(Larger Image)
|
Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed
by Patricia Cornwell
Product Group: Book
Publisher: Little, Brown (2003-04-14)
ISBN: 0316725080
EAN: 9780316725088
Dewy Decimal #: 364
Paperback: 384 pages
Edition: PF
SKU: M9460
Condition: As New
|
Editorial Reviews
|
Product Description
Using the firsthand expertise she has gained through writing the bestselling Dr Kay Scarpetta novels, Patricia Cornwell utilizes the demanding methods of modern forensic investigation to re-examine the evidence in the Jack the Ripper murders. These include state-of-the-art DNA testing on various materials, computer enhancement of watermarks and expert examinations of hand-writing, paper, inks and other relics. She also uses her knowledge of profiling on the possible suspects, as well as consulting experts in the field. On presenting her conclusions to a very senior Metropolitan Police officer she learns that had the investigators of the time been presented with the facts she has unearthed, her suspect would definitely have been arrested and would probably have faced trial. Naming the killer as the artist, Walter Sickert, Cornwell details the reasons and evidence for this conclusion.
|
Customer Reviews
|
Case Closed-- leaves much to desire
Rating  (2)
Date: 2006-06-21
I bought this book thinking it would be the ultimate read but unfortunately been unable to finish it becuase I keep falling asleep. I had never purchased a book from this author but was familiar with her reputation as a good writer. Unfortunately, that's all it is. The book reads like an instruction manual and the author skips from the present to the past without giving the reader any transition information. The vocabulary can get a bit tricky at times (u might need to get a dictionary at times if you are not a lawyer or in the criminal justice field) and it just reads poorly. I found it to be boring, not what you would expect from Patricia or a book about Jack the Ripper.
|
|
Patricia Cornwell tries to close the case of Jack the Ripper
Rating  (4)
Date: 2005-12-29
1 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
Ripperologists have a passion that rivals that of Talmudic scholars and an ability to savage any position that runs counter to their own. Therefore, it is not surprising that Patricia Cornwell's attempt to close the case of Jack the Ripper would be met with disdain, hostility, and outright invective.
Of course Cornwell claim that the artist William Sickert was Jack the Ripper is open to debate. We need to remember that EVERYTHING involving this case is open to debate. One of the initial decisions you have to make in trying to reason out the real identity of the Ripper is to determine who his victims were. Even the acceptance of the canonical five (Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Kelly) is a basic assumption that is easily called into question. Stride and Eddows were both killed the same night; Strides body was not mutilated, the assumption being the killer was interrupted. The horrible mutilation to Eddows' face is assumed to be because the Ripper was enraged that he had been interrupted in his first killing. But what if Eddows had not been killed? Would we still assume Stride was a victim of the Ripper? If Eddows had been the sole victim that night what motivation would we have ascribed to her mutilation? Any and all assumptions made to deduce the Ripper's identity are debatable.
For most people familiar with this case the most astounding part of Cornwell's case against Sickert is the argument that he wrote MOST of the Ripper letters. The assumption has always been that only one or two of the letters might have been real, so Cornwell is making a radical argument in this regard. Ultimately this is the strongest part of Cornwell's case, especially given her repeated observation that these letters are confessions as far as the law is concerned. Given the prolific number of letters Sickert wrote to newspapers in his life, it would not be farfetched that he would do the same thing as the Ripper.
The other key part of Cornwell's argument is the psychological profile of Sickert. The problem is that this is more of a premise in the book than a cogently laid out argument, with bits and pieces scattered throughout the book. I think the problem is more organizational than argumentation and I would have appreciated a more clinical presentation of the profile.
The weakest part of Cornwell's case is also her strongest. Cornwell dredges up everything from Sickert's life and work that she can use to pin these crimes on the artist (e.g., suggesting an unopened letter by his first wife given to her sister contained suspicions Sickert was the Ripper) and there will be times when you think she is pushing it. But the sheer volume of accusations is such that you have to be open to the possibility that some of them are valid. From an argumentative standpoint, she does not have to be right on ALL of these accusations to prove her point; she only needs to be right on some of them.
One of the things that makes me think Cornwell might be right are the argument raised against her thesis. Cornwell repeatedly points out that she does not have "hard" proof of Sickert's guilt, so pointing out the inconclusiveness of her DNA matches is irrelevant. Yes, there is evidence that Sickert was in France during some of the killings, but Cornwell deals specifically with the problems of that evidence (Sickert claimed to be in France with friends who were no longer there, etc.). To be fair, it is hard to make substantial arguments against Cornwell's case in the context of a review limited to 1000 words, but you still have to deal with the specific points she raises. In the end Cornwell rests her case on an accumulation of coincidences sufficient enough to have Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve and an expert on the Jack the Ripper crimes to endorse her conclusion by saying he would be happy to put the case before the crown prosecutor.
One of the other things that works against "Portrait of a Killer" is that Cornwell uses more of a disjointed narrative structure than an argumentative one. The six murders that Cornwell ascribes to Jack the Ripper serve as a basic chronology for the book, but interwoven are chapters devoted to various parts of Walter Sickert's life that are unstuck in time. At one point I was convinced that maybe an editor had decided to rearrange these chapters and that I might be able to put all of them in a more traditional chronological order. With each of the murders Cornwell provides the main details and then talks about the limitations of forensic medicine at that time in contrast to what could be done today. "Portrait of a Killer" would work better if it were divided into a section that looks at the murders and then another making the case against Sickert.
The book is illustrated with tinted autopsy pictures of the Ripper's five canonical victims, including one of the horrible human wreckage of Mary Kelly. Cornwell uses these images, not only as a way of remembering the victims, but usually with the additional goal of showing how they are reflected in Sickert's artwork. Certainly the book would have been enhanced by more reproductions of the various works by Sickert that Cornwell alludes to in making her case. As it is, the key examples here have to do with the Ripper letters, the Lizard House guest book, and sketches known to be by Sickert.
Despite the presentational problems, "Portrait of a Killer" is going to be required reading for Ripperologists, all of whom will make of it what they will. Just be sure to read it before you dismiss it (or diss it). This is not something akin to the creative fantasy of Alan Moore's "From Hell."
|
|
|