Rating: 
Summary: Could have been done better.
Review: Let me start by saying I love Patricia Cornwell. Her Kay Scarpetta novels are among my favorites and I've read every one.When I saw this book I was totally intrigued, I'm also fascinated by true crime. Figuring Jack the Ripper is long gone, not so much of the nightmares to coincide with the read. However, the book was a disapointment. The research is commendable, but the book is not a smooth read. She jumps around so much from the killer to the era to modern day. If it was a smooth, consistent story it would have been great! I'm ashamed to say I couldn't even finish and I rarely stop a book half way through. Again, good plot, but could have been written in a much clearer manner.
Rating:
Summary: Narcissistic Indulgences
Review: I think what irritates me the most about this book is Cornwell herself. She is not a forensic expert, not a psychologist specializing in abnormal or clinical pathological behavior, not a specialist of brain dysfunction, and not a historian, yet makes claims to all of the above in her audacious statement of having "solved" a hundred plus year old historic event. She handles history clumisly, ignoring context (e.g. suggesting fear of blood-borne pathogens, hardly a concern for the Victorian age), gives misleading neurologic information (cites frontal lobe deficit as tantamount to homicidal profile), and uses terms like "psychopath", couched in psychiatric jargon that is no longer current. What we have here is speculation, albeit interesting, with very little actual evidence. She is afterall a fiction writer. Perhaps she should stick to that.
Rating: 
Summary: Food for Serial Killer Curiosity
Review: I was a bit surprised to see so many negative reviews of this book. I am an English teacher who loves to read about the macabre for entertainment. I have read many books on serial killers and forensic profiling, and very often feel let down; however, Patricia Cornwall's book satisfies the need to know on multiple levels. She covers motivation, childhood, forensics, and psychology. While I would love to have been able to get even more in-depth with details from Sikert's life (especially his early trauma) and linked it in more deatil to childhood psychology. ON the other hand,it is over one years old a cold case! Cornwall does a solid and resonable excavation of history, and she is always honest to offer up where her weak points are in the argument, as well as indicating where she is speculating. A truly interesting read for anyone who is fascinated by the criminal mind of a demon.
Rating:
Summary: I guess it isn't libel when your book subject is dead?
Review: This is without a doubt the worst book on Jack the Ripper that I have ever had the misfortune ro read. And, masochist that I am, I struggled through 342 pages, hoping to find some redeeming quality--some sort of smoking gun...er...bloody knife, that is, that could give this work some grounds for its pretentious "Case Closed" title. Why was it so bad? Because the way Pat Cornwell jumps to conclusions about gave me whiplash. Her favorite words, apparently, are 'could' and 'perhaps'. As in, (paraphrasing), "He could have worn disguises." Nothing to back it up, mind you, just a 'could have'. And that 'could have' becomes gospel truth for the rest of the book. He could have done this, he could have done that. Perhaps he did this, perhaps he did that. Where is the evidence? Where is objectivity? Granted, evidence is scarce in the Ripper case, and so much has been poured and sifted through many, many times before. But as I read this book, I got the strong, overriding impression, that Cornwell found her suspect first--and *then* built a case to fit, rather than examining the case to find a suspect. And all of the gaps of logic, leaps of faith, could have's, and perhaps's fill in the gaps, otherwise she wouldn't have had a book. The much hyped DNA evidence she depends on basically relies on letters that flooded London in those days, both to police and newspapers and others. The vast majority are thought now, and were thought then to be hoaxes. Many different handwritings, pieces of stationary, locations the letters were sent from. Pat believes that all, or nearly all of them, are real, and all of them come from her favored suspect, Walter Sickert. Apparently Mr. Could Have can do just about anything, from being a master of disguise, to being a master of disguising his handwriting and writing a vast amount of letters in all different styles. What a clever boy, he is. DNA has supposedly been found that links Walter Sickert to the Ripper letters. This is crucial to her thesis, so they cannot be hoaxes in her opinion. She waffles on about the DNA evidence throughout the book, here and there, but really only gets into it for about ten pages or so. I'll save you money by quoting her findings (if only someone else had done me the same service): "At best we have a 'cautious indicator' that the Sickert and Ripper mitochondrial DNA sequences may have come from the same person." Hardly sounds like "case closed" to me. And that is Pat putting the best face on it. The spine of her case, and it can't be proven. And even if it was, would that make Sickert the Ripper, or, more likely, one of the many hoaxers of the time, instead? Pat also seems to link every single murder case in Europe to Jack the Ripper's door, all over England, to France, to Italy. Never mind the different MO's. Never mind the different victimologies. While it is true that a killer can change MO's, styles, change his victim prefrences, its not that likely, is it? Pat will pick a murder case, seemingly from a hat, and mention it on one page 'such and such was killed here etc etc', describe the details, and then plunge right back into her theme without *ever* tying it in or proving that it was a Ripper crime at all, much less Sickert's. I guess all violent deaths in those days were all Jack the Ripper victims. Who knew? I'm surprised she didn't take it farther. Extend her own logic about unsolved crimes into other areas. For instance: Sickert COULD HAVE faked his own death in 1942, lived on, and have been standing on the Grassy Knoll in 1963 to kill JFK. His MO and victimology have changed, sure, but perhaps he was really only aiming at Jackie. Why not? He could have done it. Perhaps he did. Its physically possible. No one can prove he wasn't there. Its a perfectly valid theory. Oh dear, did I just give away the plot for Patricia Cornwell's sequel? The above arguement sums up the book, really. No one can prove or disprove it, so she will write it and claim it is true. If Walter Sickert had indeed faked his death and is still around, I'd say he would (not just could, but *would*) have one hell of a libel suit. Save your money. Read something else!
Rating: 
Summary: A Reader from Coeur d' Alene Idaho
Review: I have just managed to get through this book, though it wasn't a noteworthy experience. Cornwell's tone throughout the book suggests grand arrogance and her deductions are based more on supposition than fact. The use of "may be," "could have been," "quite possibly," and a host of other statements of supposition are rampant in the book. To repeatedly refer to Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper in her unabashed tone--without more concrete evidence--could be potentially liablous. In fact, I would not be surprised if Sickerts family or estate took legal action against Cornwell. Cornwell is obviously out of her league when writing a book of this nature, and she should stick to what she appears to know best: fiction. Bottom line: From the literary point of view, the book drones on in a rambling manner. And, as stated, the facts don't match her conclusions. Don't waste your money.
Rating:
Summary: Long winded, disorganized and tedious
Review: I managed to finish this book eventually - but it was through gritted teeth. If Patricia Cornwell has worked in the field of criminal investigation as she suggests, I would have significant concerns about her objectivity. She paints a picture of Sickert which may or may not be accurate. She builds a case purely on a mountain of circumstantial evidence and hearsay. If I were a member of a jury and she were the counsel for the prosecution I would be less than impressed by the arguments advanced or by the totally random manner in which her "facts" are presented. The "evidence" advanced always tantalizes, but somehow never quite closes the argument. Its always along the lines of - his wife's theatre company visited these Northern towns and these murders occurred in these same towns; or Sickert could have caught a train to the North of England, murdered someone and been back in London in time to go the theatre; or the stationery used by Sickert was the same brand as that used in Ripper letters. When I saw an exhibition of Sickert's art many years ago in Liverpool - long before I read this book, I found his paintings dreary and depressing and not at all uplifting like Renoir or other impressionists. Clearly his Ripper type paintings could suggest a warped mind and possibly misogynistic tendencies, however maybe he was fascinated by the Whitechapel murders and used them simply as subject matter. Obviously it is very difficult to apply modern investigative and forensic techniques to a case that has grown so cold. However, it is unacceptable for Cornwell to act as judge and jury on a long dead man on the basis of such a ragbag of snippets and assumptions. Looks like a case of an author doing what any good author does - lay out the basic premise and plot of a novel and then mould the rest of the events of the story to conform to this framework. In this case Sickert it guilty, and so all the evidence must be crafted to point to this conclusion. Don't waste your time and money on this lightweight effort.
Rating: 
Summary: Cornwell makes a solid case
Review: I have never read the author's fiction books, and the people who have seem to think that fiction is all she is supposed to write ("Self-righteous" and "unsympathetic"? Because her protagonist, Kay Scarpeta, is female and females aren't supposed to be hard-nosed and dedicated to doing their jobs? Please!). That said, the majority of these reviewers must have been reading a different book that I read. It held my interest from start to finish. She makes a solid case for Walter Sickert being Jack the Ripper. Case solved, as far as I'm concerned.
Rating:
Summary: Not exactly "case closed" - It's more like "highly likely."
Review: Patricia Cornwell claims she has the definite answer. The question? Who was Jack the Ripper? According to Cornwell, the serial killer who terrorized late nineteenth century England was the artist Walter Sickert (I haven't spoiled the ending for readers; even the book flap reveals this information). Her unwavering solution is entirely reassuring. Although it is refreshing to see her vehemently stand by her accusation, it can also be terribly misleading. She occasionally throws in a paragraph or two on psychopathic tendencies that do not convey coherent messages of Jack the Ripper's motives, or lack thereof. Her generalizations of psychopaths are just that---generalizations. And I am not entirely convinced that she has an expertise in this psychological field. I am convinced, however, that she has done her research and knows the Jack the Ripper era and story as best as anyone possibly could. Some of her conclusions do appear to be somewhat farfetched. However, this is an entertaining read that does offer an extremely plausible suspect. I'm not 100% convinced that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, but because of this account, he does seem to be the most likely suspect. If you are interested in this unsolved mystery, read this. But beware: even after reading this account, it will remain an unsolved mystery.
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your time or money
Review: I am a HUGE fan of Patricia Cornwell, especially the Kay Scarpetta series. Also a big fan of any real crime writing or program, I was THRILLED to see that Cornwell was tackling Jack the Ripper (I had read a couple of things about the case before, including the hoax diary). Unfortunately, this book has done nothing but long for better Scarpetta days. The evidence she provides, while sometimes interesting, is somewhat absurd at times. There are awkward and forced connections made throughout. I had to force myself to complete the entire book. Even the writing style and organization of the book was lacking. If you are looking for a book measuring up to Cornwell's normal standards, or a great and conclusive book about Jack the Ripper, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU. Keep on searching.
Rating:
Summary: Patricia Cornwell may consider sticking to fiction.
Review: Having never read Ms. Cornwell's fiction, I was completely unbiased in reading this first work of seeming non-fiction, and do not feel any loyalty to whatever her works of fiction may be. As an historic account, this book's central tenet--that Jack the Ripper was a discreetly malformed but highly successful impressionist artist--might have some credibility with some sturdy, linear conveyance of evidence. The book teams with this evidence, but it is described in such a hapharzard, circuitous manner that I found the author contradicting herself on numerous occasions. To claim that the vast majority of Ripper letters were authentic in the early pages, only to blatently ascribe their fraudulence nary a hundred pages later--sloppy indeed! If she had only taken the seeming evidence of violent paintings and drawings, the various Ripper and Sickert correspondences, the murders and subsequent investigations, and addressed them all in a more coherent manner, her theory would be much more tenable. As it is, the book itself is barely readable--appealing only to one's sense of morbidity and much less to one's sense of proof or justifiable accusation. Patricia takes a moment in her acknowledgements to thank her editor--I would thank the editor to completely overhaul the information in this book and regurgitate in a linear fashion--for both the readers' and the author's benefit.
| 
