Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper Case Closed

by Patricia Cornwell

Book Overview

Now updated with new material that brings the killer's picture into clearer focus. In the fall of 1888, all of London was held in the grip of unspeakable terror.? An elusive madman calling himself Jack the Ripper was brutally butchering women in the slums of London's East End.? Police seemed powerless to stop the killer, who delighted in taunting them and whose crimes were clearly escalating in violence from victim to victim.? And then the Ripper's...

• Format: Mass Market Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0425192733
• ISBN13: 9780425192733
• Release Date: October 2003
• Publisher: Berkley
• Length: 528 Pages
• Weight: 0.55 lbs.
• Dimensions: 7.0" x 1.3" x 4.8"
• Age Range: 18 years and up
• Grade Range: Grade 12 and higher

Customer Reviews

Absolutely great read! I couldn't put it down!

Never had a name for "Jack the Ripper" before.

Excellent!!

Cornwell did her homework on this one didn't she? I can't even imagine how her mind must go continueously, especially with this type of book. All the research she must have had to do to get the information needed to get this novel out. We all know that JTR exsisted and I think that Cornwell came mighty close to closing the case. Closer than anyone else I have read about. I believe people don't want this case ever closed, and I bet this was one of the most difficult books she has ever writen. Can you only imagine all the hours of research that went into this book. I commend you Ms. Cornwell for JTR. This was a very hard book to put down once you started reading it. Who really knows who JTR really was, but I think Cornwell's theory is pretty much right on it, great job Cornwell!

Saucy Jacky is Back and His Name is Walter Sickert. At Least According to Patricia Cornwell.

Having recently watched a documentary on Jack the Ripper, I found it interesting that during the documentary's conclusion, several experts stated that many people do not want this case to be solved. One expert stated that if someone with all the evidence in the world would state that they have finally solved the case, "no one would believe them". Another stated that many people make their money from books of this unsolved mystery and from "Ripper" walks and it benefits no one if this case was to be solved. Well, I guess the reviews of Patricia Cornwells book proves their point. I am by no means stating that the case is closed. I am merely stating that, despite what her many critics say (and she was several as evidenced here and in the many Ripper forums), Cornwell presents a pretty good case. However, over a century after the killings, it is very difficult to state with confidence that Walter Sickert is the Ripper considering the amount of time that has passed and for the simple matter that circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial evidence. I do agree that maybe Cornwell should have refrained from naming her book "Case Closed" even if she had convinced herself that she had solved the mystery. It appears that smug ego that is reflected in her works title has turned many people (and many Ripperologists) off. Had it been titled in a way that illustrates Sickert as an alleged suspect only, it may have been better received. Maybe? Who am I kidding? Maybe not? The thing that I find interesting is that out of all the men who have been suspected of being the notorious killer, IN MY OPINION, Walter Sickert is one of the few with the most circumstantial evidence against him. There are several men who have made the list and I still cannot understand why. Cornwell addresses her concerns with Montague John Druit who has been a Ripper suspect for over a century yet there is little evidence that he was infact the killer. He apparently commited suicide the month after Mary Jane Kelly's horrific murder. Others on the lengthy list of suspects are David Cohen, Dr. Robert D'Onston, Prince Albert Victor: The Duke of Clarence, Sir William Gull (I admit the Royal conspiracy makes a fascinating story), Michael Ostrogg, Aaron Kosminski and even the author of "Alice In Wonderland" Lewis Carroll was named a suspect although not many people took it seriously. This isn't the first time Sickert was named a suspect in the Whitechapel slayings but Cornwell's theory in my opinion makes sense and the circumstancial evidence helps to solidify her case. I remember watching 2 TV specials on Patricia Cornwell, and the case presented pretty much convinced me that Cornwell found her man. Many have stated that the only thing she proved was that Sickert mailed some pesky "Ripper" letters to the police which doesn't mean he was the killer, especially considering that many of the letters are regarded as hoaxes. But I, like Cornwell believe that the Ripper wrote more letter

Patricia Cornwell tries to close the case of Jack the Ripper

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 th

Patricia Cornwell tries to close the case of Jack the Ripper

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 thin

Portrait Of A Killer

I rather enjoyed this audio, even though it has suffered much backlash. I would hope that people would be as dedicated to solving a mystery killer crime as this author. I find that her claims are not all stupid but to me are most interresting, and that this possible person stated in her audio could very well indeed be the Ripper. There is to many coincidences envloved in the imformation she gives for someone else to be the the killler, also this person dies and the series of ripper type murders than stop. The ripper murders I knew of were only what was talked about on the tv shows in past years, she describes so many murders here that do infact go with the writtings and such of the ripper that this very well could be the true killer. High 5 to you Patricia for giving so much detail and interresting forensic insight.