibly disappointed with this book. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: Too much Fluff
Review: How did she zero in on this one person? She never gave definitive reasons why the other's were not guilty of being the ripper.
| 
