Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed (ISBN 0399149325)

DNA validated--well done:
I thought this was well done. The author proves rather well the guilt of a very very ugly and dispicable person.

portrait of a killer:
"Portrait of a Killer" purports to have finally uncovered the identity of the enigmatic Jack the Ripper. Sure enough, Patricia Cornwell had me convinced that Walter Sickert, a contemporary painter, was indeed the Ripper. . . . at least while I was reading the book. Cornwell's book reads more like a thriller than a legitimate investigate. For being a page turner, I give this book 4 stars. Cornwell is very compelling in her argument, & I truly did believe that Sickert was the Ripper while I was reading this book. The problem is that all of her evidence if circumstantial. Taken together, the evidence (if fact) does make Sickert look like an ideal candidate for the Ripper. Unfortunately, there are several other candidates for the Ripper who are just as compelling. Cornwell does not mention these, so Sickert seems like a foregone conclusion. I've done a fair bit of reading on Jack the Ripper, including visiting the murder sites on a trip to London, & I just don't believe that Cornwell has finally unearthed his identity. I don't think anyone ever will.

So bad, it's almost good:
Try as I might, I can't give this a one. A one is the book I threw across the room or tried to return to Borders. I actually consumed this book voraciously (in about 2 sittings). It was readable. It was interesting. It was creepy. Hey, any book that gives you in depth analysis of the life and habits of "strumpets" can't be a total failure. I also learned all about poor houses -- it gave me a lot less respect for Ebeneezer Scrooge. Granted, there are probably more stunning and edgy social commentaries on Dickensian London (Jack London, Charles Dickens himself), but I'm guessing Cornwell's is going to be the most digestible for the casual reader. It was also (in places) laughably bad. Bad in it's insistance that the killer had been nailed by the flimsiest of evidence. Bad in it's meandering and chronological schizophrenia (other reviews suggest this was intentional; I can't help but agree). Bad that in a world where children die in the third world from treatable illnesses and malnutrition, someone would have the ego and the folly to spend 6 million dollars on apprehending a killer who's, uh, dead. It's the only thing I can't forgive Cornwell for. It also falls into, IMHO, the category of being so bad it's good! When someone has the audacity to write and publish such whimsy as fact, there's inherent fun in picking it apart, laughing at it, going on the internet and checking the true facts. I certainly don't want to give Cornwell snaps for her ability as a historian or writer of non-fiction (both of which are atrocious), but nor do I wish to dissuade people from reading the book, which is an experience unto itself, an exercise in critical thinking, a morality play on personal pride, and for all that, a great experience all around. Put aside the Doestoevsky and hell, even the Truman Capote. Take this "True" Crime Farce to the beach and enjoy every goofball word. You'll be entertained, and you'll probably even learn a thing or too, though not anything about Jack the Ripper.

Cornwell's Obsession:
This book isn't really about Sickert - it's about Patricia Cornwell's relentless obsession. She has committed the worst error any murder investigator can commit; to develop a purely gut-level hunch about a suspect, and continue to believe in it regardless of the actual facts. Besides that, her hunch is illogical and doesn't make sense - she hasn't thought it through. She says she became convinced of Sickert's guilt because of his paintings, in particular a painting which bears an uncanny resemblance to Eddowes' mortuary photo (NOT a crime scene photo, a MORTUARY photo - there's an obviously major difference). Cornwell says Sickert painted it to re-live and fantasize about his crime. If so, why would he paint the mortuary photo and not the actual scene itself? Eddowes' appearence at the crime scene would've looked quite different from the mortuary photo, after her remains had been sewn up, washed and laid out for the moruary photographer. The obvious answer was Sickert didn't commit the murders, instead, it was well known Sickert was obsessed with sleaze and crime, as well as tabloid journalism, and he probably saw the mortuary photo somewhere and painted from the photo - not the actual crime scene. Sickert wasn't necessarily interested in violence per se, instead he was interested in the way violence was being portrayed in the media at the time. Cornwell's assumes Sickert was the Ripper because his art was so strongly suggestive of the Ripper murders (and of violence toward women generally, says Cornwell), but if this psychological notion of hers were true, then ALL artists who portray violence, from painters to filmakers like Hitchcock (does "Psycho" prove to Cornwell that Alfred Hichcock was a serial murderer?), and even crime writers like Patricia Cornwell all should be suspected of murder. After all, Cornwell herself is known for graphic descriptions of violence in her novels - maybe she is a killer, too? Her relentless obsession over Sickert is deeply bizarre; I watched a BBC documentary about this, (from the series "Omnibus") and the program made a subtle but clear point: Walter Sickert was not nearly as crazy as Patricia Cornwell. Besides, it's almost 100% certain Sickert was in France during the period the Ripper crimes took place. He clearly wasn't the murderer, yet she continues her crusade against an long-dead innocent man. She'll never admit she's wrong. She would look even more foolish than she already does.

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.