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

Rating:
Summary: The Worst Book Ever Written About Jack The Ripper
Review: Case closed? Hardly.

Cornwell's "book" is all conjecture and supposition. It is a completely ridiculous book with no factual basis for anything that she believes to be true. At least she has stuck to what she does best: fiction.

If you are going to read anything about Jack the Ripper, then read any other book on the subject. There are tons of horrid books about Jack, but they are still better than this load of dung. For people who really want to learn about and read some excellent books on the subject, pick up anything by the following authors: Philip Sugden, Donald Rumbelow, Keith Skinner, or Stewart Evans.

This book is horrid for true students of the case because Cornwell, with this pathetic stinker of a book, has put in the minds of casual readers that the Ripper case is solved when it is so obviously not. Ugh...she and this book make me want to vomit.

Rating:
Summary: There are better books out there
Review: This book was an interesting read, but unfortunately does not by any means deserve to be the most widely read Ripper book. Her case is circumstantial at best. The problematic mtDNA evidence and links to numerous JtR letters that are undoubtedly frauds and the fact that Sickert may have been in France in September 1888 are all problems that would have to be dealt with much more seriously. I think it was a noble attempt, but her argument ultimately falls short. While it's not totally worthless, it is definitely not "case closed". One would be better served to read Begg's "JtR The Facts", or Sugden's "Complete History". For suspect oriented books, Fido or Evans & Gainey are much more worthwhile.

Rating:
Summary: Case not quite closed... must sit on it
Review: Portrait of a Killer is addressing one of the greatest (or rather, most infamous) murder stories or just STORY of our time. It was left completely unsolved, even by the famous Scotland Yard. This is the first of Patricia Cornwell's works i have read and enjoy her writing style, her matter-of-fact manner and the periphery she brings to the table that helps you understand more than just one single event, but more about legal process in that day and the deficiencies in investigation, as well as the developments since then.
WIth a case that has lay dormant for over a century survived bombings and all of WWII, tampered evidence, phonies, innacuracies, and an altogether lack of evidence pile masses of paperwork and theories into this case, one that you'd have to sit on to cram down and close fully. For those that want to discredit Ms. Cornwell entirely, go for it: any great movie or book or story can be disected beyond typical natural occurences, but if you have any inkling or interest in the Ripper case or Sickert himself, this book is very enlightening. The only reason it did not recieve five stars is that it isn't the type of book i would carry around and preach about. The nature of the book is the macabre, morgue-ish account of murders in the East End of London, and if you're not a pessimist or a deadbeat, you'll enjoy Ms. Cornwell's efforts here.

Rating:
Summary: A good case. . .but is it closed?
Review: Not to ruin the story for you, but Patricia Cornwell thinks that artist Walter Sickert was the legendary serial killer known as "Jack the Ripper." She spent a lot of money and time to come to this conclusion. Indeed, in the true crime account she weaves she spends a lot of pages trying to tie every thread together to convince you that she is correct. Is she? I was left uncertain, even at the end after considering all the information (and the lack of information). A lot of this book is repetitive (it just repeats itself, it keeps on saying the same thing, it will hammer something in again and again until you understand. Understand?). In fact, it brought up the same information so many times that I considered that Cornwell really and truly did not have enough to justify the length of this book (or, at times, various claims). In the end, though, it is a good read and she comes fairly close to making her case that Sickert was "the Ripper." However, with so many theories needing proof, I was left to wonder if this case would ever be closed.

Rating:
Summary: Not too bad!
Review: I read the other reviews before writing mine. I think that anyone who reads these books actually believing that someone has "closed the case" needs to understand that this is all just theory. I do not believe the case of Jack the Ripper will ever be solved (and that is what intrigues us all). The story of Jack the Ripper will always be alive. Perhaps the true Ripper is watching us from below and laughing because he got away with the perfect crime.

I am not a fan per-se of Patricia Cornwell, actually I believe this is the first book I have read by her. I bought this book as I am fascinated with the cases of Jack the Ripper. I first saw Patricia Cornwell on Dateline, or one of those shows, discussing this book and felt that I needed to read it.

Yes, some of her "evidence" is rather weak but she does point out some very interesting items such as the doodles that Jack the Ripper had on his letters to the police and those that Sickert drew. She does find some interesting DNA information that really makes you want to know more but I believe she also stated that due to the lack of care taken to seal the evidence for future scientific advances it was hard to get a good working amount of DNA off of the envelopes.

I do not feel the case is closed after reading this book, but I do feel that Patricia Cornwell has some good circumstantial evidence. I believe that if anyone did solve the case, the draw of Jack the Ripper would end. I truly feel that people do not want the case to be solved. If it is..where is the fascination?

Overall, I feel this book is a good read for those interested. I am not disappointed I bought the book and am looking forward to many other theories that are likely to come in my lifetime.

Rating:
Summary: The case isn't closed, no matter what the title says
Review: While meandering through the library, I picked up a copy of this book. The title interested me, so I checked it out. I was expecting a pretty solid case since the author was claiming the case was closed, but I didn't find that. Instead, a weak circumstantial case was presented, and I was left wondering how the author could have convinced herself that Sickert was Ripper, for she surely didn't convince me.

Ms. Cornwell is very fond of drifting far away from the topic at hand - she starts talking about how the bodies of the prostitutes weren't studied well, and ends up talking about a man who died on a toilet during her career, and she devotes a few pages to "The Elephant Man," Joseph Merrick, who has absolutely no connection with either Sickert or the Ripper except they lived in England during the same time period. Annoyingly enough, Ms. Cornwell pretty much uses "Sickert" and "Jack the Ripper" interchangeably, leaving me wondering how much of the information Cornwell presented about Sickert was factual, and how much was conjecture or something Jack the Ripper did.

Ms. Cornwell may be fond of going off in tangents, but she's even more fond of leaping to conclusions that have little, if any, basis in facts. She knows that Sickert has a "fistula" that required three surgeries when he was a boy. She believes the nephew of Sickert's third wife when he describes what the fistula is (honestly, how much could he have possibly known about Sickert's medical history and problems? That just struck me as odd), and suddenly concludes that Sickert is a deformed psychopath (a word she loves to use, very frequently) who is unable to have relations with a woman, so he must kill and steal parts of prostitutes' organs because he wants to see what had brought his deformed self into this world. Seriously. And that's not the only leaps she made, either.

Ms. Cornwell put much emphasis on the Ripper letters. Most people, including those who were working the investigation as it happened, discounted many of the Ripper letters as fake. Cornwell believes that most of the Ripper letters are not hoaxes, but are mostly written by Jack the Ripper/Sickert. There is no concrete evidence of this, although she does bring in a few experts to claim that she could be right (although other experts would disagree with them). She just asks us to believe her. Even if Sickert HAD written a Ripper letter or two, that wouldn't implicate him. People write fake letters in high-profile cases all the time. Remember the anthrax letter scare in the fall of 2001? People sent fake anthrax letters in the mail. Sure, they had very warped senses of "humor," but come on, that doesn't mean they were responsible for the real letters. In a similar vein, even IF Sickert had sent a Ripper letter in, that didn't make him Jack the Ripper. In Ms. Cornwell's world, though, if Sickert sent in a Ripper letter, he HAD to be the Ripper.

Ms. Cornwell does not make much of an effort to convince the reader that Sickert is really Jack the Ripper. Instead, she pretty much says that Sickert is Jack the Ripper, and spends several chapters trying to determine why Sickert did what he did. The book read like a prosecutor's weak case - it would only take a moderately good defense lawyer to rip the case against Sickert to shreds.

It's obvious that she did a lot of research for this book. I think the book does a pretty good job of painting a realistic, dismal picture of what life was like for the poor living in Victorian London. She even raises a few interesting points about Sickert. Maybe he is Jack the Ripper. Maybe he's not. Who knows? At this point in time, I think it's virtually impossible to close this case. And for Ms. Cornwell to state "Jack the Ripper...is caught" at the end of the book is ludicrous. He's not caught, the case is not closed. To claim otherwise, especially with such a weak circumstantial case, is pure nonsense.

Rating:
Summary: Case closed? Yeah...right.
Review: First, let me start off by saying that I think Patricia Cornwell's novels are well written. This dismal failure, however, is not. It jumps back and forth between Victorian London and modern times and is rather slow-paced. And although I respect the fact that she researched this topic extensively, to make such a ridiculous claim ("case closed") based on very thin circumstancial evidance is only damaging to Cornwell's reputation. Let's face it: her theory as to the Ripper's identity is as good as yours or mine. Walter Sickert's ghost is probably shaking his head in confusion and outrage at Cornwell's ludicrous claims throughout this book. The real Jack the Ripper remains as elusive as ever, and I doubt that we'll ever know his real identity. That's why this remains such a gripping subject more than a century after the murders took place.