Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but very unconvincing
Review: Patricia Cornwell tries hard to separate herself from the usual run of Ripper books. And, she has some interesting conclusions to offer: usage of DNA testing on possible Ripper letters and the introduction of a possible new bit of evidence with the guest book of an inn in Cornwall.However, none of it is all that convincing. Her DNA testing may show that Sickert actually wrote a hoax letter, but it's a long step from there to calling him Jack the Ripper. The watermark evidence is interesting, but not conclusive at all. Her art analysis shows that Sickert was interested in death, nothing more. Ultimately, there are a number of independent sources that place Sickert in France during September of that year, quite possibly including all of October. Much of this seems to be the case of someone picking a suspect and doing their best to prove he was the one, rather than reviewing all of the information available.
Rating: 
Summary: Puzzled by the Reviews
Review: I found the reactions of some of the other reviewers of Cornwell's book puzzling. I had never read a Cornwell book before this one, but I heard her interviewed about the book several months ago, and I was fascinated by her discussion. I vowed at that time I would buy the book as soon as it came out, and I did. I found her main premise interesting, but what I really enjoyed about the book was her depiction of the Victorian era, in particular the place of women in that society. Ms. Cornwell had obviously done quite a lot of research into the historical period, as well as into the particulars of the crime. And as she herself admits, with most of the evidence from the crime scenes themselves destroyed long ago, sometimes before the police at the time could even make a thorough investigation, it's difficult at best to make a positive claim; however, she has used the techniques we now have available to link Walter Sickert without a doubt to the Ripper through letters, through his art work, and through his general character. Criminals today have certainly gone to jail based on such circumstantial evidence. And since all the witnesses are dead, I suppose no one will ever be able to definitively prove Sickert's guilt or innocence. Readers certainly don't have to agree with her, but Ms. Cornwell certainly makes a fascinating case.
Rating:
Summary: "A worthy read !"
Review: I liked this story and I usually enjoy most of the books written by Ms. Cornwell. One thing for certain, she is definately a stickler for facts and detail. "Portriate of a Killer," by Patricia Cornwell is a worthy read !
Rating: 
Summary: Do your research before you accept this as truth
Review: Patricia Cornwell should stick to fiction as legitimate historical scholarship defeats her, her matter of fact claims are based on opinion not tangible evidence. The fact she spent six million dollars buying expert opinion to fit her opinions shows, I recommend anyone interested in her book visit the ... website for a balanced view...
Rating:
Summary: Nice try, but...
Review: Patricia Cornwell falls far short of the claims of her title. Her "proof" is circumstantial evidence at best, and, like most Ripper investigators anxious to promote their pet candidate, she conveniently ignores or dismisses any evidence to the contrary (in this case, most notably the evidence that Sickert wasn't even in England at the time of several of the murders). Add to this her strange and unhelpful habit of "quoting" only one word at a time from her sources, giving no useful context whatsoever, and you have a very disappointing book. (Such quoting practices would never be allowed in even a school term paper, and should certainly never have been allowed in an internationally distributed book. Cornwell should have known better.) I've read much of the Ripper literature out there, and this effort does little to solve the mystery. Though her descriptions of Victorian England are interesting and informative, Cornwell also inserts herself into the book in a way that is both distracting and appears to be sheer propaganda for herself as a (fiction)writer. In the end, the book is a somewhat interesting read, but nearly useless in solving any crime at all.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Bother
Review: I love Patricia Cornwell's novels, but this book is boring! It's page after page of conjecture, no suspense, no pacing, no interesting characters. It reads like a college term paper. Frankly I'm sorry I wasted my money.
Rating:
Summary: Not all that convincing
Review: When I picked this book up I thought that it would be fascinating, if a tad morbid, to learn a bit about the Ripper murders. After slogging through Cornwell's book however all I feel is certain is that there isn't actually much left to know. Little to no evidence is left to examine, police reports and other key papers have long since disappeared, and forensic examination performed by the doctors and policeman was woefully insufficient to build any kind of case against a suspect. Yet Cornwell persists in arguing that Walter Sickert, a painter and student of Whistler, was the true identity of Jack the Ripper. She sounds definite in her opinion, but I fail to see how such specious reasoning could convince anyone else. All in all 'Portrait of a Killer' is an unsatisfying read. The reader comes away with scant information about the killings other than that it was a forensic nightmare, and no more of an idea who Jack the Ripper was than they had when they began the book.
Rating:
Summary: Who is the real Ripper?
Review: In her book Portrait of a Killer, crime fiction novelist Patricia Cornwell claims that she has uncovered the true identity of Jack The Ripper, the madman who haunted the lives of everyone in London in the late 1800. But who was the real Ripper? His identity was never found. Only conspiracies and theories exist. Cornwell, through years of research, scientific analysis and very intelligent deductions, might have stumble upon something that is very close to the so-called truth. Walter Sickert, a somewhat renown painter of the time who died in the 1940s, is the man Cornwell accuses of being Jack the Ripper. Sickert has been one of the many men named during the course of history, and now Cornwell has tried to prove his guilt. Many of Sickert's painting bear frightening resemblances to the crime scenes and the victims themselves. The letter sent to the police and newspapers echo the things Sickert was living at the time. And Cornwell, through unduly research, can even place him at the scenes of the crime most of the time. Sickert's background is the kind that would undoubtedly help at creating a killer. What I liked about the book is that Cornwell's argument isn't one-sided. When some of her research failed, she is not afraid to say so. For example, DNA testing on a letter Sickert sent compared to that of a letter the Ripper sent were inconclusive. But many other tests Cornwell did offer some new light on the subject at hand. Was Walter Sickert Jack the Ripper? I'm not sure the book fully proves that. But it makes a very strong argument for it. The Ripper story is filled with falsities and fiction. Cornwell does erase all of it to give us the bare truth and the real facts. She goes back to each and every murder scene and analyzes them. She tries to go into Sickert's mind and show us his many mood swings, his dark personality and his abnormal behaviour. All in all, Cornwell does make her point, and quite strongly. The book is very informative and written in a very entertaining way. After a series of fiction duds, Cornwell is back full-force with this non-fiction effort.
Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting Revelations
Review: For what can be described as one of the "coldest cases" known, as far as evidence is concerned, Cornwell makes a compelling case. I read this book in four days, and could barely put it down. Some previous reviewers have made comments regarding the use of profiling in this book. Profiling has, on the whole, been a very useful tool in solving crimes. Roy Hazelwood and John Douglas are experts in the field and have been instrumental in solving some of the most violent and shocking crimes of our lifetime. The extensive research, thoughtfulness, background information and care put into this work shines through on every page. Agree with her theory or not, you cannot, once you finish this book, dismiss it out of hand. Well worth a read.
Rating:
Summary: Dumb dumb dumb
Review: Cornwell claims she can 'prove' Sickert was the killer by comparing his handwriting with the Ripper letters, which are widely regarded as hoaxes. She also insists that to have painted his famous autopsy pictures Sickert 'must have viewed the body' as 'he never painted anything he didn't see.' Any casual student of his art is aware that Sickert painted from photographs throughout his career.
Sickert experts have also refuted Ms Cornwells claims by providing extensive documentation proving Sickert was on vacation with his family in France when the Ripper killings were taking place in London.
Cornwell should be ashamed of herself, as should anyone who concludes that Sickert was Jack the Ripper from the 'evidence' contained in this very poor, flimsy book.
| 
