Rating: 
Summary: Thank goodness she's not a policeman!
Review: This is an absolutely infuriating book. I am not quite through reading it, and am not sure I'm going to be able to hang in there until the end. The only reason I've read as much as I have is that so much research has gone into it, and the results of that research is often fascinating. But the conclusions Cornwell draws are something else again. Any halfway competent historian would die of shame before writing such a book, and no decent member of the police would think it presents sufficient evidence for an arrest, much less a conviction. For example: A woman dies in Durham. There is a racecourse in Durham. Sickert loved racing. There is no proof that Sickert was not in Durham on the day in question. From all this, we are supposed to infer that Sickert, aka Jack the Ripper, murdered a woman in Durham. Give me a break! There is no reason to suppose the Sickert was in Durham and no reason to suppose that the presence of a racecourse had anything to do with the murder. The connection between all these little facts is only Cornwell's head. The entire book is like this, with isolated pieces of information put together in a way that suggests there is a connection when, in fact, there is no reason to suppose so. And much of what she writes assumes that the reader accepts (1) that Sickert had a genital deformity that rendered him impotent and (2) that many, and perhaps even most, of the so-called Ripper letters were written by the Ripper himself. The evidence is against her on both counts. For whatever reason, Cornwell made up her mind that Sickert was the Ripper, and when she couldn't find conclusive DNA evidence to support her view, organized all her other information in such a way as to convict him by innuendo.
Rating: 
Summary: Ouch!
Review: I really enjoy her mystery novels, and I thought I would like this book as well. I was very disappointed. Many of her points only work if you're willing to go waaaaaaay out on the limb with her, and accept a bunch of "possible" clues, including a host of extra Ripper victims not usually associated with the case. Plus, the book was very disorganized, with no rhyme or reason to how it was arranged. There's a chapter at the end that seems to be more of an afterthought than anything, and should have been towards the beginning during the discussion of other victims. In addition to that, she often goes off on tangents bemoaning the modern forensic methods that were unavailable at the time. Pages are wasted discussing how easily these murders would have been solved if they happened today. Well, duh! I thought it really could have been better, she raises many interesting issues. But, by the time I'd waded through the poor construction of the book, and then her iffy proofs, I wished I could have just gotten the time I spent reading it back...
Rating:
Summary: Is Kate Scarpetta Savvier than Her Creator?
Review: I could not give this book one star because I really admire someone who goes after a theory they way Cornwell goes after this one. Having survived the theories about Frances Tumblety, Maybrick and even Lewis Carroll(Really that one is weaker than the one against Sickert)I am always up for another stab at the game of who is Jack. However, I really wish it had been Kate on the quest and not Cornwell herself. I'm sure Kate would have realized that the people in Britain had seen an American with deep pockets coming. I have no idea how much she was taken for in purchasing all her ripper (and Sickert) memorabilia but I'm sure it was a packet. At least it's tax deductible and she can problably sell it on eBay if she gets tired of it for more than she paid. Second point, I think this book is disorganized, but I think it is deliberately disorganized. The easiest way to pad a weak case is by muddling in a lot of other stuff. The more you can distract the reader with extraneous points, the less they can recognize the weak points of an argument. Finally, I think that there was an interesting idea at the center of this case. It just got lost in the author driving the point home about Sickert. On one hand,It might have been very interesting if Cornwell had written a book about her actual search for information, the qualifications of her experts and how they worked. On the other she might have turned it into a compelling piece of fiction. As it is, the book sort of drags in the middle but it's readable if the reader doesn't mind rolling her eyes occasionally
Rating: 
Summary: Fairly Convincing
Review: I went into this thinking I wouldn't buy any of it, having heard Cornwell's theories debunked by several "Ripperologists." It seemed like a stretch to base the idea of Sickert's guilt on some similarities in his doodling & sketches on the letters the Ripper sent to police. But after having read the book, I'll admit she paints a pretty convincing argument. Sure, she definetly jumps to some very big conclusions at times, as if she didn't have quite enough evidence to support her theory, but there are also enough interesting details to leave me mostly convinced. I'm sure no one will ever conclusively solve the Jack the Ripper case, but it's interesting to read people's theories.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Mystery Solved?
Review: "Who is Jack the Ripper?": the greatest true crime mystery ever, and this book tries to convince the reader that the mystery has been solved. Quite a persuasive case is made that Sickert is the fiend who haunted Whitechapel. More than anything, his violent paintings and drawings are the most persuasive evidence, one is even titled "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom". More conclusive DNA evidence would have thoroughly swayed me to the author's opinion. I have always loved to read any material related to the Ripper, so of course this book was a must. I still prefer to believe that conclusive evidence of who the Ripper really was has either never existed, or has been destroyed, either by time or by choice.
Rating:
Summary: Not very good
Review: Ms Cornwell's novels are interesting if you have an interest in forensic science and detective novels. They appear to be well researched and flow smoothly which brings about a pleasent read. After reading Portrait of a Killer though, it is my conclusion that Ms Cornwell should stick to fiction. I have no doubt that she investigated the case thuroughly, but her narrative is confusing and unorganized; I can't believe an editor let this fly. I think that a plausable case against Mr Sickert could be made with the "evedence" that Ms Cornwell presents but it is doubtful that she would be able to convince a jury simply because everything seems to be out of order.
Ripper buffs may get a kick out of her take on the facts.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Crime Fiction
Review: Walter Sickert is Jack the Ripper because of the horrific experience of having his penis amputated by sadistic British nurses in a dirty London hospital. Here is a stunningly terrifying description of what he went through and how it rendered him impotent and with a lifelong need to murder women. By the way there is no actual proof for anything described (though none of his wives or mistresses specifically denied it). Now that we have these facts let us draw some further conclusions to prove his guilt.... For example, Jack the Ripper was in a certain borough on a given date and although correspondence indicates that Sickert was out of the country who's to say he wasn't lying? Are you convinced by these arguments? Good. Neither was I. The case is most definitely not closed. Having said that I enjoy Patricia Cornwell's fiction including this book.
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT AND ENTERTAINING
Review: I do not agree with Ms. Cornwell's critics that her style is choppy and disorganized in presenting her case. Because she was once a journalist, she explores this very complex subject the way a good journalist would. I am a journalist, so I can perfectly understand the logic of her structure. I found the book enormously entertaining and revealing. One is not obsessed with what one is not disturbed by. Mr. Sickert's fascination with the Ripper murders transcends mere interest. And yes, I do agree that an artist reveals the innermost recesses of his/her soul through his/her creations. That the "case is closed?" Probably not. That Ms. Cornwell's evidence is conclusive. Doubtful. Nevertheless, despite the sensationalism of the book's title, which belittles it, this is an impassioned chronicle of a fascinating subject. My only criticism is the passing of judgment on a man who is dead and cannot defend himself. That's probably the main aspect of the book that makes me uncomfortable. However, Ms. Cornwell's conviction is enthralling. I only wish she would have written it as a novel. It would have lost none of its power as a work of fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper --case not closed
Review: As a long time fan of Patricia Cornwell's books, this was my first major disappointment with her work. Based on her presentation, the case is not closed! She offers many circumstantial bits and pieces, but is far from proving her case. I am surprised that she would weaken her reputation for careful work by releasing this volume and even more surprised that a publisher would print it. While offering some interesting insights into police work and crime during the era of Jack the Ripper, and while possibly eliminating one or two of the traditional suspects, this work fails to convince and had her "evidence" been presented at trial, I suspect he would have gone free. Patricia, return to writing what you do best and apologize to your fans for this mediocre work. It is not worthy of you.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a crank...
Review: I've never read Patricia Cornwell's fiction, so I can't comment on her usual writing style. I can, however, tell you that "Portrait of a Killer" is a disorganised mess that is a primer in how NOT to write non-fiction. Although I wouldn't say I'm a "Ripperologist", I've read a few other books on the subject; the main reason for writing a book of this sort is to convince the reader of the writer's point of view. Patricia Cornwell fails miserably in that aim. She doesn't fail due to lack of compelling evidence: what I was able to sift out of the miasma was as good as the evidence other writers have presented for their personal candidates. Where Cornwell loses the reader is her presentation. From page 1, she is stridently accusing Walter Sickert of being the Ripper. She assumes the reader is as familiar with who Walter Strickert was as she is, so she fails right from the beginning to give the reader a basic biography for her subject. Then, she fails to go over the history of the Ripper cases and the historical figures involved. Because Cornwell assumes the reader has a fairly extensive background on the subject, she jumps around in time, mentions people with no introduction or explanation of their role in the history, and fails to give basic references or citations for facts and opinions she relies upon. A good example of this is Sickert's first wife, Ellen. Approximately 100 pg into "Portrait of a Killer", the only coherent biography we have been given on Walter Sickert is that of his childhood. While discussing the 2nd murder attributed to the Ripper, Cornwell suddenly mentions Ellen in the context of people she introduced Sickert to. The reader has NO IDEA when Sickert met Ellen, how they married, how long they'd been married at the time of the murders; as a matter of fact, this reader would have had no way of knowing who "Ellen" was except that she is mentioned in the caption of one of the pictures included! Cornwell uses Sickert's acting career as a constant basis for assumption that he was able to effectively disguise himself and thus escape detection whilst committing the murders. Yet she never gives the reader any coherent idea of what that acting career consisted of. What training did Sickert have? When did he join Henry Irving's prestigious company? What did he do prior to that plum assignment? etc etc.These omissions make it difficult for the reader to be able to fully follow Cornwell's reasoning. Thruout this book, chapters have no coherent center, jumping about in both era and subject. Cornwell's tone is consistently that of a stridently hysterical believer who seems to think the louder she yells the more persuasive she will be. Her descriptions of life in late-Victorian London, while interesting, tend towards the sensationalistic; at times Cornwell treads dangerously close to "purple" prose. Personally, I recommend "Diary of Jack the Ripper" for readers getting their feet wet on the subject. Whether you believe the Diary is authentic or not, the author of that book at least presents information coherently and informatively. Patricia Cornwell fails on every count.
| 
