Interesting take on the Ripper case

meh. it was interesting if you read it like fiction but when she congratulated and patted herself on the back by the end for solving the identity of Jack the Ripper i was like… ok lady. her “facts” are shaky and her “inferences” are typically wild assumptions rife with the self-confirming bias necessary to write a book claiming to solve a series of underinvestigated, nearly undocumented murders from over a century ago. Again, entertaining if you read it like it’s fiction!!

I don't normally write reviews, but I felt compelled in this case. There are some things I should share before I commence reviewing...
1) I'm english (only relevant so you don't think I'm recommending traveling from the usa just for a ripper tour of London :-) )
2) I'm not a history buff, but I am interested generally in history. The Victorian era is considered recent history and was taught at school and is a part of my own family history
3) I'm not a ripperologist. I have read a couple of books on the subject over the years, and as a result of those I've done a bit of googling, but that's about it.
4) I won't accept statements as fact without evidence, or a bit of research. I can make decisions and draw conclusions without being 100% certain, but I need a balance of probability.
5) I have enjoyed some of the scarpetta books.

So now for the review....
This book is utter drivel. From start to finish. It is hours of my life that I will never get back.

Based on the scarpetta books, I had expected a book that looks at the ripper case through a modern lens, that considered evidence in a different way, presented information and drew conclusions. A more scientific approach. A well thought out, well structured book. This book does not do that.

Instead, Cornwell has an opinion. She presents that opinion right up front, without any discussion, evidence or back up. She simply states that Sickert is Jack the Ripper, and repeats it a lot, because we are all idiots right? And believe what we are told if it is said often enough....I stuck with it, because the book is not organized, it rambles all over the place, so I thought it may get better later. It does not. Confirmation bias is abound here.

Cornwell talks about psychopaths. A lot. In a way that is more opinionated than clinical. She then states that Sickert is a psychopath. She calls him a psycho repeatedly without drawing parallels to the condition or offering any real evidence of psychopathy.

Her evidence? Well his paintings are sick and violent. (So are a lot of paintings, ever seen the artistic representations of dantes work? Massacre of the innocents by Ruben? Some of Gericault's work?). Art depicting debauchery and violence is nothing new or particularly unusual.

Also considered evidence of psychopathy is that he was cold, withdrawn, unconnected to his emotions, stoic, harsh, didn't have much to do with his children and viewed women as inferior. Either Cornwell hasn't researched the Victorian era as well as she thought, or she has ignored the fact that this kind of behavior was considered the norm for Victorian men. The showing of emotion was frowned upon, getting involved with children was women's work, women were often considered inferior. Women only got to vote on the same terms as men in the UK in 1928! A whole 40 years after the rippers summer season in whitechapel. My family reminisces about great grandpas that grew up in the Victorian era, and they are described in exactly the same way - stiff upper lip, detached, ruled the family with a rod of iron.

The book does not look at aspects that are considered facts about the ripper case, and either agree or dispute. They are just glossed over, or simply ignored. Things like the number of murders, how many murderers there were, (canonical five), authenticity of the ripper letters - which most experts consider most if not all are fake hoaxes, but Cornwell thinks are real without ever offering any real evidence except that they show artistic flair and therefore must all have been written by Sickert.

There are no footnotes, no explanations on the documentation or pieces of evidence used to draw conclusions, so cornwells opinions cannot be verified.

Cornwell is dismissive and judgmental of the handling of the case and the forensics of the time. I felt it's fine to point out that by today's standards it was different, and would obviously be less advanced. She did not do this, she was mainly just critical and judged their accomplishments and actions by today's standards.

There's the issue of his penis, pure speculation and conjecture, because there's no records, the hospital he had the op in wasn't known for penis ops, there are no pics or medical records, and he was cremated long ago.

Also, mitochondrial dna.... Not as damning as we are led to believe here. Cornwell herself admits that a) there is no definitive sample of Sickert to compare it to. B) by cornwells own admission, 1% of the population have the same mitochondrial dna. Some scientists seem to think that number could have been as high as 10% in London at that time.... But even taking the low figure, that's one in every hundred people you saw in London, that could have had the same profile. So how does that prove anything?

I got to the end of this book without ever being offered evidence that Sickert is the ripper. How can that be case closed? I'm thankful that scarpetta is just fiction, because based on this, there'd be a lot more innocent people in jail in Virginia.

If you like a story about someone's opinion, you may like this book
If you can read this as a work of fiction and disregard any aspersions to real events, you may like this book ( I wish I could have)
If you believe everything you read in a newspaper and magazine, or hear on the tv, you may like this book.
If you believe that (insert your politicians name here) speaks 'the truth' but have never researched any of their statements, or tried to prove them wrong before accepting it as fact, you may like this book.

If you are none of the above, please don't waste your time. If Jack the Ripper interests you, There are much better books out there, such as the complete Jack the Ripper A to Z, or go on one of the whitechapel tours If you can - some of the tour guides are considered the worlds leading experts in ripperology.

It was a good attempt, but I was so bored reading about paper, which was pretty much her whole argument. This was an excruciatingly dry read for me.

It's interesting to observe how "common knowledge" sometimes lags behind real knowledge. Just the other day, I heard someone on television say what I've heard all my life: that the true identity of Jack the Ripper has never been discovered.

Not true. Patricia Cornwell figured out who he was, made her case compellingly, and closed the file in 2002. The only mystery left in my mind is how some people can read the book and not be convinced. It should not be surprising that the murderer turned out to be someone who was cultured, urbane, and very, very smart. "Successful" psychopaths often match that description. They can be very good at "hiding in plain sight."

I'm reading this book for the third time, now--and I know "who done it." What's fascinating is not the gruesome details about the six murders originally attributed to the Ripper (he actually committed many more) but rather the historical detail and the psychological profile of an incredibly brilliant and complex man.

Cornwell presents a compelling case arguing that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. But, as the author admits, she still leaves a few stones unturned. In particular, her use of DNA evidence is highly suggestive, but I would have liked to see her pursue this angle to a (hopefully) more conclusive end prior to publishing her book.

Likewise, her analysis of the Ripper letters and comparison with Sickert's own writing style is definitely suggestive, but she stops short of "Closing the Case." Given the vast amount of written material we have from both the Ripper letters and Walter Sickert, a proper textual analysis of the two data sets using the usual statistical models to determine authorship should be a relatively simple proposition. Why doesn't Cornwell bring in a textual analyst to evaluate them?

Her tendency to proceed from her conclusion is, from this reader's perspective, a little irritating stylistically. One can't help but wonder how much more interesting it would have been if Cornwell's arguments had been written by a better non-fiction writer.

These complaints aside, her analysis of the stationary used by both Sickert and the writer of the Ripper letters is extremely convincing. For that revelation alone, and the psychological profile she creates for Sickert, the book is worth a read.

I don't read Patricia Cornwell's books because I'm not a fan of murder fiction. I prefer nonfiction to fiction. However, this book is a nonfiction book about Jack the Ripper, a serial killer in Victorian London during the 1880's. Cornwell believes the killer is painter/actor Walter Richard Sickert. She gives enough evidence to convince the reader, including DNA evidence. As an aside: I read this book many years ago (and have just reread it), and I remember coming across Sickert's name in another book; apparently, Sickert was good friends with upper-class Victorians, including Winston Churchill's family.

Another interesting aspect of the book is the detail about the fate of alcoholic middle-aged single women during that time. Many of them became prostitutes and put themselves at great risk. Jack the Ripper roamed in London's Whitechapel area that was known to be frequented by prostitutes. So, even if you don't accept Cornwell's theory about psychopathic Sickert, you will be fascinated with all the details of Victorian life, especially the "seedy" side.

2’5

Μία συγκλονιστική πατάτα!

Crime novelist Patricia Cornwell believes that Jack the Ripper was actually Walter Sickert, a reasonably well-known artist who lived in London at the time of the infamous murder spree. Sickert had been a student of Whistler, though they later had a falling out, and enjoyed success and moderate fame in his own right. Cornwell's arguments include Sickert's background as an actor, which would have made him familiar with disguises: his often outre artwork, sometimes suggesting violence against women; his personality, which seems to have been cold and manipulative; an apparent childhood trauma involving his reproductive organ; shared watermarks on paper used by Sickert and the Ripper in the latter's letters to the police; and mitochondrial DNA on Sickert's belongings and an envelope that contained one of those letters. She also expands the crimes likely to have been committed by the Ripper, as well as his geographic range. I've always wondered why a serial killer would have suddenly stopped at five victims, particularly when his violence seemed to be escalating, so that last assumption of Cornwell's does seem intriguing.

I think much of Cornwell's evidence is what police might call "consistent with" her hypothesis without proving it: the acting background, childhood trauma, and personality. His strange artwork could be the result of his own obsession with the Ripper, rather than proof of their co-identity. Watermarks on paper don't seem conclusive; I would expect them to be fairly widely distributed. Mitochondrial DNA, unlike nuclear DNA, is far from irrefutable. Cornwell makes a strong but not a provable case. The problem, of course, is that 150 years have elapsed since the crimes, and police methods and forensic science at the time were poorly developed. Other investigators have pointed to famous people of the Victorian era as possible suspects, including a member of the royal family and even Lewis Carroll. It seems more likely to me that the Ripper was an anonymous resident of what was then the largest city in the world. London had more than five million people, and any one of them might have been the psychopath who murdered at least five women in Whitechapel.

Nevertheless, Cornwell makes a fascinating case while introducing us to an intriguing person from that historical period. She also does an excellent job of portraying the London of that time. Her description of the terrible poverty of London's East End and her biographies of the victims are shocking and poignant.

Interesting, though also frustrating. Cornwell asserts that Jack the Ripper was English artist Walter Sickert, but the book is full of suppositions. We can suppose that Sickert was familiar with this town, or walked that street, or had read a certain book. We can suppose he was here at this time, and there at that. But little to no actual proof of these claims is put forth. The most compelling evidence, in my opinion, is the vandalized guest book and its doodles that bear a striking resemblance to Sickert's known work. But a lot of the other "evidence" feels like a big reach to me. Give Cornwell props for research and determination, I just wish she'd made more convincing arguments backed with more convincing evidence.

Possibly the most horribly "researched" book I've ever read. Case closed, my ass.