Disclaimer: I've only read about half so if you're able to give convincing reasons why my rating is absolutely unjustified and the second half will get so much better I will try to read the second half, too. Until then let my just say:

Oh what a pile of pretentious crap.

I honestly don't know where to start with my rage because while reading there wasn't a single moment where I didn't feel the need to throw this book against a wall.
It's probably best to start with the biggest issue, concerning this is supposed to be non-fiction:
Cornwell has no facts.
Now after reading several essays on the identity of Jack the Ripper I can say that she's not the only one...but nobody else tries to hide them as badly as she does:
Cornwell thinks that The Ripper didn't only kill the five canonical victims, but several more and that the first one was Martha Tabram. She even admits that there's no proof that Walter Sickert - her suspect of choice - was in London at the time of the murder, and she hasn't really given any good reason why she thinks Sickert must be the Ripper. So the chapter goes like this:

Sickert must be the Ripper.
Tabram's last hours were like this.
Now let me infodump on the role of women in Victorian society.

Don't get me wrong: Reading that will make every woman really glad to live in today's world and it's not a bad thing that a Ripper-book gives you some background information...but that should be e.g. in the Introduction. You don't throw it in somewhere in the hope that your readers are so shocked that they forget that you haven't given them any proof of your theory.
Cornwell does this over and over and over and over again. We get a history of Scotland Yard (starting 100 years before the Ripper-murders), an explanation how a crime-investigation is done today in the USA (Believe me: I wish I was joking), whining about how much the crime-investigation in the Ripper-murders sucked (yes, especially in the first murders it was done really sloppy...but she's also whining about the fact that they didn't have the forensic science we have today...WTF?), a description of psychopaths...And all that after a few pages in which she throws random speculation without any proper proof at us. (OK, from what I see, Sickert was very likely a misogynistic jerk...still not all misogynistic jerks are serial-killers). It is so bloody obvious that with all that she wants to distract from the lack of facts it hurts.

Apart from that I also feel as if I'm being guilt-tripped into believing her theory. She goes on and on about how the victims were real people - which is great, as I recently did complain about the fact that many Ripperologists seem to forget that - but always with the disclaimer 'And don't they deserve justice? Look at me! If you believe me, they will get justice!'
Sorry but...no. Nobody was ever convicted for the Ripper-crimes and whoever it was must be dead now, so, no. The victims didn't get justice in the traditional sense...and I honestly doubt that no matter in what kind of afterlife you chose to believe in, it would make a difference for them if 100 years after the murders somebody has found the actual killer and manages to convince other people of that. So, please don't tell me you're doing that for the victims...you certainly didn't buy a two-page advert in a major newspaper, to promote your theory because you felt so sorry for the victims.

Similarly, Cornwell tries to make us believe that, yeah she did think about the implications of accusing somebody (though long dead and with no blood-relatives) of murder. So we're treated to that gem in which she's discussing her major doubts with her editor:

“I am suddenly in a position of judgment,” I told Esther. “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.

Honestly? You give us a scene straight from a cheesy B-movie and that should make us believe that you actually gave this some thought? How stupid do you think your readers are?
Oh...wait...judging by the rest of the book: really stupid

I'm torn with this one. I enjoyed the book, I did. Patricia Cornwell is one of my favorite crime writers and the creator of such characters as Dr. Kay Scarpetta, Win Garano, and Andy Brazil. Her books have won many awards and if you haven't had the pleasure of reading her I implore you to do so. In 1999 however, Cornwell decided to step away from the fiction genre and investigate some true crime, one of the biggest and unsolved crimes to date in fact.

In the fall of 1888, all of London was held in the grip of an unspeakable terror. An elusive madman calling himself Jack the Ripper was brutally butchering women in the slums of London’s East End, while taunting the police to figure out both who he was and to try and stop him. Long story short the authorities could not, and over the ensuing decades and generations plenty of crackpot theories, conventions, "Ripper walks" and other fodder would emerge in an almost ghoulish homage to the killer who's violent sexual crimes wreaked havoc on women for years.

All of that is now rendered moot, however, because Patricia Cornwell went and did what seemed impossible. She spent millions of her own dollars, put together a modern forensics team, analyzed all of the facts, solved the case, and showed the world that the famed Victorian era killer was actually a well respected painter named Walter Richard Sickert.

Using such can't miss evidence as: "his paintings depicted horrific mutilation" and "he was brought into this world with birth defects, with one of the consequences being genital surgical interventions that drove him mad" to really hammer the point home. Be prepared to read such phrases such as "may," "could have been," "not saying absolutely," and "it seems likely..." again and again! Packed to the brim with theories and assumptions, Cornwell does her best to convince you with absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever that Mr. Sickert's debilitating surgeries and their effects on his upbringing present a casebook example of how a psychopathic killer is created.

To be fair, Ms. Cornwell is not the first to believe that Sickert was possibly the Ripper, as that theory first started circulating in the 1970's. I also have to admit again that I really did enjoy reading this, especially as Cornwell goes into extensive detail describing the victims lives themselves, the crimes/autopsy, and life in the Victorian era for many different social classes. This all added depth and some rather unexpected value. Regardless, this isn't good investigative journalism, it's just not. No matter how readable this is I just can't seem to shake the feeling that this book was a misguided expose to throw dirt on a person long since gone who can't defend himself and may have been the Ripper about as likely as I could have been Michael Jackson.

A decent read, but too flawed in what it tried to be for me to give it anything more than a below average mark.

I'm one of those people who can't start a book without finishing it. If I watch a movie, no matter how bad, I feel compelled to see it through to the bitter end. With this book, I only made it halfway through before closing it for good.

The author obviously completed a great deal of research on this subject. But the book's description, about how the author has applied modern forensic techniques to solve one of the greatest-ever unsolved crimes, is misleading.

Most of the book (at least most of the half I actually read) consists of the author repeatedly asserting that Mr. S- is Jack the Ripper. In support of this assertion, the author cites large amounts of circumstantial evidence, and many "facts" that appear to be no more than the author trying too hard to make details of her suspect's life fit her case. From the few pages I flipped through in the last half of the book, the author continued on in this same vein for all of the book.

To me at least, all of this painstakingly researched circumstantial evidence was inconclusive. While Mr. S- very well could have been Jack the Ripper, the author failed to convice me of that. Disappointingly, her analysis of actual physical evidence from the case was given an insufficient number of pages, in relation to the hefty size of this book. And at one point the author flat out states that there is almost no forensic evidence remaining from the original casefile.

The subtitle of this book should not have been "Case Closed." At best, the author has a theory, which could have been summed up much more succinctly and convincingly in a distinct less number of pages.

If you choose to read this book, be prepared for the repetitive, and sometimes flimsy accusations. And if you go in with lower expectations for a solution to the Jack the Ripper case, you might actually enjoy the book.

Time taken to read - 2 days

Publisher - Time Warner

Pages - 451

Blurb from the back cover

Between August and November 1888 five women were murdered in Whitechapel. The gruesome nature of their deaths caused panic and fear for months in the East End, and gave rise to the sobriquet which was to become shorthand for a serial killer - JACK THE RIPPER.

For over a hundred years the identity of the killer has remained one of the world's greatest unsolved mysteries. Until now. Using her formidable range of forensic and technical skills, Patricia Cornwell has applied the rigorous discipline of twenty-first-century police investigation to the extant material, and here presents the hard evidence that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders was the world famous artist, Walter Sickert.

With her knowledge of criminal investigation and her consummate skills as a bestselling writer, Patricia Cornwell has produced a book which is as compelling as it is authentic - the definitive account of one of the world's most famous murder mysteries.




My Review

I heard a lot of criticism of this book and some positive reviews before I started this one. Any fans of crime fiction know the name Patricia Cornwell and I have enjoyed a few of her books over the years. I have always been interested in the theories put forward about Jack The Ripper and there is so much controversy and speculation about the killers identity, even over a century later! So of course I had to buy and read this myself.

So, what did I like about it? A new potential killer thrown into the mix, as for me, I have never heard Walter mentioned as a suspect let alone outright named as the killer. Cornwell not only puts forward this chap as the absolute killer, she debunks the idea of some of the other suspects listed previously and explains why they couldn't be the killer. The book gives a good bit of evidence and recount of the crimes, she also puts in many murders that she believes was the Rippers work too again I hadn't heard of these ones.

What didn't I like, the book says case closed, she has found the killer, I disagree. She makes a good case putting forward a new suspect but so much is could have, points to, may have been. This is not definitive proof and it is almost arrogant to claim you are the absolute when so much of the findings are possibles, could be and if he was or if he did.

Regardless, it is an interesting read, the book has photographs of the victims and of some of the correspondence sent in from the Ripper. Some of the details of the crimes and horrors carried out to the bodies is for tough and gorey reading so caution if you have issue reading details like that. Overall, whether you agree with Cornwell or not, I would say you would enjoy it or find it interesting for discussion if you have an interest or opinion on one of the oldest unsolved crimes, 3/5 for me this time.