 |
|
Title: Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed
ISBN: 0399149325
Author:
Patricia Cornwell
Publicate Date: 2002-11-11
Publish: 2002-11-11
List Price: $27.95
Average Customer Rating: 2.5
Format: Hardcover
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $0.85
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: An intriguing book
I had a hard time putting this book down. I found it entertaining. I did not see all the connections between Sickert and Jack the Ripper, but there are many. I do not know all the facts, but she certainly did alot of research. This case will never be fully closed until DNA testing gets better and by then any samples will likely be too degraded.
|
2: Jack the Rippper
I was unhappy with this effort from Patricia Cornwell. I found it repetitive, hard to follow and didn't find her argument that convincing.
|
3: Putting the conviction before the proof
I have never read any of Patricia Cornwell's mystery books, but if they are as narratively compelling as Portrait of a Killer, they must surely be page-turners. She knows how to characterize a psychopath; how to illustrate a depraved and violent mind. But I'm not convinced that Walter Sickert, 19th century artists and minor celebrity, was such a mind, or that if he was, he was the infamous Jack the Ripper.
Cornwell is clearly meticulous in her research, but here she seems to have been meticulous with a purpose. She concluded that Sickert was the Ripper, and gathered the evidence that supported her theory, giving minimal attention to the evidence that opposes it. Her argument would have been more convincing had she elaborated on how she determined Sickert was the Ripper; what were the steps that lead her to that conclusion? As presented, her epiphany seems like a bolt from the blue.
Cornwell's main pieces of evidence raise many interesting questions about Sickert. He had a deformity due to botched surgery that made him impotent, his artwork is largely misogynistic, many of the Ripper letters were written with artists' tools. All of these things indicate that he may have been a repressed and violent man, but not that he was Jack the Ripper. But Cornwell's case with these points makes fascinating reading. Her more tangible, physical proof is less fascinating. The only point in the book where my eyes began to cross was her descriptions of different watermarks in different 19th century stationary that Sickert and others used. More interestingly, several investigators are trying to get DNA evidence from the envelopes and stamps on the Ripper letters, but again, the most this could prove would be that Sickert (and many other pranksters) liked to bait the police.
Still, Cornwell presents a richly detailed portrayal of a unique and disturbing individual. I had never heard of Sickert before reading Portrait, and I can see how he and his artwork would capture the imagination. Sickert, from Cornwell's research, seems to have been a dark and complicated man. And the London of his time was undeniably a dark and complicated place. It was an intriguing read, and I enjoyed hearing Cornwell's argument although I remain unconvinced.
|
4: The Ripper unveiled, circumstantially
Disturbing history of Jack the Ripper and disclosure of Cornwell's claimed resolution: The Ripper was Walter Sickert, an English artist who, claims Cornwell, painted some of the murder scenes in his art and wrote the Ripper letters to the police and newspapers.
The argument appears convincing, although Cornwell, a famous fiction murder mystery writer, uses too much speculation and circumstantial evidence.
Ultimately, if Sickert was the Ripper, as painted by Cornwell, the whole thing was very creepy. Don't read this book alone after dark.
|
5: Utter disappointment
Why on earth did Cornwell spend a fantastically huge amount of money in order to produce this? Maybe I should get her to adopt me; I'd make better use of her funds.
Other reviewers have already mentioned her lack of sources, her erroneous DNA conclusions, and the like. One of the things that really caught me was her assumption that a dark lantern provided hardly any light at all, simply because she experimented with one. On her patio. Not in the East End of London. She claims that a dark lantern was NOT the brilliant, illuminating tool shown in contemporary illustrations, but a weak and hotly burning liability.
If that were the case, why would dark lanterns be issued to London's police force? Why would a lantern that, as Cornwell claims, can't illuminate an object only six inches away, be thought of as a helpful instrument? It wouldn't. Clearly, Cornwell's "test" was just as useful as the money she spent in "research". The $6 million dollar book. She'd have done better to try to create a bionic man.
|
|
|
|
|
