Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed

Rating:
Summary: You Don't Know Jack
Review: Was Sickert really Jack the Ripper? Would it make his otherwise wretchedly muddy paintings all the more bearable? Would it make Jack the Ripper's ghastly crimes that much more amusing? After reading this book, and frankly I haven't, it seems clear that the Ripper was not Walter Sickert but Walter Winchell. Or was it Paul Winchell? I get them confused. Nevertheless, the truth is that there is more to historical inquiry, particularly art historical inquiry, than just cursory examinations of artworks which are then assimilated into the assumed truth of history. The point is, really, that I hate books. Despise them. There are just SO MANY of them. Who could read enough of them to make a dent in the Truth? Well, not me, I'll tell you that. It's for this reason that my reading mainly consists of sugar packets and the sides of cereal boxes. I don't know if Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. And for the millionth time in my life, I couldn't care less. I've been looking for other uses for books: window props, coasters, flyswatters. You get the point. People keep on writing books and people keep on buying them. It doesn't end. The writers end and the buyers end, but the books just keep flooding the earth with pulp and ink. I may buy this book at some point, when my contempt for the written word has waned. I may even read it. Or I may save the universe the trouble and burn it as soon as I buy it. Return it to the cosmos from which it came. It's the only noble thing to do, really. And aren't we all seeking a noble life, free of the Sickerts of the world?

Rating:
Summary: Case Still Open
Review: After expending a great deal of ink and, reportedly, a large amount of cash, Patricia Cornwell has succeeded in proving that some of the hoax letters purportedly written to the authorities by Jack the Ripper MAY have originated with the painter Walter Sickert. Hardly an earth-shaking discovery...hardly worth writing another book about. (Sickert was previously identified as a suspect by Stephen Knight in 1976 and by Jean Overton Fuller in 1990.) Absolutely no new evidence linking Sickert to the murders is presented. Ms Cromwell would have been better advised to save her money and our time.

Rating:
Summary: A New Low
Review: Patricia Cornwell's attempt to link Walter Sickert to the 1888 Jack the Ripper murders in London, has taken the field of Ripperology to a new low. It is typical for an author to select a candidate for Jack the Ripper and then bend the facts to fit, conveniently discarding those that can't be contorted. As example in Cornwell's case, whereas most serious students of the case believe that ALL the letters written to newspapers and the metropolitan police were from a variety of kooks and pranksters, Cornwell concludes that MOST are from Sickert. How does she reconcile the disparate handwritings? By concluding that Sickert was a master of forgery. And what does she base this conclusion upon? The variety of handwritings that the many Ripper letters demonstrate. The circularity of reasoning doesn't bother her a bit. How could it be that two or three Ripper letters were sent from differing locations in Britain with the same postmarked date? Sickert must have had people mail letters for him. And on it goes. The book is disjointed, illogical, and should convince no one actually familiar with the minutia of the Ripper case.

Rating:
Summary: preponderance of evidence?
Review: I agree with most critics that the case Cornwell presents is less definitive than she wants us to believe. But I still find it convincing. The fact that Sickert's letter's mitochondrial DNA matches that on the Ripper's letter is a stunning piece of evidence. Even if the match still leaves .01-10% of the population that can't be excluded, it narrows the field of suspects dramatically. The Ripper used expensive paper and artists' supplies for some of his writings. Sickert titled a painting of his own bedroom "Jack the Ripper's bedroom". (Yes, I know the story that his landlady supposedly told him that a previous tenant was the Ripper, but that explanation can't be verified and seems like a very suspicious coincidence). He painted scenes of violence against women. He was appallingly insensitive and selfish to those closest to him. His sketches look very similar to many Ripper sketches. These are just a FEW of the many "coincidences" Cornwell cites. Yes, none of these are convincing in isolation, but when you put them all together the case against Sickert becomes very strong. As for the many reasons that have been cited to "prove" Sickert could not have been the Ripper, most of them are pure opinion (such as saying that certain Ripper letters that had Sickert-type DNA are hoaxes). If the Ripper had the artistic talent Cornwell asserts, it would've been easy enough for him to fake his handwriting and use many different styles of writing to confuse. One reason the Ripper was never caught was that no one of that class-conscious era could fathom an upper class, attractive, charming man committing such heinous crimes. Perhaps some of Cornwell's critics are letting their own snobbery get in the way of their common sense.
However, I do take issue with Cornwell's style. She jumps around chronologically in a confusing way, intersperses her biographical data with opinions and asides on forensics, cites facts and opinions without having laid the groundwork to help the reader understand them, and just generally does not organize the book very well. It seems hastily thrown together. I was particularly disappointed that she did not explain how or why she eliminated other suspects, and how she became so convinced that Sickert was the murderer that she subtitled the book "case closed".

Rating:
Summary: Case Closed or Fabricated?
Review: First, let's just say Cornwell needs to stick with fiction. After reading this farce I believe a novel would have been more appropriate considering the abundance of speculation and juggling of the facts. To say the least I was disappointed. From claiming Sickert's artwork gives clues and mirrors the murder scenes is just one leap of fantasy used. I really don't want to state all the issues I have here, just know that if you want revelations about the case you won't find them in this charade.

Rating:
Summary: Those dreadful words...
Review: "Case Closed". Really, you just can't throw phrases like that out there and expect to be taken seriously. Similarly, Gerald Posner claimed to have closed the JFK case, by "proving" that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Nonsense.

With the Ripper case, the sheer age of the case and the questionable quality of the evidence, such as it is, makes it totally impossible to do more than make a series of educated guesses.

Pat Cornwell has put forward some interesting ideas, although her non-definitive DNA "evidence" is somewhat misleading and as for handwriting "experts"... well, yeah.

The most fascinating thing about the Jack The Ripper case is why it has been so compelling for so many people. If the case really did only consist of five murders, in a city in which all human life was cheap, especially among the poor, why should it have taken on such an enduring mystique?

Apart from the favoured-by-some Royal Conspiracy theories, one of the most unique elements in the JTR murders was the incremental level of violence that the killer used. By the final murder, in which the greatest level of mutilation was employed, Jack had played himself out in terms of his ability to layer more horror on the police and townsfolk of Whitechapel.

Sickert could have easily been the Ripper. Yet, any one of a dozen suspects could have done it, either singly or with an accomplice. While reading Cornwell's book, the most chilling thought that occured to me was that virtually ANYBODY could have been the killer.

We will never know why the Ripper killed those apparently innocent women, or why he used a mind-boggling level of mutilation on the fifth victim. What we can be sure of is that given sufficient cause, most people could unleash similar violence on a "deserving" party. I have only experienced this unparalleled hatred for an enemy once in my life, when I was being hounded by a sadistic Collection Agency (they are ALL sadistic). At the peak of the harassment, I know completely that I would definitely have used a Ripper-level of violence and brutality against certain individuals, had they appeared in front of me, instead of hiding behind a false Desk Name, at the other end of a telephone. In dehumanizing me, they dehumanized themselves. This then, is perhaps the key to understanding our fascination with this unfettered use of violence.

Whether the Ripper was a misogynist, a contract killer employed by the Royals, a deranged psychopath or whatever, he carried out a short series of violent acts that seemed to wound the fabric of Time itself. More than anything, he showed us the Dark Side that lurks in too many people. Perhaps all people. Just waiting to be triggered. Just waiting to bring Him back, from Hell.

No, the case is not closed, and it never will be.

Rating:
Summary: DON"T GET THIS BOOK
Review: This is an amateurishly written badly organized mess of a book. The author should either avoid non fiction or get a ghost writer. I don't know if the authors theory on the rippers identity is a good one or not as she made such a mess of presenting her facts. If she is correct hopefully someone will come along and do a better job of presenting the theory. I'm propably being overly harsh but this was a huge disappointment as I had high expectations of this book based on the authors reputation. If you must read this book get it from the library don't pay for it, it's not worth the money.

Rating:
Summary: fascinating version of the Ripper case
Review: When this reviewer realized that Patricia Cornwell had written a nonfiction work focused on solving the cold case of the Ripper, the initial thought was "just what the world needs, another solve the Ripper Case'. Immediately after that idea came the thought that if anyone could do it Patricia Cornwell can and started reading the book only to find out it is so well written and fascinating, that it impossible to put down until the last page is turned.

She and her team applied modern day forensic techniques and crime scene methodology, and historical sleuthing to determine whom Jack the Ripper was. Several tons of documents and other physical evidence such as fingerprints, photographs, museum paintings, fine arts accouterments, and even DNA, etc. were evaluated. Using the assumption that Jack remained free and still operated after his several month killing spree in 1888, Ms. Cornwell follows the paths of the prime suspects and looks at police blotters near where they lived. This concerted effort led to Ms. Cornwell to declare unequivocally that Jack the Ripper is none other than: read the book.

PORTRAIT OF A KILLER: JACK THE RIPPER CASE CLOSED is a fascinating version of the Ripper case and the chronicle of how Ms. Cornwell and her team step by step drew their conclusion. The key to this true crime account is not the final claim though that is appealing, but the powerfully interesting nonfiction elucidation that hooks the reader to follow along as if Dr. Scarpetta was working the crime scene. Ms. Cornwell shows she could rule the true crime genre if she permanently switched fields perhaps to try to uncover the identity of Deep Throat next.

Harriet Klausner

Rating:
Summary: amazing
Review: As a huge fan of Cornwell's, it went without saying that I would purchase this book on the day of it's release. I've read all of her stuff. And loved it all. She is truly the greatest crime novelist of our time.

I've always been fascinated with the Ripper case. I've read several books on the matter, seen a few related movies, etc. But never have I read a book that essentially solves the case. Using modern technology, she examined all the evidence and literally solved the crime of the century.

After reading this book, there is no doubt in my mind to the identity of the Ripper.

Rating:
Summary: Coulda Shoulda Woulda
Review: I have never read any other Patricia Cornwell book and doubt if I will do so. Even if Walter Sickert really was Jack the Ripper, I'd have to acquit him if Patricia Cornwell was the prosecuting attorney in his trial; she does not prove her case so much as hammer her preconceived notions into your head with a truncheon. Ms. Cornwell has intense dislike for Walter Sickert. This is not surprising, since Sickert does not seem to have been a good man; he was a bad husband and an eccentric who did not paint pretty models.
Cornwall's statement that Sickert was the Ripper is stated at least once in every chapter. She rules out all other suspects and vows to 'clear their names'. The theory that Sickert painted his victims is intruiging but Cornwell has very little actual evidence tying Sickert to the murders. He liked to walk around the East End and go to music halls. Therefore he 'could have' met the Ripper's victims. And every murder committed in the British Isles at that time was the work of the Ripper, or Sickert. No one else in the country appears to have been a psychopath, despite Cornwell's assertion that 4% of the population is psychopathic.
All extant 'Ripper letters' are accepted as genuine by Ms. Cornwell. I can't believe that none of them were written by cranks and wannabees who claimed then, as they do now, to be the perpetrators of the latest atrocity. The handwriting in the letters varies? Cornwell's answer: Sickert disguised his handwriting. No evidence of Sickert having a talent for this art is ever offered. It is all conjecture. That is the nicer word. The use of artists' materials to write some of the letters is her one solid piece of evidence. How about a chemical analysis of the 'etching ground' found on a Ripper letter with one of Sickert's etchings?
Cornwell pads the length of the book by wandering off on tangents to give the reader histories of the Bertillon system, or a digression on papermaking and watermarks. Some of the paper in the Ripper letters matches some paper Sickert used. Are we to believe that the papermakers only sold materials to one person in the city of London? We are told that Sickert was so good at disguising himself that he went unrecognized by his own family when a child. This is mentioned once then never referred to again, though it would seem to be a matter that is worth investigating. But we only have Cornwell's assertion that this is the case; there are no footnotes.
The most specious associations are important to Ms. Cornwell. Is it really significant that a painted sun in one of Sickert's paintings from 1932 "is almost identical to the one etched in glass over the front door" of a pub where a murdered woman 'usually' could be found in 1907? This is twisting the arm of coincidence until it dislocates. Or bending facts to suit your theories.
Sickert kept 'bolt holes' to which he would remove at a moment's notice, telling no one where he was going, and was excellent at disguising himself. This description would apply eually well to the fictional character Sherlock Holmes. I wonder why Ms. Cornwell hasn't investigated any ties between Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Walter Sickert? This would be about as significant as some of the other associations in this book.