Rating: 
Summary: Questionable at best.
Review: Ms. Cornwell spent a lot of money and time to support a theory as fact. It is obvious from her book and the numerous specials that I have seen. However, the known facts of the Ripper murders still do not bear out Walter Sickert, her choice for the killer. Ms. Cornwell never, for instance, showed that Walter Sickert had anything more than an artist's knowledge of anatomy. Precise removal of internal organs dictates that Jack the Ripper must have had some medical knowledge.While DNA and other modern forensic tests were used, they were largely inconclusive (due to the destruction of proteins etc over time and the over handling or restoration/preservation treatment of evidence), which does not keep the publisher from mentioning them on the blurb, as if they formed the "smoking gun," as it were. I believe that Ms. Cornwell saw Sickert's paintings and was so horrified by them that she pre-concluded his guilt. (An understandable bias to be sure, but still a bias.) Considering the fact that the paintings in question all used the same perspective as the evidence photographs which they so closely resemble, Occam's razor states that Sickert must have seen them. Otherwise, it is simply too far-fetched for me to believe that the killer and the police photographer chose the same angles of aspect. If the paintings were indeed done by the killer, they should have had a more intimate appearance--something that only the killer could have done. She did prove that Sickert had an avid interest in the Ripper murders, however, interest in the Ripper murders does not a killer make. (I, after all, am interested and I have never killed anything bigger than a mosquito. It was self defense, as well, and I promise that it brought me no joy.) Is it possible that Sickert committed later murders after the Ripper style, as Ms Cornwell suggests? Absolutely. Copy cat serial killings go on all the time. For a better, less biased approach to Jack the Ripper, I direct the reader to _The Complete History of Jack the Ripper_ by Phillip Sudgen. If anything, Ms Cornwell is only capable of building a circumstantial case against Walter Sickert. While this may have caused his conviction and death via the laws and mores of the time, I believe that the wrong man would have been hanged. I also believe that she owes the surviving relatives of Mr. Sickert a sincere and heart-felt apology. Ms. Cornwell (or anyone else, for that matter) is free to email me if she wishes to discuss these or any other matters. I can easliy be found via links on TheSpacePort.net .
Rating: 
Summary: This book is ENTERTAINING!
Review: She's a pulp fiction author. She has to overstate her case even though she has to know she didn't really prove it. She wants to make money off her name, and a scholarly discourse on one suspect isn't what her readers are interested in. I do agree that the chonology is very confusing and given that people with a lot of knowledge about the ripper case aren't going to like her book that much, it would have been a good idea to provide a summary of the murders and the other theories early in the book. Her failure to pursue things that might weaken her case is a little irritating and distracting too. For instance when she tries to link other murders to the ripper/Sickert. OK there was a brutal murder when Sickert was in town. Well, how many brutal murders were there the week before when he wasn't in town? Put it in context!
Rating: 
Summary: One of the most interesting true-crime books I've read.
Review: I must say I've been shocked to see some of the vicious negative responses this book has sparked. In my mind it has been very underrated. Cornwell's style in writing this book is, perhaps, not the best for a work of its type, and I think this may have made it difficult for many readers to pick out the significant points she does make. There are parts that almost have the feel of a narrative novel, and the author does present countless trails of speculation which are interesting but not provable. However, I feel the need to respond to some of the criticisms of this work that I've seen by highlighting a few things. Cornwell's work here definitely does prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Walter Richard Sickert wrote a large number of the Ripper letters that were sent to the Metropolitan Police. There are definite DNA matches from stamps on at least three of the letters. The Ripper used several kinds of stationery which Sickert was also known to use, and indeed it has been proven that some sheets used for Ripper letters came from the the same package of 24 sheets as some letters Sickert sent to his acquaintances. There are countless other details that tie Sickert to the Ripper letters and I have no doubt that he wrote most of them. The problem comes in that people seem to be assuming that ALL Patricia Cornwell has proven here is that Sickert wrote Ripper letters. It takes only a little mental puzzle-piecing to see that this is not the case. Some of the Ripper letters (written by Sickert) hint at events yet to come, often connected with future murders - events that did indeed end up playing out as predicted. The Ripper letters also show a knowledge of details about the victims and their murders that were never publicly released. These are things Sickert could not possibly have known unless he committed the murders (or at least some of them), or was somehow connected to the person that did. The author makes mention of an incident where Sickert claimed that he had once stayed in the very room where Jack the Ripper once dwelled. He stated that the landlord had told him the identity of the killer, but that he could no longer remember the name. This seems unlikely in the extreme. Cornwell points out that when he was 80 years old, Sickert could still remember and correctly spell the name "Maharaja Meerzaram Guahahapaje Raz Parea Maneramapam Mucher," which he had come across while passing a church memorial with his father when he was a young boy. Sickert had an astounding memory. Assuming for a moment that Sickert was NOT Jack the Ripper, it would still be obvious that he had an intense fascination with the killer, as evidenced by his having penned many Ripper letters and also in his violent art, some pieces of which make direct references to the Ripper killings. I find it unbelievable that someone so obsessed with Jack the Ripper would fail to recall his real name after having it revealed to him. So it is almost certain that Sickert was lying about the incident, possibly to shift suspicion away from himself. I have seen some people mistakenly assume that Cornwell is arguing that the Ripper was left-handed. This can only be a case of mis-reading, since she is not saying anything of the sort. Cornwell argues that most of the victims seem to have had their throats cut from behind in a way that indicates a RIGHT-handed perpetrator. She also makes note of the fact that Sickert was known to be primarily right-handed, but that he was capable of writing with his left hand, as evidenced by a video. She makes this point only to show another method he may have used to disguise his handwriting (writing with the left hand rather than the right). Some people have complained that Cornwell did not include enough of the art works she references in her book. Many of these are easy enough to look up on the internet - Sickert was a well-known artist in his day and his works are by no means obscure. I was shocked to see one person respond by saying that Sickert looked like a very nice man based on the photos of him in the book, and that he did not look like a killer. What does a killer look like? It is a fact that a large percentage of rape and murder victims are assailed by someone they knew and trusted, a "nice person." We've long since moved out of the days where supposed criminals are identified based on physical features that are assumed to fit the profiles of murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. A murderer can be sinister, ugly, and frightening in appearance, or they could just as well look like the sweetest and most mellow person imaginable. A murderer can look like anyone. So was Walter Sickert the murderer known as Jack the Ripper? We can't be 100% sure, but it seems very likely. Cornwell has shown that he certainly had the opportunity to have committed the murders (he was in the right place at the right time), he fits the profile of a violent psychopath (though I must admit this word is beginning to sound a little hackneyed what with the number of times Cornwell uses it), and he had a very plausible motive. The fact that several other similar murders (other than the six we hear about most often) occurred in the decades following the highly publicized Ripper spree, and that these murders occurred within miles of wherever Sickert was living at the given time, is also very suspicious. As I stated earlier, Cornwell could have written in a style more suited to this type of book. Many of her important points (and they ARE there!) get hidden between her numerous speculations and historical asides. I did, however, very much enjoy reading these seemingly tangential passages, as they actually paint a very good picture of life in London's East End during the late 19th century and the methods and tools utilized by criminal inspectors of the time. She has clearly done a phenomenal amount of research and I think she's hit upon something very big. So far her theory seems to be the most plausible one out there. Two thumbs up!
Rating:
Summary: Could not continue past Tape 5
Review: Believe me. I tried. I really tried to finish this book on tape, but Kate Reading's manner of speaking drove me crazy. Her cadence and over enunciation, in my opinion, detract from the "story" she is reading, rather than enhance it. For example: I was so distracted by the way she over pronounced "Pennsylvania" I found I couldn't concentrate on Patricia Cornwell's text discussing the medical examiner's office in that state & had to rewind the tape. That's about when I gave up on this book on tape. I thought about getting the book to fill in the rest, but honestly I am really not enraptured with the tale on it's own feet. I'm not sure if my interest waned due to Kate Reading's recitation, or whether I was just bored by the needless inventories of victims' clothing or the many graphic paragraphs dedicated to Walter Sickert's genital surgeries & the possible conditions of his hospital stays. It seems that people interested in Jack the Ripper should probably *read* this book for nothing else than to say they've studied Cornwell's Sickert as Ripper Theory. I think Cornwell has a lot of interesting points about Walter Sickert as the Ripper, & her research, especially into Victorian London, seems impeccable. I'd recommend staying away from the book on tape in favor of the reading the actual book though.
Rating: 
Summary: A complete wate of time and paper
Review: I bought this book 2-3 months ago in an airport. It has taken me this long to finish it, because I kept putting it down in disgust. I kept coming back to it assuming that it wouldn't be a best seller if it didn't have some good qualities....I was wrong. I have never reviewed an item at Amazon before, but this is such a shoddy piece of journalistic trash, that if I can save someone some money, then it is worth the time and energy. Cornwell does a terrible job of presenting any kind of case. Her "suspect" may have been a terrible person, but there is no evidence in here at all. If someone has the time and energy to go through and and count up all of the times "maybe and possibly" show up inthis book....you'd get some sense of how poorly this was investigated. Bottom line, skip this book at all costs.
Rating:
Summary: monontonously irrelevant details = boring
Review: do i really care to know how a virginia forensic team would have handled a crime scene from the 1800's? umm, no. there are so many needless details in this book that lead me to skim and scan to find the good parts. like others say, there are way too many "probably" this and "probably" that statements. regardless of all the nice reviews from the press, i think this book is a mess! i liked "The Last Victim" though. try it!
Rating:
Summary: Poorly reasoned, poorly written
Review: Cornwell's attempt to prove painter Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper left me not only unconvinced, but confused. Her book is full of irrelevant digressions and unfounded assumptions. A good editor should have helped Cornwell better focus her ideas. (Perhaps an editor tried, and Cornwell's baffling book is the result.) Cornwll flits from one subject to another every few pages, rarely stating a hypothesis, offering supporting evidence and reaching a conclusion. She offers far too many "could haves" and ignores or dismisses any evidence that doesn't support her ideas. Writers far better than I (Stephen P. Ryder or Wolf Vanderlinden) have articulated the many problems with Cornwell's hypothesis. Find their articles online and read their analyses.
Rating:
Summary: Still not convinced!
Review: One thing that Cornwell has in her favor is that she is qualified to investigate the evidence forensically. I think she does make the following points:
1.) Sickert no doubt did write most if not all of the Ripper letters based on paper, ink, and watermark evidence, as well as the DNA evidence discovered. But why not prove it by exhuming Sickert's mother and comparing DNA? 2.) The police COMMISIONER, not the general force, was incompetent. Surely no policeman worthy of the title would destroy evidence as he did twice, once with the bloody trousers and once with the message in chalk which he wouldn't even allow to be photographed. I suspect he got his job based on who he was as opposed to whether or not he was the best man for the job. 3.) The Ripper was NOT left-handed. If anybody would think a moment, this man had to disappear into the night, once within a few minutes of the police arriving on the scene. Could he have done this if he were covered in blood? i.e. worked from the front, left-handed? No. He worked from behind, right-handed, well out of the way of the spurting blood. Now as to objections. Cornwell would have us discount handwriting analysis. To a person who learned in high school the fine art of forgery, this is laughable. I soon learned that a note signed with my mother's signature also had to match her handwriting and even her eighth-grade education's misspellings and grammer. Since this did not always fool the office personal who signed the excuses, I learned to forge their names and comments. There was a lot of difference between Mr. Henry's elegant writing and Mr. Earp's heavy handed pen; between Mr. Sullivan's schoolastic writing and Coach Crowder's chicken scratching. I also needed offical paper which I obtainted by misdirection. I said that to say this. The letters of the Ripper have distinctive "p"s, and "r"s. Also when writing the word "the" the "h" was often crossed instead of the "t" or they both were crossed. This also shows up in the letter signed "Mathematicius".
Also the signature "Jack the Ripper" was often written left-handed which left another distinctive trait: an unclosed "a" which looks like a "u". Dispite the attempt at disguise, the familiar "p"s are still there. Does this prove Sickert's guilt? Not hardly. Just that he enjoyed deviling the police. Was he the Ripper? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But by definition of a serial killer, Martha Talbert was not the first and Mary Kelly not the last unless the Ripper died shortly after. They kill early in life and continue to do so until caught. Bottom line, Cornwell, you need more evidence.
Rating:
Summary: Rediculous Assertions
Review: I'm not a forensics specialist, but I do have an inquiring mind and this book is one of the worse written books I have ever read. There is no organization to this work and Cornwell takes off on tangents that I believe she thought were pertinent to the case of the "Jack the Ripper" murders. Those tangents offered very little to this opinionated and arrogant work. The first 1/4 of the book could be called "The Life and Times of Walter Sickert". She goes into every little detail about his life and spends an incredible amount of time on his genital problems. Granted, serial killers often have some sort of problem. Often the problem is sexual in nature, but later between pages 80 to 90, she tells the reader that she "can't say for sure" or "I can't state as a fact..." of what type of genital deformity he had, although she does list two possibilities. Cornwell couldn't say what type of surgery he received or whether anesthesia was used. In Chapter 11, pages 147 and 148, Cornwell goes so far to try to connect two of Sickerts paintings: "Two Studies of a Venetian Woman's Head" and "Nuit d' Ete'", to the Mary Ann Nichols murder because Nichols was murdered on a Summer night. "Nuit d' Ete'" means "summer night". How can I take this book seriously when Cornwell makes such rediculous assertions? How can I take this book seriously when she tells her literary agent, Esther Newberg, that she doesn't want to finish the book and the following dialogue is recorded? "'Well, you know,' she said very calmly as she resumed her pace. 'you don't have to do it. I can get you out of it.'
She could have gotten me out of it, but I could never have gotten myself out of it. I knew the identity of a murderer and I couldn't possibly avert my gaze. 'I am suddenly in position of judgment,' I told Ester. 'It doesn't matter if he's dead. Every now and then this small voice asks me, what if you're wrong? I would never forgive myself for saying such a thing about somebody, and then finding out I'm wrong.'
'But you don't believe you're wrong...'
'No. Because I'm not.' I said." (Chapter 2, pages 10 and 11) The above dialogue made me want to gag. Cornwell has made it clear who she believes is "Jack". On pages 15 and 16, she discusses the "stamp" DNA evidence. I may be wrong, but if the sample is still useful, why can't they take the DNA and match it to Sickert's mother through mitochondrial DNA? Cornwell asserts that; "The best result came from a 'Ripper' letter that yielded a single-donor mitochrondrial DNA sequence, specific enough to eliminate 99% of the population as the person who licked and touched the adhesive backing of that stamp."
Cornwell asserts that the Sickert Trust has no authority over the bodies of Sickert's family and the authorities know where Sickert's mother and sister are buried. That would clear or convict one of the suspects. I have one other problem with the book and that is Cornwell's insistance that the police of that period were incompetent or ignorant. That is insulting to the police who, if Cornwell would check her history, had just developed several procedures that are common place in today's forensic research. Those procedures were not widely known or used. If Cornwell wishes to reopen the investigation, great, but not to throw rocks in glass houses. She might begin by reorganizing her book into a readable format, because this book reads like the 1st draft of an English paper that was turned in as the final draft.
Rating:
Summary: The jury is still out
Review: Where's the hard evidence? What little "evidence" Cornwell offered was circumstantial, coincidental, twisted, and misinterpreted. She never once had me convinced that Sickert and Jack the Ripper were one and the same. She only convinced me that Sickert was mentally unstable, and that the Ripper committed more crimes than he is credited for. Sometimes I started thinking of Sickert and the Ripper as interchangeable, but only because Cornwell authored her book in such a way. Sometimes she wrote about the Ripper being a famous artist, or Sickert being a psychopathic killer. It was very difficult to follow the story the way she wrote it. Kind of like my review, it was very disjointed. When she did happen to mention some of her "evidence" she wouldn't go into detail about what she found. She only said something like "this evidence provides compelling proof that Sickert was the killer!" But she never explains why or how. I did enjoy the book, as many other reviewers have said, as a tale of London's East End during the late 19th century, and as a bit of trivia about Walter Sickert and Jack the Ripper. I learned new things about the old case, such as the hundreds of Ripper letters that were written to the police. This aspect of the book was very interesting and well done. My final verdict: It has its good points, but each scene becomes more dramatic until the reader becomes annoyed and wishes the publisher had kaboshed the whole thing.
| 
