Rating: 
Summary: George Gissing was the Ripper
Review: Actually, Jack the Ripper was the late Victorian novelist, George Gissing, author of New Grub Street -- at least Gissing is as credible a culpert as Sickert when applying the same type of "evidence" and "logic" as Cornwell offers in her sophomoric excuse of a book. After all, Gissing caught a venereal disease and endured social disgrace and great poverty as a result of his affair with the prostitute, "Nell." Certainly a reason for this shy-spoken and self-effacing classical scholar and realist novelist to harbor a deep-seated homcidal rage against all prositutes and to revenge himself by serial murders in the East End. And here's the clincher: within six months of Nell's death in 1888, while Gissing was living in London, the first of the Ripper murders was committed! Notice also that the Ripper murders abruptly had ended by the time Gissing had moved to France in the 1890s. Case closed, eh? Or perhaps the Ripper was Jude Fawley, the main character of Thomas Hardy's novel, Jude the Obscure, who was given in its pages to drunken acts of self-destruction, or then again perhaps the Ripper was none other than General Charles "Chinese" Gordon -- four years after Gordon's mysterious "beheading" and "disappearance" at Khartoum the near-decapitation murders of East End prostitutes begin.
My point is that this sort of speculation can go on forever, as Cornwell's seemingly intermittable book does, and anyone could write this type of god-awful speculation, even without the temptations of a millions-dollar advance, if only one "would abandon one's mind to it."
Rating:
Summary: First and last time.
Review: I've read many of the reviews already posted here, and there isn't much more I can add. This is the first Cornwell book I have read, and it will likely be the last. As a former police officer, I was always told to be careful "not to make the evidence fit the suspect". Cornwell seems to draw as much from her imagination as from the facts. Did she research other suspects as thoroughly as Sickert or did she mold her evidence to suit her literary needs? I found the book poorly written and badly edited.I'm glad I waited to borrow it from the library and did not spend money on it.
Rating:
Summary: Disjointed and Unconvincing
Review: Ms. Cornwell's thesis is unconvincing and poorly organized. Her prose, much like the Ripper's victims themselves, is in many places mutilated. I was very disappointed, as I enjoy her Kay Scarpetta books and found them to be vastly more coherent and readable. One quite perplexing decision: Many of Mr. Sickert's paintings that Ms. Cornwell refers to are not reproduced in the book, but instead many illustrations and photographs which have only peripheral connection to her argument are reproduced instead (for example, pictures of other suspects that she only spends a paragraph or so talking about). Ms. Cornwell relies heavily on psychological profiliing of Mr. Sickert -- and uses a jury litmus test -- except that it is highly unlikely a reasonable jury would convict since most of her argument is supposition and conjecture, and her DNA evidence is lacking. Also troubling is the fact that Ms. Cornwell does not provide any in-text citations, endnotes, or footnotes to support her argument - instead relying on a "Works Cited" section at the end of the document. Although I don't believe she was purposely being academically dishonest, I do find it hard to take this book seriously as scholarly research. She also never establishes her "experts" credentials - they could just be lackeys on her payroll for all we know.
Rating: 
Summary: Slightly disorienting, with no firm conclusion...
Review: I've read quite a few books about Jack the Ripper, and I was excited to read this book. However, I don't believe that the author has presented strong enough evidence to warrant the conclusion that she states. Granted, a lot of circumstantial evidence points to the suspect named in the book, but very little hard evidence is brought forward. Perhaps it is not possible to find anything but circumstantial evidence considering the crimes occurred over 110 years ago. Also, the book is presented in a somewhat confusing way, and is difficult, almost boring, to read. Very little attention is focused on the actual crimes. Instead, large tracts of the book are about the suspects supposed sexual dysfunctions. I was really looking forward to this book, but I was slightly disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Patricia Cornwell needs to stick to writing novels
Review: While I found this book entertaining, I cannot say Patricia Cornwell convinced me of anything more than the fact that she should stick to writing her Kay Scarpetta series. I thought this book was all over the place--jumping from one thing to the next & then back again. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes to entertain all of the theories about who Jack the Ripper was, but I would never tell anyone I believe what she is selling here.
Rating:
Summary: Fact or Fiction
Review: I'm an avid reader of crime thrillers, so I know Patricia Cornwell well. Unfortunately, her latest attempt at non-fiction isn't as clearly organized as her thrillers. A few charts and timelines would help the reader understand all the murders she attributes to Sickert. As for objectivity, Cornwell misses the mark, since she only presents facts that support her theory. She could learn a thing or two about presenting the facts in an entertaining yet objective manner from investigative reporter Anthony Summers' who wrote "Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe," an excellent and well-researched book regarding the assasination of Marilyn Monroe. However, if you want to better understand violent psychopathy and how forensic medicine is utilized, Cornwell does a wonderful job on both of these topics. Overall, not her best writing effort, but worth the read to understand the diseased psychopathic soul.
Rating: 
Summary: Good research... I think she done it.
Review: The tendency, of course, when trying to prove any theory is to talk endlessly about the circumstances that prove your case -- ignoring the ones that don't. Although there are exceptions, the majority of the time it does not appear to me that Cornwell is doing this.
Instead, it seems that she tries to cover all bases by comparing and constrasting evidence and theories. Conwell appears truly passionate about discovering the Ripper secrets as well as sustaining her reputation.
I believe that she would have insisted the project be abandoned -- rather than slyly salvaged -- had she found evidence that caused her case to fall. Theories others have proposed regarding the Ripper are discussed and, many times, shown to be false by constrasting evidence she has found.
Other theories seem validly disproven based on her personal conclusions. In my opinion she does not so much drive a "look I solved it" idea down your throat -- but instead passionately supports her theories with bits of fact, new evidence and well-thought out theories.
It seems clear that if this evidence had been presented to London Police in the Ripper's time -- Sickert would have been arrested and tried for many, if not all, of the murders. In addition to all the Ripper evidence and theories provided, Conwell paints a thorough and precise picture of London during the Ripper era. Through this information she puts the reader at at the scene of the crimes, and examines how people lived, the political structure, and medical conditions that affected the entire scheme of the Ripper investigation. Her theories, forensic knowledge, and storytelling techique all fuse together wonderfully to make a compelling read.
Rating:
Summary: Don't watch her on C-SPAN
Review: If you're a fan of Ms. Cornwell, whatever you do: DON'T watch her discussion of the book on Book TV. You will be embarrassed by a semi-literate know-it-all who sprinkles her sentences with "dese" and "dose". A loyal reader may be shocked that this writer has actually been able to compose sentences and create an interesting novel or two. Unbelievable.
Rating:
Summary: No compelling element
Review: As an avid Cornwell and true crime reader, I couldnt wait to get my hands on this book. I read the excerpt in Vanity Fair and found it less than compelling but I was certain the actual book would be better. It was not. Cornwell does not prove her case scientifically as I had hoped. She does create a strong circumstantial case. Her writing is cloudy and she harps on the same points too many times--almost to the point of making them ludicrous in the reader's eyes. This book will certainly be a disappointment for Cornwell fans. It also will not do much for Ripper scholars. I would check it out at the library but not purchase a copy.
Rating:
Summary: No proof at all.
Review: A police officer in London suggests a name to Ms. Cornwall, saying he would have investigated this person. Ms. C. now has a suspect, and massages certain facts to substantiate it, and ignores those that do not. This is certainly not police procedure. From the evidence you find a suspect. Not the other way around. Also, since the police in the 19th century were aware of Mr. Sickert, it is quite possible that they investigated and cleared him. They may even have known he wrote some of the "fake" Ripper letters. So many Ripper evidence has been lost or stolen. Mitochondrial DNA, which is 99% + accurate, only proves that Mr. S probably wrote some of the MANY fake Ripper letters which were discounted by the police, who were in the only position to know which were real and which were fake. There are also some paintings of Mr. Sickert which Ms. C writes, that she can "sense" menace, even though in one picture the "menacing" character has his back to the viewer. In addition to Mr. Sickert having slashed seven women, Ms. C. also charges him with the murder of several children. Yet, she never explains why a serial killer changes his victimology from prostitutes to children. Totally unbelievable. In other material I've read, Mr. Sickert had an alibi for the murder of Mary Kelly. This is something Ms. C. ignores since it doesn't fit her suspect. For some of the murders she states that Mr. S. "could have done it," even though she doesn't know where, or if, he was even in England at the time. Sloppy police work.
| 
