Rating: 
Summary: More revealing of Cornwell than of the Ripper
Review: I liked the early Kay Scarpetta novels for the forensic science, but the real "victim" in every novel is Kay Scarpetta (Cornwell's alter ego) herself. Her career is in jeopardy, her credibility, her niece's life, her own life...The poor ripped-up murder victims are as nothing to Scarpetta's problems. Typically, "Portrait of a Killer" begins with the angst of its author. "It has always been easier for me to get angry than to show fear or loss, and I was losing my life to Walter Richard Sickert." A simple invitation to visit Scotland Yard is fraught with moral ramifications: "It would have been a betrayal of what I am and an insult to Scotland Yard and every law enforcer in Christendom for me to be 'tired' the day Linda Fairstein said she could arrange a tour." Her self-absorption is almost comical. Cornwell makes no argument that comes close to justifying her conviction that Sickert was the Ripper. She seems to have formed her opinion of Sickert's guilt based on his art ("I saw evil"), then examined his life for facts to justify that opinion. Her presentation is poor: Facts about the murders, cultural history of the Victorian era, art criticism, and descriptions of modern forensic science are presented in a random jumble. Her own assumptions contradict themselves; after telling us that Sickert preferred his victims ugly and deformed, she offers no word of explanation as to why the Ripper's most grisly murder was of the young attractive Mary Kelly. I have no theory as to who the Ripper was; he may even have been Walter Sickert, but certainly not based on this compilation of "evidence"!
Rating: 
Summary: Who wrote this book?
Review: As a Cornwell fan and having a moderate interest in the Ripper cases (sparked mainly by publicity for this book), I was looking forward to it's publication. Unfortunately, I had to force myself to finish what I felt was a poorly organized and hard to follow jumble of thoughts. I found the actual facts regarding the murders themselves slightly interesting and could even be convinced that Sickert was indeed the murder. But I felt as though I was reading a thesis written by someone half-heartedly. My advice to anyone interested in this book is to skip it. Save your money. I wish I would have. My advice to Cornwell... stick to Scarpetta.
Rating: 
Summary: Good prose ... poorly edited
Review: I am not a "Jack the Ripper" expert - so I cannot compare or contrast this book to competing theories. While the book was well written and painstakingly researched ... it was poorly organized. It jumped back and forth on timeline and content. It reads more (from a flow standpoint) like a second draft. It looks like the editor was in a rush to get this published and they relied on the author's name and subject matter to sell the book. While the evidence is compelling, I think the subject would have been better served if she had compared or debunked the other theories. I few charts and grids would have helped for some time-line comparisons. From an "O.J." perspective, she might have enough to get a civil judgement against the "accused" but I don't think there is enough to get a criminal conviction. Glad I read it but it sure was ponderous.
Rating: 
Summary: Coincidence after coincidence after coincidence?
Review: It's so interesting to read all of the heated reviews that bash this fantastic account of the most talked about murder case in the history of the world. Many people are saying that Cornwell is devisive, rambling, and inconclusive in her writing here, but I beg to differ. The fact of the matter is that we are not likely to ever have hard cold evidence in this case. The evidence doesn't exist anymore and we do not yet have the technology to "bring it back" as it were. What readers must keep in mind is that Cornwell has no "agenda" here and is not attempting to send anyone to jail via a court of law. She simply uses her years of experience as a forensic reporter to organize and collect a vast amount of evidence that undeniably points to the only man who could have possibly commmited these crimes. I suppose some would be so naive as to say that her findings are merely a chain of coincidences that "may" incriminate him. But Cornwell doesn't present this case in any court of law other than her own. She is imminently qualified to write about it and has provided this reader with all the evidence he needs to come to a conclusion. Were it to go to court, yes, she may be hard pressed to make a solid case (a point that she freely admits), but her assertation is far more convincing than any other flimsy, far-fetched idea "From Hell." Some are mistaking the interesting way in which she tells this story for being badly organized. How boring if this story were to begin with the birth of Walkter Sickert and take us chronologically to the day in died. I applaud the way in which the story is told -- one death at a time. If you have any interest in this subject, you must read this gripping account and decide for yourself. But I think you'll agree with what FBI profiler Ed Sulzbach said to Cornwell during her research: "There really aren't many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence a coincidence is just plain stupid."
Rating:
Summary: Details...Details...Details
Review: While I very much enjoyded reading "Portrait of a Killer" I did find one error in Patricia Cornwell's research. In her book, she states that John Merrick suffered from von Recklinghaus disease. This is otherwise known as Neurofibromatosis. Merrick did NOT have this disesase. He may have had Protias, or some disorder so far unique to him. A special on the Discovery channel thoughory explored this matter. It was a special I watched wtih great interest, as I have NF Type 1. A small detail, and one that certainly doesn't question the evidence compiled in a very compelling case agains Sickert. Still it is a detain she wove into her tapestry which is a lose thread. While pulling it may not effect thhe greater picture, it does make me question what other threads may be lose or missing that could unravel her case.
Rating:
Summary: Methinks thou dost protest too much!
Review: There is a lot of harsh criticism on this site, representing many very opinionated but inexpert critics. Walter Sickert would be metaphorically "rolling in his grave" with laughter at all the amateurish outrage expressed on his behalf here at Amazon.com. Patricia Cornwell has done a good job of digging up and sifting through very old and inconsistent evidence. She (unlike this site's reviewers) took a lot of time to conduct a thorough investigation, make careful consideration of events, and consult with a number of ACTUAL EXPERTS in fields related to her investigation of the Ripper crimes. These experts would not have gone out on a limb to participate in, and be quoted in association with, this investigation if it were as shoddy as many of this site's critics contend. It's true that a lot of Patricia Cornwell's arguments are conjecture based on events and activities that occurred a long tim ago. She herself says so. But the preponderance of facts leads to a singular conclusion: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what? The crimes are more than 100 years old. It's impossible to trot out eyewitnesses and bring forth the murder weapons and bloody clothing. Patricia Cornwell makes a good case with all of the facts and expertise available from the past 100+ years. If you don't like her conclusions or how she arrives at them, so be it. Certainly no amount of evidence that exists could satisfy your standards. A lot of people are much happier holding to the Ripper mystique... unsolved! unsolvable! forever! For those of us who do believe that old crimes can be revisited and perhaps solved, this is a valuable contribution to available writings on the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting but not conclusive
Review: The author is obviously convinced she has found the Ripper, but fails to provide the reader with an orderly presentation of the evidence. Her conclusions are not enough to win us over.
Rating:
Summary: Convincing arguments, plausible premise
Review: Cornwell's ego inserts itself just a wee bit too much into this book, and I'm not at all interested in reading about her own political agenda...but those things aside, I found her argument naming Walter Sickert as the Ripper to be quite convincing. It could have been better but it's nowhere near as bad as some here are saying.
Rating:
Summary: Cornwell's writing style obfuscates any 'revelations'
Review: Having read the other reviews posted here, I must confess that I'm no Ripper expert and have read little on his crimes prior to now. However, I am a student of forensic psychology, and as a sporadic reader of Cornwell's fictional works, I was interested in her take on the Ripper case. I was rather disappointed by this offering. The main complaint I have with the book is that it was horribly disorganized. While her novels are tightly organized and logical weavings, I found her Ripper tale to make huge leaps in chronological sequence and she often littered the account with oblique historical references that confused its flow. The chapter headings seem to at times have been chosen from a hat as they had no bearing on the text. I learned much valuable historical information of relevance here and am intrigued [and dismayed] by the horrific crimes. However, I agree that her 'conclusions' are often drawn from facts that are anything but conclusive. For instance, when she compares the watermarks of the Ripper letters to watermarks of Sickert letters, I found myself wondering how often one would find that certain brand of paper in London society in the late 1800s. Buried in a small paragraph pages later was a dismissive reference to the fact that the paper was 'not the most common' at the time...but in comparison with her statistical analysis of mitochondrial DNA results, I found the lack of numbers wanting. To put it bluntly, I came away from the book feeling that Sickert COULD be the murderer but the evidence is too flimsy to support a definitive conclusion. Despite this, Cornwell's depiction of life in London in the 19th century is compelling, if bleak. The book was still an interesting read for the uninitiated and it has spurred me to begin reading experts' opinions on who else the Ripper could be.
Rating:
Summary: Unconvincing, poorly edited, dull, confusing......
Review: What was Cornwell thinking? She might really have something with her Sickert theory but the organization of the information in this book is so poor, I really can't tell. If she plans to continue writing in this vein I would suggest a rudimentary college course in historical research/presentation. This thesis would have garnered an "F" in my class.
| 
