This was not what I expected. I thought it would be a sort of historical re-cap of the Jack the Ripper killings with Cornwell revealing the person that she thought to be the killer, with evidence to substantiate her opinion. I did not expect to be lectured over and over and beaten over the head with her opinion on the identity of the killer.

From what I've read, Cornwell went a little bonky in the head with trying to prove that her guy was the one, spending millions of dollars to acquire paintings and writings that belonged to him. Although she may be 100% correct in her belief, it seems to be pointless after this many years.

Recommended for anyone that enjoys a good, repetitive lecture.

I have to say, I know I am in the minority when I say that I find this argument for artist Walter Sickert to be the Ripper rather convincing. Not everyone is going to agree, and that's ok -- I feel that the truth behind the Ripper killings in 1888 London will remain a mystery for all time. There just isn't enough data out there on the killings to point the finger at one particular person.

All that said, what makes this book so interesting is how Cornwell draws out the pathology of a sociopath. Was Sickert the Ripper -- from what I see here, it's pretty evident that he was a profoundly disturbed person and bore a real hatred/fear/contempt of women. If you can handle it, go on and read the book. And then let me know what you think. In any case, it's well written and very carefully thought out.

For the complete review, please go here:
http://www.bubblews.com/news/7051076-...

As a true crime novel stating to have solved the jack the ripper case it isn't very good. But it had a huge sense of gossip and pointing fingers and was oddly intriguing to read. Sloth the first part of the book did put me up quite a bit. I do get that Sickert deformed private parts could be a good motive to those horrible crimes, although I found the amount of discriptves about it and the sheer amount of time she felt the need to point it out felt both disturbing and unnecessary. I wanted to scream "I get it!! He's penis is deformed!!" But do think my neighbors would have wondered what was going on. The need of solving the jack the ripper case might never cool down as I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Yes the forensic and such is getting a lot better but this case is very old and I doubt the evidence collected are much help. But fascinating nevertheless

Patricia Cornwell has more money than sense. I can't believe that she spent a million dollars of her own money to research the true identity of Jack the Ripper.....and, despite the title, she has come away with little to no proof - she relies a great deal on mitochondrial DNA evidence that she admits is inconclusive, and paintings done by Sickert years after the fact. Sickert seems to have been an ass, and perhaps he was the Ripper, but Cornwall has done nothing in this book that would allow her valid use of the subtitle "Case Closed".

The only thing that keeps this book from one star are the great photographs included, especially those of the Ripper letters.

I started reading Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed while I was down in Florida, and finally finished it the day before yesterday. I remember reading reviews of the book when it first came out a few years ago, and never picking the book up. I found it by chance in the stacks at my godmother's house, and decided to give it a try.

It's not that I'm not interested in Jack the Ripper. When I was in high school, I could be counted on to track down just about any book, movie or comic that was connected in any way to two subjects: King Arthur and Dracula. I remember WARP Graphix releasing the comics mini-series Blood of the Innocent in which Dracula came to England on an advance fact-finding mission several years before the events of the novel and encountered Jack the Ripper. That led me for a while to read up on the Ripper -- novels where Sherlock Holmes meets him, and so on.

The problem with this book is that although Cornwell claims that she has solved the case beyond a shadow of a doubt and that The Ripper was noted artist Walter Sickert, her evidence is no more complete or compelling than say, Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's evidence that the Ripper was the royal physician Sir William Gull, or Hempel and Wheatley's evidence that the Ripper was Prince Edward. The problem is: Moore and Campbell's From Hell, on which the movie was based, and Hempel and Wheatley's Blood of the Innocent are admittedly fictional works, however well researched they may have been. The authors admit they are putting words and thoughts into the mouths and minds of historical figures to suit their own theory. Cornwell's book is meant to be non-fiction -- and yet she assigns thoughts and feelings to Walter Sickert that she can only presume he had, since he never left a confession. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is strong -- and in a modern court of law, that might even be enough to convict Sickert for the murders commonly credited to Jack the Ripper, if not the long list of Ripper-like murders in years following that the police did not assign to the Ripper.

I had to force myself to finish the book just to see if Cornwell would pull one fully damning piece of evidence out at the end. But the book ends as it starts: with the clear knowledge that this writer of popular crime fiction has let her quest for the Ripper's identity consumer her life professionally and personally, full in the knowledge that at least for the time being, her suspect is no more or less plausible than so many of the others that have been fingered in fiction over the years.

Αυτή η γυναίκα πραγματικά δεν θα με αφήσει να αγιάσω σε ό,τι αφορά τα βιβλία της. Εκεί που πάω να βρω κάτι καλό να πω, έρχεται και ανατρέπει κάθε ρημάδα καλή μου πρόθεση.
Ξεκίνησα να διαβάζω αυτό το βιβλίο κυρίως γιατί ανέκαθεν με ενδιέφερε η ιστορία του Τζακ του Αντεροβγάλτη. Δεν πίστευα εξαρχής πως ο ένοχος είναι αυτός που υποστηρίζει η Cornwell πως είναι, αλλά ήθελα να δω την έρευνα που έκανε και τη διαδικασία που ακολούθησε έτσι ώστε να αιτιολογήσει το σκεπτικό της.

3 αστεράκια γιατί σέβομαι τον χρόνο και τα χρήματα που αφιέρωσε σ' αυτή την έρευνα. Δεν μπορώ να μην παραδεχτώ πως ως περιεχόμενο είναι προσεγμένο και καλογραμμένο. Το καλό κομμάτι του βιβλίου, άλλωστε, αφορά περιγραφές της εποχής, του τότε Λονδίνου και των συνθηκών ζωής εκεί, ειδικά στην περιοχή του Γουαϊτσάπελ, όπως επίσης και τη ζωή του -κατά την άποψή της ένοχου για τους φόνους του Αντεροβγάλτη- Ουίλιαμ Σίκερτ. Πραγματικά, η αφήγηση σε ταξιδεύει πίσω στον χρόνο. Επιπλέον, τα εγκλήματα του Αντεροβγάλτη περιγράφονται παραστατικά και με λεπτομέρειες, ενώ περιλαμβάνονται επίσης και φωτογραφίες και σκίτσα ακόμα κι από την προσωπική συλλογή της Cornwell (που δεν κυκλοφορούν ευρέως, δηλαδή). Ως εδώ όλα καλά.

Εκεί που αρχίζει να χωλαίνει το πράγμα είναι στην επιμονή της πως η ταυτότητα του Τζακ είναι αυτή του ζωγράφου Σίκερτ. Δεν λέω να n  αποδείξειn, γιατί η συγγραφέας δεν προσπαθεί να αποδείξει ΤΙΠΟΤΑ. Θεωρεί αυτονόητο πως έτσι είναι τα πράγματα, γιατί έτσι θεωρεί η ίδια πως είναι. Και περιμένει ο αναγνώστης να το καταπιεί αυτό αμάσητο, απλά επειδή το υποστηρίζει εκείνη.
Ενώ λοιπόν παραδέχομαι το πείσμα της ως προς την έρευνα, τα αποτελέσματα αυτής είναι το λιγότερο παιδαριώδη. Όλα βασίζονται σε εικασίες και συμπτώσεις (λέει και κάτι ψιλά για μιτοχονδριακά DNA, αλλά δεν τα αναλύει και δεν πολυέδωσα σημασία - εδώ δεν έδωσε εκείνη, ως ερευνήτρια και ως άνθρωπος που γνωρίζει από Ιατροδικαστική και Παθολογοανατομία). Αντίθετα, αναλύεται σε εικασίες που έχουν να κάνουν υποτιθέμενες ομοιότητες ανάμεσα στον Τζακ και τον Σίκερτ, χωρίς να σκέφτεται το προφανές: ότι ο Σίκερτ -ψυχασθενής με σοβαρά προβλήματα και μισάνθρωπος, αναμφίβολα- μιμήθηκε τον Αντεροβγάλτη, για δικούς τους λόγους. Ίσως επειδή τον θαύμαζε. Ή επειδή τα ειδεχθή εγκλήματά του τον ενέπνεαν. Ή ότι οι ψυχοσυνθέσεις και οι ιδέες τους έμοιαζαν, γιατί και οι δύο ήταν άρρωστοι στα μυαλά τους άνθρωποι και ηδονίζονταν με τον πόνο και τη φρίκη των άλλων. Τέτοιας λογικής είναι όλα τα "στοιχεία" της Cornwell που σύμφωνα με την ίδια ταυτοποιούν τους δύο. Πολύ... επιστημονική σκέψη, τι να πει κανείς!

Οι τελευταίες εξελίξεις στην υπόθεση του Τζακ του Αντεροβγάλτη αφορούν τον Πολωνό κομμωτή Άαρον Κοσμίνσκι (αναφέρεται στη λίστα της Cornwell ανάμεσα στους άλλους πιθανούς υπόπτους, που σύμφωνα με τη συγγραφέα "αποκλείεται να ήταν ο Τζακ, κανείς απ' αυτούς"). Εδώ η επιστήμη δεν βασίζεται στο ένστικτο της Cornwell, όπως το βιβλίο της, αλλά σε τεστ DNA που έγιναν σε λεκέ αίματος που βρέθηκε επάνω στην εσάρπα της Κάθριν Έντοους (4ο θύμα του Αντεροβγάλτη), όπου ταυτοποιήθηκε τόσο το δικό της DNA, όσο κι εκείνο του Κοσμίνσκι. Όσο να πεις, είναι πιο σοβαρό ως αποδεικτικό στοιχείο κάτι τέτοιο - κάνοντας ταυτόχρονα "σκόνη" τις εικασίες της Cornwell στο παρόν βιβλίο.

Αυτό που με ενόχλησε και με σύγχυσε ήταν η εκνευριστική σιγουριά της για την ταυτότητα του δολοφόνου, ενώ πραγματικά μέσα σε όλο το βιβλίο ανάθεμα κι αν υπάρχει ΕΝΑ και ΜΟΝΟ στοιχείο που αποδεικνύει 100% τους ισχυρισμούς της. Θα έπρεπε λοιπόν να είναι πιο προσεκτική και να αναφέρει πως πρόκειται για μια έρευνα που προσεγγίζει τις διάφορες εικασίες για την ταυτότητα του δράστη κι όχι να πανηγυρίζει (ναι, ναι) στο τέλος του βιβλίου, λέγοντας για την ομάδα της "Μαζί τον πιάσαμε. Τα καταφέραμε." Π��ς καλά, καλή μου; Πόση υπεροψία πια; Βέβαια, το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 2002-2003, οπότε είναι απόλυτα λογικό να μην είναι σε τέτοιο εξελικτικό στάδιο η επιστήμη, όσο είναι σήμερα. Εδώ παρατηρούνται θαυμαστές εξελίξεις από μήνα σε μήνα κι από χρόνο σε χρόνο, πόσο μάλλον σε μια δεκαετία και περισσότερο. Αλλά το ύφος της συγγραφέως είναι προκλητικό και ναι, ομολογώ πως θα ήθελα πολύ να είμαι από μια μεριά και να δω τη φάτσα της όταν θα έμαθε τα αποτελέσματα του τεστ DNA της εσάρπας της Έντοους.

Με λίγα λόγια, και για να μην σας κουράζω περισσότερο, μιλάμε για ένα βιβλίο που εν μέρει θεωρείται έρευνα, αλλά από την άλλη μιλάμε για εντελώς ερασιτεχνικές καταστάσεις που θυμίζουν πράκτωρ ΘΟΥ-ΒΟΥ. Και θα περίμενε κανείς από την Cornwell περισσότερη σοβαρότητα και σιγουριά για τα ευρήματά της, προτού βγει να πανηγυρίσει για την αποκάλυψη της ταυτότητας του Τζακ του Αντεροβγάλτη. Ο οποίος, αν μπορούσε να διαβάσει το βιβλίο της, πιθανότατα θα έκλαιγε από τα γέλια.

Για περισσότερα "φαρμακερά" σχόλια, διαβάστε παρακάτω εκείνα των αναγνωστών - ειδικά αυτά με το 1 αστεράκι. Είναι πέρα για πέρα ειλικρινή και αληθινά, όσο σκληρό κι αν ακούγεται κάτι τέτοιο για την επίδοξη ντετέκτιβ Cornwell. Είθε ο μύθος να παραμείνει μύθος.

What a phenomenal and utterly disturbing book. I learned:

1) The identity of Jack The Ripper, with 98% certainty, is the British artist Walter Sickert, proven by intense forensic analysis.

2) He not only killed the prostitutes for which he is best known, but possibly 40+ others, including children, men and non-prostitute women, some of whom he hacked to pieces and possibly ate.

3) 1888 London was an absolute shithole and why anyone would have wanted to live in those conditions is beyond me.

4) Scotland Yard completely botched the Ripper investigation and because of them Jack The Ripper continued killing for decades after they called off the dogs.

5) Jack The Ripper was an even bigger sicko than I had ever imagined, and the root of his psychosis may have been related to the fact that, like many serial killers, he had a deformed penis and could not have sex.

6) This book is not for the faint of heart and I almost threw up a few times while reading it. Excellent research though. Shame they didn't catch that pervert before he died in 1942.

I think I read this for the first time, ten to fifteen years ago. Cornwell was doing an interview on one of the news shows, Dateline, or some such. She was communicating a compelling argument, about the real Jack the Ripper, such that I bought her book. It is extraordinarily dry. However, her arguments are exceedingly convincing.

She writes about watermarks on paper and makes it fascinating. This is NOT for everyone, but if you are interested in the science of forensics, this might be for you. If you are intrigued by Jack the Ripper and his pathology, this might be for you, as well. I “enjoyed” this book, as much as one can enjoy the horrifying subject matter.

It is a difficult read for people that are sensitive to graphic violence because Cornwell is graphic about the crime scenes left behind. She makes an argument that Jack the Ripper never stopped killing; he just became more careful. She even names the killer and why she believes so strongly that she is correct. She convinced me years ago that she was right, and over the years she has become even more unflinchingly assured and compelling.

Let me first say, I hate when an author prints his or her own name larger than the title on a book cover. That was not the worst thing about this book.

I found “Portrait of a Killer” because it rates highly among other true-crime books and I thought I was learning about actual events, until I was about a quarter of the way through and did some research of my own. At that time I realized the only value of this book is a description of the life and times of a successful British artist who should probably be thankful he is being accused of being Jack the Ripper because his paintings are being discussed more widely than they, otherwise, would have been. This book should be advertised as a theory and should not say, “case closed,” on the cover (also in smaller print than the author’s name).

For weeks, I attempted to finish Patricia Cornwell's "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed" I haven't written a real book review, (or even been inclined to write one,) since High School English Lit., but this book frustrated me enough to write one.

I've heard from many people what a wonderful piece of forensic investigation it is, how interesting, and that it seems the most plausible answer to the question of "whodunit."

It must be confessed, that though I ordinarily like Patricia Cornwell's style of writing, and find her fiction very entertaining, I could not finish this book. It's just too big a fish tale to swallow. I just cannot finish a book that purports to have "solved" the case "100%" when every page is peppered with phrases such as "may," "could have been," "not saying absolutely," and "it seems likely..."

This is not good investigation. This book is full of theories, based on assumptions, based on shaky premises, originating from a supposition that the man who produced such 19th and early 20th century dark and tawdry expressionist works such as the "Camden Town" paintings could actually have been the real killer. It is a theory that very few Ripperologists feel is even worth mentioning, aside from the fact that it has gotten a tremendous amount of media play since its 2002 publication date, even being made into a BBC documentary, (co-produced, naturally, by the heavily-invested, and completely biased Cornwell.)

She relies strongly on 100 year old mitochondrial DNA, which, as far as I know, would not hold up well in a true prosecutorial case, especially as it does not particularly do anything more than exclude certain groups of people, thus potentially narrowing the field of suspects who licked stamps and envelopes. The fact is, there is no crime scene DNA known to be from Ripper, with which to compare her envelopes' mtDNA.

I agree that Ms. Cornwell's high profile as a compelling crime-fiction writer, generates a predisposition to believe her suppositions. Her manner of "proof," however, throughout her "Portrait of a Killer" pages, begs her reader to agree with her subjective assessment of the psychopathology of Sickert's art as evidence of being the most likely, and indeed unassailable perpetrator of the Ripper serial killings.

I don't buy it. It may be that she has a viable theory, but I am turned off completely by the shaky ground on which she builds her theory. She expects us to stipulate so much guesswork, in order to substantiate her case, (which, surely she has not substantiated, as there is very little substantive evidence in her guesses.)

In her dedication, she arrogantly tells the Scotland Yard Detective, John Grieve, "you would have caught him." "HIM," I assume, referring to Sickert, as is her premise. Yet, try as I may, I cannot find any evidence that Det. John Grieve concurs with her conclusions. Does she, perhaps, toss his name about to lend credence to her ideas?

This book makes me wonder if she decided on a suspect, then focused purely on gathering all the little bits of evidence that could lend credence to her ideas, while eliminating from her work all the bits of evidence that disprove her theories.

I do have to give Cornwell this credit though... I had never bothered to look up any information on Jack the Ripper, prior to this book. I knew he was a British serial killer, I had seen parts of "From Hell," and other movies that fictionalize his crimes. Yet I had, (and admittedly still have,) little more a rudimentary knowledge of the case.

My final opinion? Buy the book second-hand, and read it like fiction. You may find it entertaining. Then again, you may not. Better yet, I'll lend you my copy. It's only half used.

Despite the rather presumptuous sub-title of "case closed", Cornwell doesn't prove her thesis. In fact, this book is a text book for how NOT to write a book that solves a historical mystery.

Problems
1. Cornwall has never heard of footnotes.

2. She does not fully explain why she chose to investigate Sickert. It really does sound like she chose him for the killer because she liked the cop who thought he did it.

3. When discussing how women were seen at the time, why is Cornwell citing a book written in the 1600s? And only that book?

4. No close ups of the paintings that show ripper themes which means I did not see what she was talking about.

5. Having the lab you fund do tests to prove your thesis doesn't look good. At least have an independent lab back up the findings.

6. Any criminal, according to this book, is a psychopath.


7. Presumes that the Ripper wrote all the Ripper letters.

8. How does she know her Ripper letter is the real, deal? (If just saying it makes it so, than anyone want to buy the lost Manet masterwork of a woodpecker I own?)

9. Somehow I doubt that Cornwell is the only Ripper expert who worked hard, despite what she implies.


10. Cornwell keeps saying she wouldn't do something, and then does it. She says she won't psycho analyze, and then there she goes.

11. How does she know about the penis of a dead and cremated man? (I really want to know the answer to that one).

12. If he wasn't a good actor (which is what Cornwell says), how could he be so good at disguises that no one recognized him until Cornwell did?

13. She does not rebutt fully the claim that Sickert had an alibi.

If you want to know how NOT to construct an argument, read this book. Otherwise, skip it.

I read this during a time in my life when I wanted all mysteries solved! Unfortunately, my needs weren't fulfilled with this book. In fact, I think I had more questions afterward than I did when I started.
Am I satisfied that she may have, in fact, closed the case and the mystery of Jack the Ripper's elusive identity has finally been solved? Sorry, no. And I think that this is one mystery that I am content to leave just that.