Rating: 
Summary: All based on circumstantial evidence!!!
Review: I really admire Patricia Cornwell, and I have read some of her other books, so I was really enthusiastic when I heard that she had solved the Jack the Ripper case and she had written a book about it. Sixty pages into the book, I kept hoping that she would show me some piece of tangible evidence that would finger Walter Sickert as the killer. Even when I was towards the last chapter I kept saying to myself "Okay, here it comes. She's going to surprise me in the end". Nothing. All of her evidence was completely circumstancial, simply for the fact that she based all her facts on letters written to Scotland Yard at the time supposedly by the killer. If in fact Sickert wrote the letters to the police, it still does not mean he was the killer. Throughout her book she states clearly that Walter Sickert was fond of making crude jokes, and this could have been one of his sick jokes, provided he wrote the letters. If this case were prosecuted in modern times, all of this evidence would be completely inadmissable. I was really disappointed in this book and hope this doesn't affect Ms. Cornwell's career or credibility.
Rating: 
Summary: Intruguing, compelling, but is it truth?
Review: You have to hand it to Ms. Cornwell. She has tackled a thorny problem that many writers have speculated about, and she has drawn her own conclusions. One of the most spectacular things about this book is that her conclusions are in no way tentative: she believes her theory about Jack the Ripper being Walter Sickert to be true, and doesn't stint to say so from page one. But her proof is based on suppositions and half-possible occurences that simply aren't facts. I wanted very much for this to be the solution - and maybe it is! but ultimately her ratiocinations about the whys and wherefores don't hold water. Sickert painted dreary whores and gloomy scenes with bedsteads and ambiguously placed nudes (dead/alive?) from about 1902-1905. From those dates Cornwell projects back to 1888, and forward to 1940, and expects us all to ride along with her. She selects facts that fit her theory, and rejects those that don't. Eventually the reader feels rather manipulated. I wanted to believe in the Maybrick theory of JtR; it truly felt right, and I am sorry to see that they've discounted it altogether. But to dive into this mystery and deem it solved just because so many millions of dollars were spent to follow this theory seems a waste. The whole idea of watermarks is intriguing - but it isn't taken far enough. Compare one of the half-sheets to one of Sickert's full sheets (she doesn't) to see if they fit, and how they fit. Cornwell believes she's found Sickert's doodlings in a guest book in Cornwall (no relation), that are revealing. She embroiders a whole chapter based on the findings - but there is simply no proof at all that it is he who's doodled in the book. And further, the idea that the book was written before the 1888 murders, and she posits that Sickert went there post 8/1888 and did the doodling fits real nicely - but there isn't an ounce of fact in it. Readers are not quite *that* gullible. There simply are too many loose threads to make it satisfying, and the insistence on the author that it's all tidy and done make things very uncomfortable.
Rating:
Summary: I Must Respectfully Disagree With Ms. Cornwell's Findings...
Review: As a criminologist and Ripperologist, I have read Ms. Cornwell's book with interest, but cannot support her theories and conclusions with respect to Walter Sickert being "Jack the Ripper." It seems as if the author fancies herself as a modern day Sherlock Holmes or perhaps a real life version of her fictional Kay Scarpetta. No problem with that accept for the shortcomings of her findings. Aside from the book being somewhat difficult to meander through, it is a giant leap to suggest that the Ripper case is "closed" on the basis of this book, even as a sales gimmick. Most real life criminologists would argue that there are any number of Ripper suspects that are more plausible than Sickert. But even if you assumed Sickert could be the Ripper, the evidence Cornwell offers is too weak to support this conclusion. Moreover, the reality is that even with modern science and investigative techniques, solving an 1888 London serial murder case well over than a century later is next to impossible--given the logic that there would always be doubts as to whether the identified person is truly Jack the Ripper. And since Cornwell did not travel through time to gather her so-called facts and evidence in a sort of reversal of the 1979 Ripper movie, TIME AFTER TIME, all of us are left to speculation at best in identifying the elusive man known as Jack the Ripper. Indeed, there are some who believe that the prostitute killer may have been a woman. My point is that this is one historical killer that will continue to fascinate the public for years to come--long after Cornwell's book has left the store shelves for good--largely because we cannot know his/her identity for certain. As such, we can play around with different suspects from here to eternity, knowing that the killer could have been anyone from among the most powerful to the powerless of Victorian society. For those of you with a taste for real true crime books, I would recommend my book, THE SEX SLAVE MURDERS (St. Martin's Press, 1996) or my latest nonfiction title, MURDERS IN THE UNITED STATES: CRIMES, KILLERS AND VICTIMS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY (McFarland, 2001). If you prefer to focus on Jack the Ripper, stick to fiction, which can be far more compelling without claiming to be the real deal. In this respect, you might want to try my fictional account of Jack the Ripper, IN THE DARK OF NIGHT, published in 2001 by iUniverse. In any event, the fascination about Jack the Ripper and his identity lives on ...
Rating:
Summary: portrait of a poorly written book
Review: not compelling, not well written
Rating: 
Summary: A bit of celebrity whiplash going on
Review: I was all set to dismiss and dislike this book after all the negativity in the reviews. At this point NO ONE knows who Jack The Ripper was. Not Scotland Yard, not the many armchair detectives who peruse the volumes of writing on this gruesome killer. Certainly the case against Walter Sickert is no more or less full of holes than any other theory. Cornwell's Portrait is still a good read. She doesn't posture any more than any previous writer on the subject ( and a lot less in some cases, than her critics reviews) for her conclusions.
I learned a lot on Sickert and see this more along the lines of an "Unauthorized Biography" of the man. Maybe this is a conspiracy between the Royal Family and Cornwell to distract attention from the REAL killer... hmmm
I, too, am still PO'd at Cornwell for wasting my money on "Isle of Dogs", but not enough to forget the entertainment from the Scarpetta books before it.
I too am a Ripperologist. Probably on a more casual basis than some. I found a lot of information on the era, political and social problems in London in the late 1880's to still hold my interest. This book also included more pictures of more obscure Ripper letters than I had seen before in one book.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Finished But Already Disappointed
Review: I love the Kay Scarpetta novels and can't wait for the next. I just wish Patricia Cornwell had used her considerable talent writing a new Scarpetta instead of this book. I have just started reading Case Closed and already have noticed some glaring errors. In the first chapter she mentions the Duke of Edinburgh birthday. I think she means the Prince of Wales as the title "Duke of Edinburgh" was created for Prince Phillip. Also she claims the first victim of Jack The Ripper to be Martha Tabran. Every other Ripper book lists this woman as Tabram. These are just two examples of sloppy research and I've only read three chapters. All the money spent on the research for this book and she couldn't hire a fact checker?
Rating:
Summary: looney tune cornwell
Review: the case is closed: cornwell is nuts.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell's motivation for the book???
Review: I've never really followed the "Ripper legend" but I found SOME of this book compelling. I don't think it would get a conviction in court though. Cornwell makes a lot of ambiguous qualifications in this book, statements that discount the likelyhood of certain slang terms of the period used in the letters etc. Short of getting a time machine, that would be nearly impossible to call. These are her drawn conclusions with the evidence available. The problem with them is that Sickert lived a long life. Serial killers don't just stop on their own and it would have been obvious that murder would have followed him everywhere. He would have increasingly become the primary focus over the years by Scotland Yard and was not. A fun book to read but NOT a case closed. Cornwell claims to have spent 6 Million of her own money "cracking the case". First of all, that is a business write off and the hype of the book made her personal collection of Sickert's art work worth a fortune well beyond the 6 million. She remarks about Sickert's lack of conscience but Cornwell's personal life has been a self centered sham. She allegedly has quite an appetite for wrecking (FBI)marriages and shouldn't be putting herself off as some Elliot Ness type. It's too bad she didn't spend those resources trying to solve an ongoing case that would do some real good in stopping a killer that is currently walking the planet. Stick to fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Rank Speculation
Review: I was looking forward to this book, having seen Ms. Cornwell interviewed on TV about it. However, I came away deeply disappointed. Ms. Cornwell fills the book with speculation, rather than evidence. And some of the specualtion is shockingly weak. For instance, during the period of some of the killings, Ms. Cornwell was unable to find any evidence that Walter Sickert was NOT in London; which she takes as evidence that Sickert was the killer. If Ms. Cornwell doesn't know that he wasn't in London, then she doesn't know that he wasn't in Moscow. Should we blame him for murders in Moscow during that period? Some to think of it, she doesn't know that he wasn't in Paris; Berlin; Rome; Oslo; Dublin. The list is long... We are also treated to pages of speculation about the nature of some medical treatments that Sickert received as a child, based on a single remark a Sickert nephew made to the author. We don't know whether the nephew's remark is fact or family lore. In any event, it sends Ms. Cornwell off on a lengthy and elaborate set of speculations about whether Sickert was capable of having children... or even urinating normally! Does Ms. Cornwell have any evidence that Sickert had unusual bathroom practices? Save your money.
Rating:
Summary: poor logic
Review: Once we discover the author has very few facts to back up
her assertions and theories, this book has little of interest.
Plainly, there is just too much of the author's personal
conjecture, and too many broad jumps in logic, for her to make
any case at all for knowing the identity of Jack the Ripper.
The book reads like a poor attempt to support a conclusion
made before research and writing began, and that serious failing
really shines through in her writing.
For a serious student of those crimes, and that period in history, this is a waste of time.
| 
