Rating: 
Summary: Truly appaling
Review: I have always been interested in forensics and behavioral psychology, so when I saw this book on the shelves I bought it immediately. I have never been so disgusted with a book in my life. Both Cornwell's writing and her "evidence" are just embarrassing. All this book proves is that her ego has far surpassed her talent. The majority of her "evidence" consists of: "There's no reason to suspect he wasn't in London that night," or "he might possibly have walked home this way." Her so-called forensic evidence (DNA and handwriting) are inconclusive and less than convincing. The entire book is nothing more than any of her other books: fiction. I'm embarrassed to even own it. Try John Douglas's nonfiction instead if you want real criminal science.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing, But Not For the Faint of Heart
Review: This is the first Patricia Cornwell book I have read, but I enjoy reading true crime novels as well as historical fiction.I have been fascinated by the Jack the Ripper murders for quite a long time, because the perpetrator was never brought to justice. I have not read any other "Jack the Ripper" books, because none appeared to be more than intellectual rhetoric and conjecture. Through the frenzied prose, one can tell that Cornwell not only studied the Ripper, but has truly vested herself in finding the truth. She has brought together a collection of research never studied by one person, and added scientific testing (including DNA) to further her cause. The only warning I have is that the subject matter is dark. You may have read true crime before, watched the Sopranos, and seen shows about the Ripper on the History Channel, as I have. The depths of depravity that Cornwell's suspect is purported to have sunk will still amaze and horrify you. There were evenings where I could not sleep because my heart was racing and my stomach was churning from disgust over the atrocities that were committed not only in the Ripper murders, but several other murders that Cornwell alludes may have been caused by her suspect. Despite the gore, I couldn't put it down. An excellent read.
Rating:
Summary: Dull and a Boring
Review: I can only get through 3-5 pages before my eyelids get heavy. This book lacks organization. Each chapter jumps from one topic to one another. If Cornwell is trying to confirm Jack the Ripper's true identity, the organization of her case is haphazardedly done. I think I will use the pages to start fires in my fireplace.
Rating:
Summary: The case is certainly not closed
Review: If this book reveals anything it is the grotesque hubris of Patricia Cornwell herself in giving her book such a ludicrous title. She had added nothing to the debate as to the identity of Jack the Ripper and has instead pushed her theory about Sickert, irrespective of the lack of real evidence. The author truly seems to believe that if she could prove that Sickert wrote the ripper letters, which she can not, then it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he actually committed the murders. The fact it has subsequently emerged that Sickert was almost certainly in France with his family the night of the double murder also makes her conclusion dubious in the extreme. I have never read any of Cornwell's fiction but I assume it must be somewhat more worthy than this drivel. A feeble effort and a waste of money.
Rating:
Summary: Why Sickert? Because I say so, that's why
Review: As an historian, art historian and scientist, Ms Cornwell makes a great crime novelist. Poorly constructed and edited, I had the distinct impression this book was written in a hurray for publication. Whole passages could have been cut, such as the potted history of police and coroners, and the hypothetical description of how the murders would have been investigated in the modern day US. Ms Cornwell comes across as an outsider, and dare I say it, an American outsider, who is suspicious and critical of UK authorities and commentators. I can't help thinking the lucrative Jack the Ripper industry must have been very attractive to this popular crime writer. The only authority behind her assertion that the case is solved is Her Considerable Presence - 'I say so. Do you know who I AM?' I am really pleased that she was in Aspen when the penny dropped at various points but was it really necessary to tell us? If you think the reading public is stupid, think again! One of the most telling moments of her art criticism is when she innocently informs us that close forensic examination of paintings reveals brushstrokes. I would seriously be interested in an art historian's critique of her methods, because even an unqualified reader such as myself can see that it is flawed.
Rating:
Summary: Abomination
Review: Writing in the New York Times, the distinguished novelist Caleb Carr reviewed this book as "an exercise in calumny." He is too kind, and bear in mind that writers almost never say anything negative about another writer's work. This book is worse than awful; it is an abomination for which the publisher should be ashamed. It is one thing for Ms. Cornwall to write dreadful novels (though her first ones were quite good), but it is another matter for her to tackle non-fiction and write [bad stuff]. If her "Ripper," Walter Sickert were still alive, he could sue her for libel and win every dollar she has earned. Pages 64-65 sum up her work. In these two pages, she makes her case against Sickert by stating: "may have," "it is possible," "one wonders," "could be," "it may be," "it may also be," "could have," "it can," "he may," "I imagine," I am inclined to suspect," "I doubt," "I can't say exactly," on and on--TWENTY ONE TIMES. In two pages! The rest of the book reads the same way. This is her "case closed" proof of Sickert's guilt. It is all supposition, amateur pyschology and twisted logic. Plus awful writing that no high school teacher would accept. This book is a disgrace. I will never read another thing she writes.
Rating:
Summary: Over-hyped garbage - an insult in every way: Case Closed
Review: It's almost funny, Patricia Cornwell has conned a lot of critics and her pubisher - but the reviewing public here at Amazon sees right through the garbage. Cormnwell's theory about poor old Walter Sickert is so full of holes that I frequently found myself chuckling as I read. Only allowed a thousand words here so I can't tear this book apart line by line. But here's a fun example: Cornwell points out that Jack the Ripper often used horse racing slang in his letters, even gave the cops tips on the ponies! The tie-in to Sickert is clear she says - the Ripper once referred to "Bangor Street" in a letter and there is no Bangor Street in London. But don't go away now, there is a city called Bangor in Wales which has a racecourse! Stay with old Patty now, here's the clincher, and I quote: "While I have no evidence that Sickert bet on race horses, I don't have any fact to say he didn't".
CASE CLOSED, as the cover says. Hey, while I have no evidence that Patricia Cornwell wears men's size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, I have no proof that she doesn't either - call Mark Furman. It only gets better. Cornwell finds a guest book at some obscure coastal England bed and breakfast. The guest register was defiled and doodled in by a guest Cornwell assumes to be the Ripper many years after the Ripper murders. She points out that poor old Sickert was never seen there (he was semi-famous), and never registered there. But she's happy to spend a chapter assuming that he registered there under an alias, and disguised, decades after the Ripper murders because it was the kind of place he would have liked. CASE CLOSED! You want evidence of a crime, folks, it's on page 184. Old Patricia found evidence that she thought might point to a London cop, not Sickert. Her reaction: "I was completely unnerved and thought my life might disintegrate right before my eyes." Looks like Ms. Cornwell had a lot at stake in nailing Sickert. Why Sickert? My guess is because he is the only one of five or six well known Ripper suspects who has no family left alive to sue Patricia Cornwell. Oh, there's a lot of 21st century psycho babble that he hated women in spite of the fact that he kept marrying the darned creatures (as a child he had an operation on his private parts - so MAYBE he couldn't perform sexually - Cornwell doesn't know this, but she guesses). Unfortunately she accuses the Ripper of murdering a young boy too, so much for the woman-hater theory. But logic doesn't deter Kay, I mean Patricia. And there's DNA evidence too, yeah - sure, and let us pray that they're not springing convicted murderers today on DNA evidence this weak. Listen, I'm an old Kay Scarpetta fan who has seen a huge drop-off in the quality of Cornwell's work in the past few years. I think Pat signed her Hollywoood contract and stopped working hard. The last Scarpetta novel was really bad. I'll bet a Kay Scarpetta movie is coming out soon, and I'll bet her Hollywood backers were screaming for some publicity. Well, they got it. CASE CLOSED.
Rating:
Summary: Very Dull Reading
Review: I received this book as a Christmas present, and was very eager to read it. That enthusiasm began to fade with each passing page of this book. I have enjoyed reading this author's other works, but this was like watching paint dry. There is no suspense, and nothing in this book really grabs your attention. The evidence offered is, at most, inconclusive, and I don't think people need to read this book to realize that forensics in 19th century England was not as developed as it is today. In light of the content of the book, I find the title misleading. If you feel you must read this, get it from the library.
Rating: 
Summary: I enjoyed it.
Review: Despite other reviewers' opinions, I liked the book. It is chock full of history and at times reads more like a textbook than a novel, but as long as you're prepared for that, I found it very thought provoking and truly fascinating.
Rating:
Summary: Badly Written - Needs Good Editor
Review: For someone who writes excellent mystery novels, this book is a mess. It badly needs a good editor to point out the writing faults. For some strange reason Ms. Cornwell can not stay on one subject making it extremely difficult to read and follow. She will make a statement about a certain happening and then go off on two or three semi-related tangents that may or not be pertinent to the statement and never come back to the main topic. It is like a stream of consciousness session that rambles all over the place.
There was a TV special featuring Ms. Cornwell giving her theories on the Ripper and it was BORING. It seemed possible from that program that the book would be the same - and it is. But at least the TV editor could keep the thoughts together as the book editor did not. Ms. Cornwell does not convince a reader that she has truly solved the Ripper murders. She has strong ideas, many already proven false. It is an interesting set of possibilities, but nothing that will actually close the case. Years ago there was a book ,"Prince Jack", that contained just as many facts and possibilities that a member of the royal family was the Ripper. It was better written than Ms. Cornwell's book, but left just as many unanswered questions and possible false statements. Jack the Ripper remains an unsolved enigma.
| 
