Rating: 
Summary: Do Not Bother Reading This Book
Review: Do not waste your money buying this book. Do not waste your time reading this book. A friend let me read her copy, but I could not finish it. As a scientist myself, I was appalled at the terrible psuedo-science in this book. The author has obviously never heard of "the scientific method" and "the null hypothesis". Instead, she sets out with the idea of proving that the killer is someone nobody else has considered and then interprets scant pieces of evidence that support her thesis as "proof" and ignores or brushes off any evidence to the contrary. There is so much speculation and so little real evidence that an intelligent reader will conclude that this book comes no closer to solving the ripper riddle than any of the other numerous books on this subject. Indeed, there are many more convincing books on the market.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Suspect in a Long List
Review: I was very disappointed in this book, and had hoped to find more conclusive "evidence" as well as a smooth read. I found neither. I found that while some interesting correlations were drawn and Sickert was certainly introduced as a possible suspect with good reason, I found myself needing something more definitive... perhaps a chronology that showed a definite link. While Sickert's art is certainly suggestive, and mtDNA on some of the dismissed "Ripper" letters is somewhat supportive... I did not find the substantive information I was looking for. So, certain art experts believe that the writing in many Ripper letters is consistent with Sickert's writing --- show me how, graphically. I also found the organisation of the book a little haphazard, which perhaps added to my alienation from Cornwell's strongly held conviction. She presented a good case of suspicion, but fell far short of "convicting" Sickert in this reader's eyes. She did convince me though that he was a truly strange and mysterious individual.
Rating:
Summary: Case closed? I couldn't wait to close this book forever!
Review: Cornwell presents somewhat convincing evidence, although the presentation of the evidence was disorganized, repetitive, and too drawn out at times. It took me quite a long time to get through this book, it was way too much of a struggle. Also, I concede with another reviewer in that it would have been nice to have pictures of the art pieces discussed included in the book to refer to.
Rating: 
Summary: Well written, but ultimately unconvincing
Review: I really enjoy Patricia Cornwell's Scarpetta novels, and have always had, as any history buff/mystery reader probably does, an interest in who Jack the Ripper really was. Unfortunately, I have to say I'm no closer to an answer now than I was before reading this atmospheric and descriptive, but not definitive, book.
Clearly, Walter Sickert was a very odd man (to put it mildly.) The problem is, as we delve deeper into his habits and paintings it becomes clear that while it may be possible that he was The Ripper (although lines like "I have no proof he was in London at the time, but no proof that he wasn't" don't inspire a lot of confidence) it is more likely that he was just someone who was deeply fascinated by the Ripper, much as in our modern times there are "serial killer groupies".
I can even accept that perhaps his mDNA (see other reviews for explanation of this) was the same as that found on one of the Ripper letters. The problem is, Ripperologists have apparently long considered that letter to be a fraud. As Ms. Cornwell makes a strong case that Sickert was the type who thrived on attention, and has gone to great trouble to detail for us his obsessive need for publicity and the many letters he wrote to newspapers, it seems likely to me at least that he would have though it fun to fake some Ripper correspondence.
Certainly, Walter Sickert was creepy. I'm just not convinced he was a killer. I'm afraid I still have to agree with Alan Moore on this one. (If you have any interest in Saucy Jack you really should read his From Hell.)
Rating:
Summary: Six Million Dollars Buys You A Seat At The Table
Review: Like many others, I was more than a little annoyed at Ms. Cornwell's effrontery in the "Case Closed" part of her title. I had a "Who in the world do you think you are??" attitude before I read a page. So before going further, I would like to commend her on her hard work, and the fine investigating she did on the late Victorian era, and depictions of the poverty stricken East End of London, particularly White Chapel. Ms. Cornwell shows her inexperience in handling historical material by her woeful lack of sources and citations. Her opinions are just that. Her bibliography does not list one source by any of her colleagues who have devoted years of study to the case. Her villain of choice, the artist Walter Sickert, is not a new suspect, nor has all her investigation elevated him to prime suspect level. The degraded mtDNA found on an envelope enclosing a letter sent to Scotland Yard purportedly from Jack the Ripper could belong to 40,000 people in London alone as well as Walter Sickert. Ms. Cornwell refuses to believe ANY crank letters were sent to the Yard and London newspapers, that every last one was from Walter Sickert. This would entail Mr. Sickert traveling the length and breadth of Great Britain and France during a two-month period. Ms. Cornwell "proves" Sickert was in London at the time of the murders by flatly stating no one "proved" he wasn't there in spite of the fact that a contemporary letter from Sickert's wife places him in France. She places hidden meanings in his dark forbidding paintings that try as I would, I couldn't see "weapons" and "hidden faces." All through the reading of this book, I had the uncomfortable feeling Ms. Cornwell was trying to squeeze a size 16 model into a size 8 dress, slicing off a leg here or an arm there; anything to make it fit. All to no avail. "Portrait of a Killer: Case Closed" is poorly organized and repetitious, making it a dull read particularly the last few chapters. My conclusion is the same as many readers; too many years have elapsed. Jack the Ripper is lost in the fog of time.
-sweetmolly-Amazon Reviewer
Rating: 
Summary: An A for Effort
Review: Since this is a review on Amazon.com, let me start by saying: this book is a great read. Forget the agendas you see here in these reviews, just know that whether or not you agree with Cornwell's findings, you won't be able to put this book down. It is an exhaustive, impressive work, and if nothing else, for the case she has so compellingly collected, she deserves to be commended. In my experience, "Ripperologists" are not interested in having these crimes actually solved. A survey of Ripper websites reveals appalling closed-mindedness and surety in their own opinions, with little respect for the opinions of others. (In fact, I've noted refutations of Cornwell's books that conveniently ignore any of her own caveats or disclaimers, to suit their argument better.) If you are a person with only casual interest in the Jack the Ripper subject, I advise you to take the reviews by Ripper fanatics with a very large grain of salt. As a person only mildly interested in the case before reading this book, I was hooked. The psychological analysis of Sickert is fascinating -- even if he wasn't the Ripper, he was a very sick man -- and the details of English life in that era are fascinating. Perhaps most importantly, Cornwell does not spare any of the gory details of these murders. She helps us to remember that Jack the Ripper was not a glamourous figure, but a sick, twisted, psychopathic killer, who is not deserving of the glitzy mythos that has sprung up around him. Many women died -- probably more than the 5 victims who get all the "P.R.", and there is nothing romantic about that. Whether you leave the book convinced of Sickert's guilt or not, "Portrait of a Killer" will provoke you to think, and remind you all too well that there is evil in this world. Kudos to Ms. Cornwell.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD TRY!
Review: IT WOULD BE STUPID TO GO INTO READING THIS BOOK THINKING THAT SHE HAS ACTUALLY SOLVED SUCH AN OLD CASE. I READ THIS BOOK BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT AND I WAS CURIOUS IN WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY. A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF WAY THROUGH I GOT THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS LIKE READING A STUDENTS RESEARCH PAPER THAT THEY TRIED TO BS THEIR WAY THROUGH. I CAN'T GO INTO SUCH ELABORATE DETAIL AS SOME OF THE OTHER REVIEWERS, BUT SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT SHE SHARED IN THE BOOK WAS VERY INTERESTING READING. IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER READ THE ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE MURDERS COMMITTED BY THE RIPPER; EVEN THE ONES THAT WERE NOT REALLY LINKED TO HIM BUT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN THE "EVIDENCE" THAT SHE SUPPOSEDLY FOUND AGAINST SICKERT AS BEING JACK THE RIPPER(WHAT EVIDENCE THERE WAS ANYWAY). THE WHOLE SECTION ON THE WATERMARKS WAS SO LONG AND CONFUSING THAT I DEBATED SKIPPING THE SECTION A FEW TIMES. THE TESTING OF THE DNA EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY POINTED TO SICKERT AS THE RIPPER IS NOT EVEN COMPLETED. AS FAR AS "READING INTO" HIS PAINTINGS, AT TIMES IT FELT LIKE SHE WAS REACHING FOR SOMETHING TO BRING SICKERT FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO THE LIGHT WHEN SOMETHING LIKE CRITIQUING HIS ART DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE THAT HE WAS THE RIPPER. THE ONLY TRUE AND HONEST POINT THAT WAS MADE IN THIS BOOK WAS THE QUOTE BY ONE OF HER COLLEAGUES THAT "CALLING A COINCIDENCE AFTER A COINCIDENCE A COINCIDENCE IS JUST PLAIN STUPID". SURE YOU CAN GO WITH YOUR GUT FEELING AFTER READING ABOUT SICKERTS LIFE, HIS PAINTINGS, AND EVEN HIS ABNORMAL BODY PARTS AND PROBABLY COME OUT RIGHT ON THE MARK, BUT SHE OF PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT'S NOT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS. MAYBE DURING THAT TIME IF THEY HAD EVEN HALF OF THIS INFORMATION I'M SURE THAT SCOTLAND YARD WOULD CONSIDER SICKERT A PRIME SUSPECT, BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW. I'M NOT SO SURE I WOULD HAVE SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON RESEARCHING AND PUBLISHING SOMETHING SO INCONCLUSIVE. I'M STILL A BIG FAN AND NOT TOO DISAPPOINTED THAT I HAVE ADDED THIS BOOK TO MY COLLECTION.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell should stick to fiction
Review: I love Patricia Cornwell's books of Kay Scarpetta. But this book is a long, boring, monotonous read of her view that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. I saw nothing in this book that convinced me that he was Jack the Ripper and her conclusions seemed to me to be more guesswork than fact. I also found that her determination in presenting Sickert as the only possible killer and nothing could deter her from that idea (even the facts) to be annoying, frustrating, and slanted to her views. I do not recommend this book to anyone. I waded through, but wouldn't want to put anyone else through the agony if I could prevent it.
Rating:
Summary: It was okay
Review: Somehow I expected more. Not that Ms Cornwell didn't put forth some convincing evidence, but the manner in which she rambled from topic to topic to topic and back again, and the defensive tone of some of her arguments bothered me. I found the narrative hard to follow at times, as it bounced from modern DNA testing to Sickert's personality flaws to watermarks on stationery and so on. It's true that writing convincing non-fiction and gripping fiction are two very different talents. Worth a read, but has its tedious moments.
Rating:
Summary: A terrible book
Review: Do not read this book if you want reliable information on the ripper case. As the CASEBOOK website on the ripper crimes argues, there is much wrong with Cornwell's evidence and her use of it. For example, she ignores evidence that her suspect Sickert was in France during the commission of several ripper crimes. She also provides absolutely no evidence that Sickert had violent tendencies or ever had any residence or spent any time in the area of the killings. Her emphasis on the ripper letters is largely useless, since there is no way to determine their authenticity. The preimier book on the ripper is Philip Sugden's THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF JACK THE RIPPER. A trained historian, Sugden explores the vast evidence meticulously. It is really THE book to read on the ripper case.
| 
