Rating: 
Summary: Best theory I've heard yet!
Review: Most will say they were not convinced by the circumstantial evidence presented by Ms Cornwell, but I was. Her investigation into Jack was the best laid out one yet and wasn't hyped up by throwing in the Royal family or a secret organization. Yes, she didn't prove conclusively that Sickert was the infamous Ripper, but she provided a thought provoking look at a man who was quite capable of being the serial killer. My only regret about the book is the misleading title (Case Closed). It is a shame the bad publicity (ie. she didn't prove it) will over shadow a great profiling of Sickert as Jack the Ripper. Of course, if too many people believed it, the tour walks in London wouldn't have a show to put on for the tourists would they? I hope to see further research revelations as she continues (I hope) the search. Keep it up Ms Cornwell!
Rating: 
Summary: Don't get ripped off! Avoid this book like the plague.
Review: I bought this book in the english book section at the Munich airport. I was intrigued by the title's appendix " . . Case Closed". Well, to close a case you need some proof. To put it simply, Cornwell has none. Beyond that simple fact, you should be aware that this book is rambling and poorly organized. Don't waste your time reading to the end thinking that Cornwell will finally come to the point and prove her case. She never presents one shred of meaningful evidence, not even with her dubious DNA testing. A total ripoff of a book. I can't imagine that she isn't being sued by someone representing the artist Walter Sickert, whom she accuses of being a serial killer.
Rating: 
Summary: NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR
Review: It interests me that PC could and would go back and reinvestigate the crimes. I thought getting DNA off the Ripper stamps was an ingenious idea. Although PC does a good job of making her case against the artist Walter Sickert, all she's done is prove that Sickert probably authored some of the Ripper letters. Nice try, though. I thought John Douglas made a better case in THE CASES THAT HAUNT US in less than 100 pages. PC should stick to fiction. Now she's trying to turn Princess Diana's death into her personal cash cow.
Rating: 
Summary: Here We Go Again...
Review: Every five years or so someone comes along with "The" definitive answer to criminal history's most famous question: Who was Jack the Ripper? And like so many of those who have come before her (i.e. Melvin Harris - "The True Identity of Jack the Ripper", Stephen Knight - "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" and Paul Friedman - "Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter"), Patricia Cornwell commited the Ripperologists most cardinal sin by picking the suspect, ignoring the evidence and bending the facts to fit the case. In her well researched, naively argued and egomaniacally titled "miss"terpiece "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed", Ms. Cornwell weaves a weak and unsupportable tapestry of murder around a well known and respected artist of the day, Walter Sickert. I was suspicious of Cornwell's "meticulous" research from the start when she not only includes Martha Tabram as a victim of the Ripper (a theory long since discounted by most investigators) but misspells her name as "Tabran". In the very beginning, Cornwell blatently states that Sickert was the only suspect for her and the only on one which she ever focused her attention. Granted, Sickert was a weird fellow with a penchant for morbidity in his art and tastes, but Cornwell would have you believe his appetites would have made the Marquis de Sade a Cub Scout den leader. And what truly stunned me was her contention that every single letter written to the police claiming to have been penned by the Ripper was not only genuine, but that they were all (ALL) written by Walter Sickert! 250+ hoaxes of varying paper samples, ink types and handwriting styles that would take a graphologist a month to even catalogue were, according to Cornwell, written by Sickert, only Sickert and no one but Sickert. And as if that pill weren't hard enough to swallow, Cornwell would have you believe that Sickert was a master of disguise, a sexual hypnotist and an ambidexterous virtuoso of disguising his handwriting. The way Cornwell portrayed Sickert made him sound more like James Bond than Jack the Ripper. If Sickert were indeed the "Phantom of Death", it's a wonder he ever had time to do any painting with all the murdering, letter writing and traveling around Europe that he was purported to have done. For over a century there have been a plethora of talented and dedicated criminologists who have dedicated their lives to researching this case (i.e. Martin Fido, Philip Sugden and Donald Rumbelow) and while they each have their pet theories, none of them have been so egocentric as to claim to have solved the case after a 30 minute tour of Scotland Yard. Cornwell's credibility as a "forensic researcher" is going to take a hit after this one. However, I'm sure Colin Wilson and Shirley Harrison will welcome the company. Don't bother.
Rating:
Summary: Tendentious and unconvincing
Review: I agree with the reviewers who suggest that this is a hotch potch of unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo. I found nothing in this book that was compelling evidence to prove Sickert was the Ripper. It's totally cirmustantial evidence when you do away with the so-called DNA evidence.
Ms Cornwall should be ashamed of herself for putting out this farrago of rubbish and in the messy and unconvincing form that she has. It may well be that Sickert was the Ripper. And I'm inclined to think he's the most likely suspect. But the case would have been better put together and argued by someone like Vince Bugliosi (he of the wonderful "Helter Skeleter" and "The Sea Will Tell" -- both highly recommended true crime stories). She should stick to fiction.
BTW: I too was a little annoyed at the "Case Closed" subtitle to her book; hers is in no way a watertight proof of Sickert as Ripper.
BTW2: I too did enjoy the parts describing Victorian London, though even in those she often descends into use of adjectives with at time inappropriate value judgements.
Rating:
Summary: plausible
Review: When this book was first published it got a strangly cold reception from the critics. Patricia Cornwell has a theory. I think she's wrong (my money is on Montague Druit as the killer) but she backs up her theory with a very good argument. Unless someone finds a confession with the Rippers real name on it we will never know who he really was but Cornwell's book is FAR superior to idiocy like Prince Jack or any of the silly books that attempt to pin the killings on elderly Dr. Gull. While I think she's mistaken I do respect the research, the mighty effort and the entertaining prose. Never mind what the critics said, this book is worth your time and money.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating
Review: Patricia Cornwell did such a first rate job at uncovering evidence and crime scene reports that were virtually lost and destroyed through the advent of two World Wars, and she even spent thousands of dollars out of her own pocket investigating this for us. It really miffs me when people degrade this novel, because she put so much into it. I believe she deserves credit, because she has delved deeper than anyone before her. And while I feel that we will never truly know the identity of Jack the Ripper beyond a shadow of a doubt, the theories posited by Patricia Cornwell are undoubtedly a cut above the rest.
Rating:
Summary: A turly good book
Review: I recomend this book for anyone intersted in the Ripper, though I recommend you try NOT to take it personaly as some readers have. Wether or not you argee with her theory and methods, the book is well thought out and a page turner.
Even if you are a fan of Sickert art, I recommed reading this so you at least have a informed opipion of the debate.
Rating:
Summary: Trying to buy a reputation as a real detective
Review: Patricia Cornwell has a great need to try to prove to the world that she isn't just a fiction writer but someone who can actually catch criminals. Right now she's in the news for trying to solve the "mystery" of how Princess Diana died. Even her fans have got to start to realize that she's in over her head. Take this book. The main problem with it is that she picked the killer before she ever did any amount of research. She even admits it. Someone offhandedly mentions the name of a famous painter, Walter Sickert, that another poorly researched book (Stephen's Knight's thoroughly discredited Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution) claims was involved as someone suspicious. So then Cornwell spends a fortune trying to prove that Sickert did it, and the best she comes up with is that DNA she assumes is his can't be ruled out as being the same as DNA found on a letter claiming to be from the killer. And, while every other researcher thinks that most of the Ripper letters were hoaxes (including the one with the DNA Cornwell tested), she is of the opinion that they are all real. Has she never even talked to a police department about how many hoaxes they get when a serial killer is on the loose? It's also telling that the only people she allows to examine any evidence is the same group of people she has donated gobs of money to and who apparently are afraid to speak out in public to explain that the DNA evidence wouldn't even be enough to hold a suspect for questioning, let alone be useful in a court of law to try to prove anything. The rest of the book is innuendo and outrageous character assassination that would get her sued if Sickert were still alive. And, of course, she glosses over and tries to deny any inconvenient facts that might get in the way, like, say, that Sickert was in France at the time of the murders, obviously didn't have the sexual dysfunction she claims he did because he had several children from various partners, and so forth. She also refuses to attend conferences where reputable ripperology scholars can debate her on any of it and has withdrawn from radio interviews when she knew the host was going to ask questions prepared by an expert on the case. This awful book is what happens when ego and an expensive PR firm replaces legitimate research. If you want to see how real scholars approach the topic, check out the website at www.casebook.org or books by Evans or Sugden.
Rating:
Summary: Disjointed, disgusting, and disdainful.
Review: This dismal tome is the worst book I have ever had the displeasure of reading. So disenchanted have I become with Ms. Cornwell through reading her disputatious novel regarding the dismasting of some disordered artist that I will likely never again read her disposable crime fiction. Most reviewers have noted the disorganized and repetitive nature of the book as well as the arrogant voice of the author. But as difficult as these significant barriers to crafting a readable book may be, worse is her overuse of disturbing violent, sexual and medical imagery which Cornwell evidently thinks can substitute for a compelling argument. A discerning reader will pass on this disagreeable little work.
|
