Portrait of a killer : Jack the Ripper-- case closed

by Patricia Daniels Cornwell

Paper Book, 2002

Status

Available

Call number

364.15/23/092

Genres

Collection

Don

Publication

New York : Putnam's, 2002.

Description

Examines the century-old series of murders that terrorized London in the 1880s, drawing on research, state-of-the-art forensic science, and insights into the criminal mind to reveal the true identity of the infamous Jack the Ripper.

User reviews

LibraryThing member Johnny1978

'Complete tosh' is the phrase that leaps to mind. Cornwell does her reputation no favours by publishing this text. The case against Sickert is circumstantial and not terribly convincing. Her absolute conviction that she's identified the ripper reveals her arrogance and her rather shocking ignorance

of Victorian life. The sad fact is that despite the steaming loads of circumstantial 'evidence' that Cornwell piles upon the reader, she misses one very important point: opportunity.
Sickert was in Dieppe (on the other side of the channel) when one of the murders took place. Riddle me that, Sherlock.

Show Less

24 more

LibraryThing member TheoClarke

Arrogantly ill-considered theory about the identity of Jack the Ripper that disregards critical evidence to make its prejudiced point.

LibraryThing member marcLeroux84

I anxiously awaited this book: the idea of a forensic specialist looking at the Ripper case was appealing. I cannot express how disapointed I was with this. The only reason I give it 1/2 stars is because I labeled it as fiction. No sources are cited, accusations made without substantiation,

conclusions reached and 'evidence' made to fit the conclusions.
This was the last Patricia Cornwell book I have bought.

Show Less

LibraryThing member JanaOliver

I will give her credit for using modern forensic technology on the Ripper crimes. Other than that, this book does not cite its sources and makes some wild accusations without concrete proof. If she'd spent a couple more years on the project who knows where this might have gone. Instead, she rushed

to meet the deadline. When you misspell the name of one of the victims repeatedly through the book, that doesn't help your credibility. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Show Less

LibraryThing member verenka

I read the book on my way back from Spain. I don't think Patricia Cornwell makes a good case for Sickert being Jack the Ripper. All she can do is show that nobody can prove he didn't do it and that he was creepy. That's not enough to convince me.

LibraryThing member Seshen

She stretches the point beyond credibility too often for me to take her "case closed" seriously.

LibraryThing member AlexTheHunn

Patricia Cornwell wrote an interesting and at times compelling book. The gist of her argument is that Jack the Ripper was a relatively minor artist who provided clues to the killings in his paintings. While her argument is plausible, it seems by no means to live up to the "Case Closed" label touted

in the title. Hers is merely one of several possible explanations. Meanwhile, Cornwell has purchased and defaced more than one of the artist's paintings in her efforts to prove her point.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Pauntley

It is unnecessary to add to the compelling arguments against Patricia Cornwell's thesis that the 19th century English murderer, Jack the Ripper, was in fact the celebrated early modern painter, Walter Richard Sickert. If you have the stomach for the repellent detail of the Ripper murders and

mutilations and the patience for its digressions and fractured chronology, Cornwell's book does have a certain interest for its expository technique. The title, 'Portrait of a Killer' is indicative. Cornwell has created a composite figure of Jack the Ripper from police records and newspaper accounts and superimposed on the composite whatever information she could find, infer or imagine about Walter Sickert. The imaginative glue that holds this rickety structure together is the re-iterated assertion that Sickert, like the Ripper, was a 'psychopath'. Even if one allows latitude to Cornwell for her impressionistic accounts of psychopathy, there is very little to support that characterisation of the artist. The diabolic cunning which she attributes to the generic figure of the 'psychopath' is invoked whenever the evidence fails to implicate Sickert. The spelling, orthography and style of letters supposed to have been written by the Ripper are inconsistent with each other and bear no resemblance to Sickert's own hand? Sickert the psychopath was a cunning and skilled counterfeiter of styles. Witness accounts of the men seen with the victims bear no resemblance to the Ripper? Sickert the psychopath was a master of disguise, who had acted in plays when young. The other point of interest, for me, has to do with trashing cultural values. Cornwell would not have invested her time and wealth in pursuit of Sickert if she had not expected a commensurate return from her vandalism. No-one would be particularly surprised or interested to learn that the Ripper was a semi-literate brute called Smith, Brown or Jones from the seething London underworld of the late 19th century. I knew little of Sickert before reading Cornwell's Portrait. I now owe a debt to his memory and to myself to read a fair, frank and well written account of his life.

Show Less

LibraryThing member chive

I'm giving this one star because I was vaguely entertained to see 'maybes', 'coulds' and 'possiblies' become unarguable fact at the author's hands. But to be honest reading it I was embarrassed for Patricia Cornwell and her idea of what constitutes evidence.

LibraryThing member Dajedarh

I found this book very hard work to finish.
While Patricia Cornwell seems to make a convincing case against her suspect, the assumptions and leaps of faith she makes weaken her argument considerably. The book may have started as a serious attempt to solve the mystery but seems to have ended up as a

money-making opportunity, possibly a contractural obligation?

Show Less

LibraryThing member DanoWins

I enjoyed this book. Though it by no means "closed the case", Cornwell presents some very interesting and credible evidence that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. Cornwell's talent for telling a scientifically-sound murder story allowed for a great atmosphere when reading the book. It was, for me,

though that same ability of hers to tell a story (that is a FICTION story) that made her seem less credible. Sure, she is a forensic specialist, and she probably knows her science; however, she is also a crime novelist...she makes her living by making up believable murder stories! I'm not saying that her theory is wrong. In fact, I believe this theory holds water. However, if anyone can take a hogwash theory and make it sound as if it were true, I would expect that person to be a writer of mysteries and crime novels. Had this theory been presented by a person who was soley a scientist rather than a novelist, I might be more apt to believe it. Overall though, a very good read! Perhaps one day, her theory can be proven.

Show Less

LibraryThing member MsBeautiful

Good history of Jack the Ripper, but Cornwell fails to make a firm conclusion, which is disappointing

LibraryThing member ct.bergeron

Jack the Ripper was renowned artist Walter Sickert (1860-1942) according to Cornwell, in case anyone hasn't yet heard. The evidence Cornwell accumulates toward that conclusion in this brilliant, personal, gripping book is very strong, and will persuade many. In May 2001, Cornwell took a tour of

Scotland Yard that interested her in the Ripper case, and in Sickert as a suspect. A look at Sickert's "violent" paintings sealed her interest, and she became determined to apply, for the first time ever, modern investigatory and forensic techniques to the crimes that horrified London more than 100 years ago. The book's narrative is complex, as Cornwell details her emotional involvement in the case; re-creates life in Victorian times, particularly in the late 1880s, and especially the cruel existence of the London poor; offers expertly observed scenarios of how, based on the evidence, the killings occurred and the subsequent investigations were conducted; explains what was found by the team of experts she hired; and gives a psycho-biography of Sickert. The book is filled with newsworthy revelations, including the successful use of DNA analysis to establish a link between an envelope mailed by the Ripper and two envelopes used by Sickert. There are also powerful comparisons made between Sickert's drawing style and that of the Ripper; between words and turns of phrases used by both men; and much other circumstantial evidence. Also newsworthy is Cornwell's conclusion that Sickert continued to kill long after the Ripper supposedly lay down his blade, reaping dozens of victims over his long life. Compassionate, intense, superbly argued, fluidly written and impossible to put down, this is the finest and most important true-crime book to date of the 21st century. Main selection of the BOMC, Literary Guild, Mystery Guild and Doubleday Book Club.

Show Less

LibraryThing member JimBrewington

History of Jack the Ripper; well researched and well written; somewhat tedious.

LibraryThing member iain1976

Far from being "case closed" what we have here is Patricia Cornwell bending the facts to suit her own personal theory. The "evidence" presented is sketchy and doesn't stand up to close examination and any serious student of the subject will soon see just how weak the author's case is.

Character

assasination of the worst kind, all Patricia Cornwell has done her is tarnish the name of a great artist.

Interestingly, an anagram of Patricia Cornwell is:

I write crap: con all.

Show Less

LibraryThing member MissLizzy

Borrowed this book from a friend a few years ago, and when I finally gave it back, it was only because I'd gotten my own copy. I've always been fascinated by the Jack the Ripper cases, and I think it's great that someone has come up with a decent theory. Some of the art of Walter Sickert (the man

whom Cornwell believes was the Ripper) was on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City when I went to visit, and it was the most disturbing "art" that I have ever seen. Whoever believes that Walter didn't do it, needs to see those paintings.

Show Less

LibraryThing member seldombites

Patricia Cornwell believes that Jack the Ripper was really the artist Walter Sickert. She backs up this claim with some remarkable evidence and shows that the bodycount attributed to the Witechapel murderer may be incomplete. Based on the evidence presented, I believe that Patricia is likely

correct in her claim.

However, this book is filled with too many may haves, could haves and would haves to state categorically that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.

Still, this was certainly an interesting read, and I learned a lot about the Whitechapel murders that I did not previously know. Worth reading.

Show Less

LibraryThing member bunny0055

It's Gory, sorry I'm into Romantic Comedies.

LibraryThing member bakersfieldbarbara

I love Cornwell, but didn't like this one. Guess I'm not into non-fiction from her yet. Good read for someone who likes truth in the novel.

LibraryThing member jewelryladypam

Jack The Ripper has always fascinated me, so I was eager to read this one. I was so disappointed, however, that I only got halfway through before I decided to call it quits. Reading this book was like slow and painful torture.

Cornwell goes off on such lengthy tangents that I had a hard time keeping

her points straight. She jumps around so much that her writing never found its flow. And there is way too much background detail that it takes away from the Ripper story. I suppose Cornwell is nothing if not thorough. Irritatingly so.

Show Less

LibraryThing member qarae

Let me start by saying that I am not typically a fan of the non-fiction genre. However, Portrait of a Killer is a fantastic read; Patricia Cornwell has done an incredible job of blending facts and myth, all while maintaining her own style of writing.

LibraryThing member miyurose

Cornwell makes a good circumstantial case against Walter Richard Sickert, a painter. She blames him not only for the 5 murders attributed to Jack the Ripper, but for several others as well, including the murders of several children. Unfortunately, there's no real physical proof, and apparently no

room in this book for dissenting opinions. I listened to what is apparently an abridged version of this book, despite owning a hard copy. I really don't feel the need to pick up the book and fill in the blanks.

Show Less

LibraryThing member traci

Very creepy, and very convincing!

LibraryThing member meghayden

Just because you've done a lot of research doesn't mean it all needs to be included.

LibraryThing member tole_lege

Read Rumbelow on the subject - the evidence presented just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, much of the theory is based on surgery the young Sickert had - at a place which did not do that type of operation....

Fewer