What do You think about Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper - Case Closed (2003)?
I started reading Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed while I was down in Florida, and finally finished it the day before yesterday. I remember reading reviews of the book when it first came out a few years ago, and never picking the book up. I found it by chance in the stacks at my godmother's house, and decided to give it a try.It's not that I'm not interested in Jack the Ripper. When I was in high school, I could be counted on to track down just about any book, movie or comic that was connected in any way to two subjects: King Arthur and Dracula. I remember WARP Graphix releasing the comics mini-series Blood of the Innocent in which Dracula came to England on an advance fact-finding mission several years before the events of the novel and encountered Jack the Ripper. That led me for a while to read up on the Ripper -- novels where Sherlock Holmes meets him, and so on.The problem with this book is that although Cornwell claims that she has solved the case beyond a shadow of a doubt and that The Ripper was noted artist Walter Sickert, her evidence is no more complete or compelling than say, Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's evidence that the Ripper was the royal physician Sir William Gull, or Hempel and Wheatley's evidence that the Ripper was Prince Edward. The problem is: Moore and Campbell's From Hell, on which the movie was based, and Hempel and Wheatley's Blood of the Innocent are admittedly fictional works, however well researched they may have been. The authors admit they are putting words and thoughts into the mouths and minds of historical figures to suit their own theory. Cornwell's book is meant to be non-fiction -- and yet she assigns thoughts and feelings to Walter Sickert that she can only presume he had, since he never left a confession. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is strong -- and in a modern court of law, that might even be enough to convict Sickert for the murders commonly credited to Jack the Ripper, if not the long list of Ripper-like murders in years following that the police did not assign to the Ripper.I had to force myself to finish the book just to see if Cornwell would pull one fully damning piece of evidence out at the end. But the book ends as it starts: with the clear knowledge that this writer of popular crime fiction has let her quest for the Ripper's identity consumer her life professionally and personally, full in the knowledge that at least for the time being, her suspect is no more or less plausible than so many of the others that have been fingered in fiction over the years.
—Anthony
For weeks, I attempted to finish Patricia Cornwell's "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed" I haven't written a real book review, (or even been inclined to write one,) since High School English Lit., but this book frustrated me enough to write one.I've heard from many people what a wonderful piece of forensic investigation it is, how interesting, and that it seems the most plausible answer to the question of "whodunit."It must be confessed, that though I ordinarily like Patricia Cornwell's style of writing, and find her fiction very entertaining, I could not finish this book. It's just too big a fish tale to swallow. I just cannot finish a book that purports to have "solved" the case "100%" when every page is peppered with phrases such as "may," "could have been," "not saying absolutely," and "it seems likely..."This is not good investigation. This book is full of theories, based on assumptions, based on shaky premises, originating from a supposition that the man who produced such 19th and early 20th century dark and tawdry expressionist works such as the "Camden Town" paintings could actually have been the real killer. It is a theory that very few Ripperologists feel is even worth mentioning, aside from the fact that it has gotten a tremendous amount of media play since its 2002 publication date, even being made into a BBC documentary, (co-produced, naturally, by the heavily-invested, and completely biased Cornwell.)She relies strongly on 100 year old mitochondrial DNA, which, as far as I know, would not hold up well in a true prosecutorial case, especially as it does not particularly do anything more than exclude certain groups of people, thus potentially narrowing the field of suspects who licked stamps and envelopes. The fact is, there is no crime scene DNA known to be from Ripper, with which to compare her envelopes' mtDNA.I agree that Ms. Cornwell's high profile as a compelling crime-fiction writer, generates a predisposition to believe her suppositions. Her manner of "proof," however, throughout her "Portrait of a Killer" pages, begs her reader to agree with her subjective assessment of the psychopathology of Sickert's art as evidence of being the most likely, and indeed unassailable perpetrator of the Ripper serial killings.I don't buy it. It may be that she has a viable theory, but I am turned off completely by the shaky ground on which she builds her theory. She expects us to stipulate so much guesswork, in order to substantiate her case, (which, surely she has not substantiated, as there is very little substantive evidence in her guesses.)In her dedication, she arrogantly tells the Scotland Yard Detective, John Grieve, "you would have caught him." "HIM," I assume, referring to Sickert, as is her premise. Yet, try as I may, I cannot find any evidence that Det. John Grieve concurs with her conclusions. Does she, perhaps, toss his name about to lend credence to her ideas?This book makes me wonder if she decided on a suspect, then focused purely on gathering all the little bits of evidence that could lend credence to her ideas, while eliminating from her work all the bits of evidence that disprove her theories.I do have to give Cornwell this credit though... I had never bothered to look up any information on Jack the Ripper, prior to this book. I knew he was a British serial killer, I had seen parts of "From Hell," and other movies that fictionalize his crimes. Yet I had, (and admittedly still have,) little more a rudimentary knowledge of the case.My final opinion? Buy the book second-hand, and read it like fiction. You may find it entertaining. Then again, you may not. Better yet, I'll lend you my copy. It's only half used.
—Stacey
I admit to having a great interest in the Jack the Ripper case and have for many years. I was interested to see what Cornwell could come up with as to who could have done the killing. I was thoroughly disappointed with this book. It was basically filled with Cornwell's guesses that she put out as facts. What really set me off was that part of the book where she was walking down the street with her editor (I think) and says, "I know who did it." From then on, I had a feeling I wasn't going to enjoy this book so much. I did try to keep an open mind, which is more than I can say for her. She fixated on Walter Seikert and never let go. She just made all these facts from his life just fall inter her theory. It was shoddy investigative work and an example of what not to do in an investigation. I wouldn't suggest anyone to read this book.
—Michelle
