pretty informative

Made it to page 171, and I stopped. Couldn't push myself anymore.
It's a real shame. She did a lot of research. And I loved learning about Victorian London.
But I just can't take it anymore how she can be so arrogant as to call this "case closed". She just found 1 person who the evidence might point to (as I'm sure it would've to many others at that time) and just singled him out as the killer. In her opinion (because, whatever she believes, it's still just that), this man did it and the case is supposedly solved.
Evidence long gone. Potential witnesses long dead.

Another things, is that she is very criticial of people who wrote papers or books back in the day about their opinion of who Jack the Ripper was. Some of her reasons were that either the author wasn't alive yet during the time or not part of the police force who investigated.
Isn't she, Patricia Cornwell, also exactly those things?! So what makes her so different and special that her word counts, and that of the others doesn't?

No. This just pisses me off.
3 stars for all the research. 1 star for her obnoxious arrogance.

Talk about research research research!! She really did her homework here, but outside of making a few educated guesses she has ZERO concrete evidence that Walter Sickert was in fact Jack the Ripper. She almost manipulates the things that are known about the case to fit her agenda, and I’m not about that life. Whether Sickert is in fact Jack the Ripper is not something that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt so regardless of how shit a human he may have been it’s basically Slander to say he was in fact one of the most prolific killers of the time. Outside of my personal hang ups I found this book really fascinating so I’m giving it a solid 3/5 Stars. I recommend if you are interested in more information about Jack the Ripper, but if you are looking for something solid this is not it.

In my opinion, this is possibly the worst (not to mention most ridiculous) book ever written on Jack the Ripper. This earned Patricia the nickname Patricia the Ripper and it was well deserved. Had I been the descendents of Walter Sickert, I would have sued Pat for tarnishing the name of one of the greatest English painters of 19th century - and I'm not a fan of litigation! The 'evidence' was flimsy at best, the theory was laughable, and nothing concrete proven in the end. Please stick to writing fiction Ms. Cornwall.

Originally reviewed at:
n  n

Patricia Cornwell’s Portrait of a Killer was actually the very first audiobook I’ve ever listened to and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. On top of that, it was also the very first book I’ve read (well, listened to) from the true crime genre. I’m a huge fan of crime fiction but true crime is something I’ve never tried before and I’m glad I did now.

The thing I liked the most about this particular edition is narration. For me, a good narrator is crucial. Every time I decided to give audiobooks a try in the past I was always put off by the reader’s voice, accent, the speed of narration, or the lack of it and had to stop listening to them only after a few chapters. In this case, however, I think Lorelei King was a brilliant choice for Cornwell’s story and made the book very easy to listen to.

As for the story itself, I’m still in two minds about what to think of it. On the one hand, I loved the author’s description of psychopaths in general. Cornwell dedicates almost an entire chapter to this topic and it was by far my favourite. She gives us a detailed image of psychopaths’ personalities (including the fact that even people who are closest to them may not realize they are monsters, something I found rather creepy), discusses what makes a psychopath and whether it’s a genetic trait or not. She also gives us a nice, overall view of Victorian England, how women were treated at that time, what living conditions were like – paying particular attention to the urban poor and slum areas – and so on. We also hear quite a lot about the nineteenth century police force and how incompetent they were in every way, which again I really enjoyed.

On the other hand, it wasn’t really what I expected the book to be. When I first came across this novel, I thought it would tell us some details about the Ripper murders, the victims, as well as some of the possible suspects and their personalities. All of which Cornwell does deal with in her book, but not in the way I’d expected. The entire book focuses on a nineteenth century English painter – Walter Sickert – whom the author believes to be the famous Jack the Ripper. Cornwell is desperately trying to prove this by analysing Sickert’s paintings and family history but I’m still not quite sure I agree with her. To believe your solution is the only possible key to the mystery and rejecting every other theory when so little is known about these murders is something I wasn’t really keen on while I was listening to her book. Also, going into such details about Sickert’s personal life and examining his life from early childhood might give us a better understanding of the murderer and his motives – if indeed Sickert was Jack the Ripper, which, as I said, I’m still not convinced of – but I found these parts very long and definitely less interesting than some other parts of the story.

Despite all these, however, I did enjoy the book. She didn’t manage to convince me that her theory is the right one but I do think the book can be enjoyed whether you accept her argument or not and it still gives you an idea of what the killer and this whole era might have been like.

The theory is interesting but the method of proving it-comparing the numerous and varied Ripper letters to Sickert's writing and artistic style-is rather suspect. She has recently published a far more expanded version of this book, so perhaps she makes a more convincing case there.

This is dark and fascinating and I could. Not. Put. It. Down. I also lost sleep for like a week because it's creepy.

Apparently, Patricia Cornwell spent two million dollars of the money she earned writing horrible mystery novels to attempt to solve the Jack the Ripper case. Why she thought that she could do that when many people much more knowledgeable and talented than she is lo these hundred and twenty years have failed is beyond me. She isn't shy from the beginning about pinning the crime on an obscure artist named Walter Sickert, and then provides "evidence" that couldn't even be called circumstantial in the most backwards of kangaroo courts. The most inept of armchair detectives can poke holes in her reasoning throughout the entire book.

Non voglio più leggere questo libro.

Davvero. Mette i brividi. Ti fa immaginare Jack lo Squartatore ad ogni angolo, che tu stia a casa o in città.


Walter Sickert - The Camden Town Nude - c. 1908


La scrittura della Cornwell è diretta, senza fronzoli, non indora la pillola. Descrive benissimo le situazioni, gli eventi, l’atmosfera di Londra nel 1888.
Attraverso una ricostruzione piena di prove riscopre il “vero” Jack lo Squartatore e ne studia la personalità.
Un lavoro lunghissimo e pesantissimo, difficilissimo e macabro (non posso scrivere macabrissimo).
Non mi impressiono facilmente, non mi dà fastidio leggere scene raccapriccianti o libri su delitti crudeli. Ma qui stiamo su un altro livello: si tratta di delitti veri, reali, accaduti nella realtà. Fanno venire i brividi.

L’approfondimento sull’epoca vittoriana è fatto magistralmente. In questo libro si può leggere della mentalità degli uomini (e delle donne) di quegli anni, delle loro passioni per il teatro e le corse, dei problemi sociali di Londra. Si parla della condizione delle donne (dalle prostituite alle grandi dame), si parla della medicina del periodo e della “nascita” della medicina forense. Si discute sulla psicologia dei psicopatici, oltre a parlare in generale di diverse malattie mentali e malattie fisiche.



London, East End, 1888


Se da una parte sono stata molto “felice” di apprendere tutte queste nozioni (che mi hanno fatto capire come l’autrice di Stalking Jack the Ripper non abbia neanche cercato su Wikipedia le informazioni basi sul periodo storico), dall’altra parte non vedevo l’ora che finisse questo “film horror”, queste continue descrizioni inquietanti e macabre, che mettono ancora più paura se si pensa che tutto è avvenuto veramente, a Londra, per le strade di Whitechapel.




Non so fino a quanto l’identità del killer sia azzeccata, forse si tratta di una persona totalmente differente, in fondo a Londra vivevano migliaia di persone nel 1888. So solo che la Cornwell porta sufficienti prove per ritenere “chiuso” il caso di Jack lo Squartatore.

Man, I had this whole summer of reading books I thought I'd love but didn't (Da Vinci Code, Under the Banner of Heaven, and this). So I wasn't quite as disappointed with this one as the other two, but it's not good. I love Patricia Cornwell's mysteries (although they're definitely guilty pleasures), and I love stories about Jack the Ripper (or really anything that takes place in London). But geez, you can't name a book "Case Closed" and then present such a shoddy case. I really hope PC sticks with fiction from here on out!

What's not to like about an easy reading book about a Jack The Ripper theory? This book is entertaining and interesting.
However, I would disagree with Patricia Cornwell's conclusiont that the "case is closed". It's far from it. I'm no expert but peppering a "case closed" book with statements such as "it could have been that", "perhaps", "it's very likely that", "maybe", etc. isn't conclusive; it's speculative.
Entertaining; not scientific or proved.

finally