Rating: 
Summary: Props for trying
Review: Let me start by admitting I'm not a "Ripperologist." And let me add that I applaud Cornwell's getting DNA off a stamp from the 1800's. That aside, this book didn't break any new ground. Sickert was considered a theoretical suspect by many people. He painted somewhat disturbing pictures and was reported to be impotent. Okay, that's old news, but he wasn't quite ready to get a Viagra prescription. He was married (at least) 3 times and had numerous illegitimate children. It doesn't sound like he had many problems getting sex. As for the *grotesque* paintings and some looking like morgue photographs/photos of Ripper victims...did the man ever look at a newspaper? Perhaps that's where he got his inspiration. Okay, it's kinda creepy, and a little morbid. Cornwell states that DNA from a stamp of his matched DNA from a Ripper letter. Once again, the guy's a little weird, obviously. However, writing a few letters and slaughtering prostitutes are two very different things. Another point in Sickert's defense is that he died in 1942. You might wonder how that fact might be important. Most (yes, I know there are exceptions) serial killers either stop killing because of imprisonment or death. The Ripper murders ended long before Sickert did. Just a thought there. There are places in the book in which Cornwell admits she doesn't know Sickert's whereabouts (at the time of X Ripper murder.) Then in the next sentence she claims she was 'sure he was in London' Well, if you can't verify someone was AT the murder scene, you probably shouldn't accuse them of the murder. The Ripper murders will probably never be solved, and I think a lot of people actually want it that way. So, to sum up: Sickert's DNA links him to some Ripper letters. He paints pictures of dead women, some mutilated. He must be Jack! Well, that's what I got from the book anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent, insightful, zealous; chronologically weak.
Review: The butchery of Jack the Ripper caused widespread panic and solidified the concept of serial killing. Reading horrific details of how the 'unfortunates' (prostitutes and other victims) were murdered made me lose sleep. As a woman, I was outraged; I'm sure this fueled Cornwell's zeal, too. I agree with many reviewers that Cornwell's chronological order can be confusing -- she does 'jump' or fast-forward a few years, then, the reader is prepped for the gruesome Mary Kelly slaying. Say what you will about Cornwell's writing style, but I find it compelling and vivid. It's far from tedious. Comparatively, many books from the true-crime genre are difficult to follow, certainly, more dry and clinical in style. True, we don't want a sensationalized, overwrought account of Ripper crimes -- the horror of the acts is plenty sensational enough. Cornwell's use of 'probable' rather than certainty in her narrative contributes to a sense of a scientific investigation. The title is therefore misleading, "Case Closed." Yes, she does present a convincing presentation, mainly via circumstantial evidence, that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. But she does use "could have," rather than "did," much as does a journalist relies on words like "alleged." Thus, the subtitle is confusing. Her strong personality comes through, yes, in describing how modern forensics and police methodologies wouldn't have bumbled as 'coppers' in the Ripper's time did. But, Good Lord, that was in 1888. Fingerprinting was just really emerging as a forensics tool. Given her background, I could see how frustrated she might be if she was investigating or a colleague was -- all the way, the Ripper is taunting, ridiculing the police for their ineptitude. What I know about serial killers, (and I'm no expert), is that they revisit or fantasize about their murders. They relive the experience. Bundy allegedly crawled back to his murdered victims and applied garish makeup to their dead flesh. Here is Sickert, then, reliving the murders via his "art" -- sketches, paintings, etc. Plus, being a prolific writer, as well as skilled in disguising his handwriting, he deluges police administrators with written 'rants' and taunts. You can almost hear the 'n'yah, n'yah' behind every note. Perhaps one of the most compelling parts for me, was the discovery of the "Guest Book" from an inn. Experts linked those
drawings to Sickert's doodles and comments, as well as to Ripper notes. Gave me a shudder. The Sickert aficionadoes decry Cornwell's assertions as madness; Sickert was an influential English artist. Why can't a celebrity also be capable of murder or a crime? Interestingly, I discovered that Caravaggio, another famous artist, was also connected to a murder (or murders). Sickert, like other serial sexual psychopaths, relived his fantasies via his artwork; his egotism and narcissism is reflected in his interpersonal relationships and how he constantly wrote -- whether articles or Ripper notes -- this is a man who demanded to be heard. Many may disagree with me, but Cornwell convinced me. Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting theory, poorly written book
Review: Patricia Cornwell obviously put-in a good deal of work to write this book. She presents a decent amount of information and findings to support her theory. Given the time which has passed since the crimes and the poor quality of detective work done at the time, she probably presents most of what is available. She also spends a good deal of time defending the theory that Jack the Ripper carried-out more than the 5 killings for which he is best known. However, this book is poorly written. The entire useful portion of this book takes-up 100 pages or less. The rest of the book is babble, including speculations such as Jack the Ripper may have stood in a certain place and watched the detectives work or that he may have frequented a certain bar or eaten at a certain restaurant, etc.. Frankly, Ms. Cornwell comes-off as a snob in this book. She is very critical of the detective work done at the time. That in itself is fine, but she does it in a way that is more arrogant than truly critical. Overall this book presents an interesting theory with a fair amount of evidence to support it. However, it is written in such a drawn-out and arrogant way that it is difficult to read with any enthusiasm.
Rating: 
Summary: Not too convincing
Review: It seems as if Patricia Cornwell tried her best to slove the case of Jack the Ripper, but something stood in her way: the complete lack of evidence. Cornwell only has to go on astounding coincidences and assumptions. There are many passages in this book which state that there's no evidence to suggest that Walter Sickert was or did something, but there's no evidence to suggest that he DIDN'T. This becomes a little presumptuous and slightly annoying. The same rule could apply to anyone: There's no evidence that says that Abraham Lincoln was in London at the time of the Ripper murders, but there's no evidence that says that he WASN'T. There is really not enough evidence to accuse one specific individual of being Jack the Ripper. Which is why the case continues to mystify and bewilder us. Cornwell seems to believe that Sickert wrote a staggering majority of the Ripper letters sent to the police, which I cannot believe. Perhaps Sickert had visited all of the places where the letters came from, but I didn't find it convincing that he traveled all over England, Wales, Scotland, and even France in one day. Cornwell makes a noble effort though. She invested much of her own money (not to mention time) into this investigation. She does extensive research on the Ripper letters, and connects a few drawings to similar ones that Sickert did in his time as an artist. There are points in this book where I thought, "Yes, Sickert COULD be Jack the Ripper." But I never thought, "Yes, Sickert was, without a doubt, Jack the Ripper." Another bothersome aspect of this book is it's complete lack of choronology. Before Cornwell even begins to write about Mary Kelly (the last victim of the Ripper), she has already gone on for many pages about murders that took place in 1907 (Mary Kelly was murdered in 1888). I read this book simply because I am fascinated by Jack the Ripper. And it is a good read. Cornwell brings to light many facts about the murders that I had never heard of. But did she convince me that Sickert was, in fact, the Ripper? No. Perhaps she should not have titled this book "Case Closed." The case is still, and forever will be, unsolved. That is the grotesque beauty and wonder of the Jack the Ripper murders.
Rating: 
Summary: thoroughly unbelievable theory
Review: Poor Patricia Cornwell. She has fallen into a trap of her own making. She has stated publicly that she "stakes her reputation" on her conclusion that Walter Sickert was the Ripper, and has boasted that she spent "four million dollars of my own money" on research to attempt to prove it so. I guess if I spent that much money on such a pursuit, I would want something to show for it, too. Unfortunately, all she has to show for her effort is the fact that she has made herself look like a buffoon.
I first heard about her ridiculous theory on "20/20" when she was interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Even in the limited time she had in this forum, she demonstrated the gaping holes in her theory. So Sickert painted some disturbing pictures? Oh, no! I guess we'd better call the cops on Picasso, Van Gogh, and Goya as well, to name a few. I strongly doubt that Sickert was the only London artist whose work was influenced by the murders.
But the "Rosetta stone" that makes her theory fall flat on its face is this: the letters. Cornwell jumps through hoops, making a big fuss about the Ripper letters as if they were the key to the entire case. They are not. Why? It's simple: THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS WROTE A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE LETTERS. No way at all. There is no REASON to think of any one of the letters as anything other than a hoax. Even if one or two of them are genuine, the rest are obviously hoaxes. Hundreds of them. Cornwell does make a fairly convincing case that Sickert wrote at least one or two of them. BIG DEAL! All that means is that he wrote a couple hoax letters, as dozens--if not hundreds--of other Londoners were also doing at the time. It does not make him Jack the Ripper. How could she be so shortsighted? Testing the stamps and letters for DNA and fingerprints is a great idea... IF you can prove that the murderer wrote the letter. Since you can't, it is completely pointless.
In Cornwell's line of work, she should be familiar with the work of former FBI agent John Douglas, who poineered behavioral profiling. To him--and trust me, he knows his stuff--it is a no-brainer to state that the Ripper was NOT the type of personality who would write letters to the police and press. Appartently Cornwell thinks she is smarter than Mr. Douglas.
Cornwell made the mistake common to rookie investigators: she started with a suspect, then worked backwards, trying to bend the facts of the case to fit her theory. That is not how you solve crimes. You do the opposite: work with the facts, and find out which direction they point.
When Sawyer asked her, "Can you prove that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper?" she responded, "I'd like somebody to prove to me that he wasn't!" For cryin' out loud. Give me a break, Ms. Cornwell. This is YOUR theory. The burden of proof is on YOU. And you have failed. There was not one shred of physical evidence left behind by the Ripper, and not even a solid eyewitness description. Therefore, there is no way to EVER solve the case, which is why it remains so fascinating to armchair "Ripperologists" such as myself. Anyone who claims to have solved the mystery is deluding themselves. Walter Sickert was no more Jack the Ripper than the ludicrous Maybrick diary, or Prince Eddie, or Donald Duck.
But, hey... nice try, Ms. Cornwell. Stick to fiction.
Readers looking for a general overview of the Ripper crimes should steer far clear of this book. There are numerous better ones out there. Start with Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper", arguably the best.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad but could have been better.
Review: Over all I feel that this book, though presenting a very interesting and AT TIMES, compelling theory of the case of Jack the Ripper, was not as well organized as I would have expected. The author often repeats herself and the various sections/chapters frequently begin talking about one thing and then switch topics right in the middle with little or no transition. Furthermore, there was alot of teasing in the book with the author beginning a section by opening a particular thread without ever elaborating. I was left several times feeling very disappointed. The theory of the book was interesting and I feel might have been more persuasive it the book had been organized better.
Rating:
Summary: Waste of trees and space
Review: There has been many final solutions and great mystory solved books about the infamous Victorian serial killer. And now we can add one more to the every growing books of authors who have clamed "I solved the case of jack the ripper, I'm right and your wrong!" The problem with these books is that they bend and twist the thruth of the case so that their person will be saucy jacky.
Let me begin in all the things I found wrong in tis book. There is evendince that Walter Sickert was in France between August and Octobetr of 1888.
And nobody can possibly write all those letters! Look at the differance in the handwritting!
Patricia Cornwell's book failed to convince me that he was the killer, but I did get a good laugh out the weak evindice!
Put this book were it belongs-in the trash bin.
Rating: 
Summary: A Compelling Case for the Identity of Jack the Ripper
Review: Patricia Cornwell comes as close to solving the Jack the Ripper murders as is scientifically and technically possible. There is more to this case than is traditionally associated with the name Jack the Ripper and Cornwell puts it forward brilliantly. She delves into not just the results of the use of the latest forensic science, but into the social mores and customs of the time period. She explains how the formation of the London Police Dept and Scotland Yard only a few years before the murders actually made it easy for the killer as well as encouraged the police and media to dis-associate other murder victims to the case. She also discusses the results of attempts to link the suspected individual and the evidence from Jack the Ripper using DNA samples collected from envelopes and stamps from the actual evidence files at Scotland Yard. Cornwell paints a fascinating portrait of the Ripper murders and her background as a forensic scientist gives an accurate an assessment of the identity of Jack the Ripper as anyone can with modern technology. If these subject matter appeals to you (if you like Discovery Channel's shows on forensic science and CSI, etc) you will really enjoy this book.
Rating:
Summary: Theories and Opinions......not facts,
Review: Patricia Cornwell may be a good writer, but after this venture it appears she should stick to fiction, not history. She makes an interesting THEORY for Walter Sickert being Jack the Ripper, but her book is filled with 'would of' and 'could of's' and unsupported presumptions, all no-no's for historians. Her book is mostly opinion and theory, not fact, unfortunatly she writes of her theories and possibilities as if they are fully supported Facts. Creating a theory based on spurious information and presenting it as a new POSSIBILITY is one thing, but to purport it as absolute fact is ludicrous, and definetly not the work of a historian, which is what she has done. She creates an interesting theory/possibility, but thats all, and the grounds for which she creates this theory are patchy. Quite frankly, she makes up excuses and theories as she goes along to support what are simply her beleifs. Quite often she places Sickert where, and doing, what she WANTS him to have been. This books is mostly her opinions and presumptions, not facts. Interesting theory, but bad history. To subtitle her book 'Jack the Ripper - case closed' is incredibly arrogant and unwarranted. Try 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper' by Philip Sudgen for a Historian's work.
Rating:
Summary: waste of time and money
Review: im not going to write a long essay of why i dont like this book.though let me say i have read the other reviews both positive and negative.i urge any person who is using these reviews to influence your decision to read this book or not,to pay close attention to the negative reviews,because they provide important info for you.........
|
