After months, I finally buckled and put this one down... I should have taken it into the yard and shot it... It literally was that bad...

I just can't. I'm sorry. First time ever that I didn't finish a book. From the start Cornwell is 100% convinced who Jack the Ripper was, it's like tunnel vision. Lots and lots of research, but still, I was unable to finish. I'm sorry.

Buddy read with the awesome Sarah! We read different publications of the same book, which I initially thought was a completely different book.

Disclaimer: I recently had a med adjustment, so I've been really drowsy until my body adjusts (usually about 2 weeks), so I'm not sure how much this is me vs the book. I need to re-read this one eventually. I also skimmed starting 50% in. If it wasn't for the buddy read, I would have put this one on hiatus until I was in a better head space.

Pros:
-She really did her research and put a ton of effort in here.

Cons:
-I found myself bored a lot of the time (see disclaimer above).
-The pacing and the flow felt off. I felt off-kilter a lot of the time (see disclaimer above).
-I think better editing could have made it more concise and flow better.

I'm going with my default rating of 3 stars, until I re-read and give a more accurate rating.

In ihrem Sachbuch über Jack the Ripper bemüht sich die Thriller-Autorin den Maler Walter Sickert als den wahren Mörder zu entlarven. Doch gerade wenn sie sich moderner exakter Wissenschaften bedient (z.B. DNA-Analysen) kommt dabei nicht mehr heraus als dass Sickert als Täter nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann. Ich vermute, das wäre gerade angesichts des Alters des Untersuchungsmaterials auch bei den meisten anderen Londonern der Fall. Stattdessen wird stets auf Grundlage seiner Bildmotive, seiner Ausdrucksweise und seiner Handschrift argumentiert und vor allem interpretiert. Vieles davon scheint überzogen, denn sieht man sich die genannten Gemälde im Internet an, sind sie oft weniger eindeutig oder gar morbid als Cornwell meint. Und selbst wenn Sickert hier und da Interesse für die dunklen Seiten Londons und der menschlichen Psyche hegte – kann man das nicht von vielen seiner Kollegen in dieser Zeit sagen? Nicht umsonst wird ja ständig auf das allgegenwärtige Stück "Dr. Jekyll und Mr Hyde" auf Londons Bühnen auch in diesem Werk verwiesen. Darstellung von Gewalt geht eben nicht (oder doch eher selten) damit einher, dass ihre Schöpfer selbst gewalttätig sind – da würde sich Thriller-Autorin Cornwell doch sicher gerne anschließen, oder? Zwei Aspekte, die ihrer These widersprechen, tut sie auch zu leichtfertig ab: Dass der Täter wohl chirurgische Kenntnisse hatte und dass die Morde scheinbar 1889 endeten – während Sickert erst 1942 starb.
Dennoch ist das Buch lesenwert: Wegen der nebenbei eingestreuten Informationen über andere Phänomene und Ereignisse: Cornwell beschreibt in Kürze die Geschichte der Londoner Polizei, geht auf "Elefantenmenschen" Joseph Merrick ein, erwähnt Varietés und Skandale der Zeit. Und kurzweilig ist das Werk ohnehin, unterhaltend schreiben kann sie ja.

so, patricia cornwell has solved the ripper case. she's convinced she has; and she doesn't tire to try to convince you, too. which makes portrait of a killer an extremely annoying read. you'll be forced to wade through plenty of the brackwater of standard bourgeois reaction to anything and anybody involved with prostitution (hey compassion - hey contempt!), the standard true-crime-solved insight about the psychological mechanism (yes, singular: one mechanism, and one mechanism only) that produces serial killers ("the ripper hated women - sickert has had surgery on his penis as a boy - sickert is the ripper"), and some wailing and whining about the hardships of the london police force in the dying century.
cornwell's final argument is based on handwriting samples. haha! anyways. fun to read alongside with  from hell; and if it's just to see how ripper speculation can be cool, too.

Hmmmmmmm.....this book wasn't exactly what I thought it was going to be. I'm not sure what I was expecting but this wasn't it. Cornwell did a lot of research on the various "suspects" in this mystery that has captivated the public for over 100 years. But her conclusion as to the "real" Jack The Ripper just doesn't jell and stretches the "evidence" to the breaking point. As we will probably never learn the identity of the actual Ripper, she may be right but I was not convinced. Cornwell is a good writer but I think she missed the boat on this one.

Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο το διάβασα, ή για να το πω πιο σωστά, το μισοδιάβασα πρώτη φορά το 2004. Πρόσφατα, έχοντας κατά νου τα αρνητικά συναισθήματα που μου ειχε προκαλέσει, αποφάσισα να το ξαναδιαβάσω. Τότε το είχα βρει αδιάφορο, μαλλον περιμενοντας κάτι διαφορετικό. Πόσο άδικο είχα! Τελικά, κάποιες φορές είναι λυτρωτικό να δίνεις δεύτερες ευκαιρίες σε βιβλία που αρχικά σε απογοήτευσαν για κάποιο λόγο.

Όσον αφορά την ιστορία της Patricia Cornwell, λάτρεψα της περιγραφές του Λονδίνου, τα ήθη και έθιμα της εποχής, τον τρόπο ζωής και σκέψης των ανθρώπων, τον τρόπο λειτουργίας τόσο του πολιτικού, κοινωνικού, δικαστικού και αστυνομικού σκελετού της Αγγλίας του 19ου αιώνα. Επίσης θαύμασα την έρευνα και τον έκδηλο ενθουσιασμό της για ένα θέμα το οποίο δεν έχει χάσει το ενδιαφέρον του έως και τις μέρες μας. Αν και κάνει μια αρκετά φιλότιμη προσπάθεια να πείσει ότι ο Sickert ήταν στην πραγματικότητα ο Τζακ ο Αντεροβγάλτης, δεν είμαι σίγουρη ότι εντέλει τα καταφέρνει στο επιθυμητό σημείο. Πιθανότατα να έχει δίκιο, πιθανότατα να μη μάθουμε ποτέ με βεβαιότητα ποιος ήταν, παρόλα αυτά το βιβλίο προσφέρει μια συναρπαστική επανεξέταση ενός θέματος. Από τη μεριά της η Cornwell προσθέτει γοητεία και δε μειώνει, αν και για την ιδια τη συγγραφέα δεν υπάρχει καμια αμφιβολία ότι έχει τον δράστη και προσπαθεί τόσο ένθερμα να πείσει γι αυτό τον αναγνώστη. Προσωπικά συνεχίζω να αναρωτιέμαι ποιος ήταν ο Τζακ ο Αντεροβγάλτης και ποια ήταν τα κίνητρά του, ομως σέβομαι και θαυμαζω την τολμη και το παθος με το οποιο υποστηρίζει την θεωρία της.

Καλή Ανάγνωση!

I read this in high school. This is really just Patricia Cornwell telling you about her theory for who Jack the Ripper was. There are tons of other equally good theories. I'm not sure hers was the strongest. But you know, read it if you want. Or don't.

Find this and other reviews at: http://flashlightcommentary.blogspot....

I vaguely remember the hullabaloo that marked the publication of Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer in 2002, but it wasn't until hearing a coworker gush over her 'spectacular analysis' and 'expert forensic investigation' that I actually decided to read it.

Unfortunately, after spending two days with the book, I can honestly say I think it makes a better doorstop than it does a criminal analysis. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing Cornwell's work proves is the strong possibility that Sickert wrote letters to Scotland Yard, but let's be honest folks, putting pen to paper is a long way from sinking a knife into a human body.

Don't get me wrong, Cornwell presents an interesting hypothesis, but at the end of the day her arguments lack concrete evidentiary support. An inclusionary theory, it is by no means conclusive and cannot be accepted with any degree of certainty.

Essentially, Cornwell claims Sickert is the Ripper because there is no evidence that he didn't do it. The problem is there is no evidence he did either. Cornwell's findings are based largely on bias perception, speculation, conjecture and presumed inference. She doesn't tie Sickert to actual murders, refute alternative theories or adequately explain why she accepts some of the surviving documentation while conveniently rejecting the rest.

In all honesty, I feel Cornwell is grasping at straws, imagining associations where none legitimately exist. Why do I think this? Well, she practically admits it.

n  I noticed murky images of clothed men reflected in mirrors inside gloomy bedrooms where nude women sit on iron bedsteads. I saw impending violence and death. I saw a victim who had no reason to fear the charming, handsome man who had just coaxed her into a place and state of utter vulnerability. I saw a diabolically creative mind, and I saw evil. I began adding layer after layer of circumstantial evidence to the physical evidence discovered by modern forensic science and expert minds.n

Keep in mind the 'physical evidence' she is referring to is the letters. Watermarks on Ripper correspondence most experts consider to be fake and mitochondrial DNA from a single source that cannot be confirmed. And the 'expert minds' she mentions? Professionals certainly, but all on staff at the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine, Cornwell's former employer.

Thoroughly unconvincing, Portrait of a Killer is really much better when one approaches it as a warped Sickert biography or imaginative fiction. Presumptuous in both content and tone, I feel the time I spent on this one well and truly wasted.

Het is een rommelig geschreven boek met wel een aantal interessante passages. Maar de schrijfster springt nogal heen en weer tussen verschillende tijdsperiodes en onderwerpen. Ook gaat ze er blijkbaar vanuit dat de lezer vertrouwd is met de persoon van Sickert, die zij op pagina 1 al als Jack the ripper aanduidt. Ikzelf had nog nooit van de man gehoord. Al er dan ineens verwezen wordt naar zijn grootmoeder of zijn relatie met Whistler zonder enige context is dat nogal verwarrend. Ondanks een aantal interessante vaststellingen krijg je toch de indruk dat ze koste at kost het plaatje kloppend wil maken door bv zijn kunstwerken te herinterpreteren zodat ze bewijs vormen. Ik had er meer van verwacht.

"And suddenly the world was filled with wooden faces and flat voices - and, you were alone."
.
.
This was definitely disappointing. I've always heard good things about this book so I was expecting much more. What I got was an overtly boring explanation of a theory. Though Cornwell did a great job with providing facts and explanations for her theory, it wasn't exciting in the least bit and my focus drifted when reading. One good thing I can say is Cornwell did an amazing job in describing the murders and mutilations. While history and science buffs may love this type of book, it far from satisfies my taste in a book.

Nothing about this audiobook pleased me.