Matt read and liked Michelle's review of Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper - Case Closed:

"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 ...more 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. (less) "

Matt read and liked Chris's review of Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper - Case Closed:

"Despite the rather presumptuous sub-title of "case closed", Cornwell doesn't prove her thesis. In fact, this book is a text book for how NOT to write a book that solves a historical mystery.

Problems
1. Cornwall has never h...more Despite the rather presumptuous sub-title of "case closed", Cornwell doesn't prove her thesis. In fact, this book is a text book for how NOT to write a book that solves a historical mystery.

Problems
1. Cornwall has never heard of footnotes.

2. She does not fully explain why she chose to investigate Sickert. It really does sound like she chose him for the killer because she liked the cop who thought he did it.

3. When discussing how women were seen at the time, why is Cornwell citing a book written in the 1600s? And only that book?

4. No close ups of the paintings that show ripper themes which means I did not see what she was talking about.

5. Having the lab you fund do tests to prove your thesis doesn't look good. At least have an independent lab back up the findings.

6. Any criminal, according to this book, is a psychopath.


7. Presumes that the Ripper wrote all the Ripper letters.

8. How does she know her Ripper letter is the real, deal? (If just saying it makes it so, than anyone want to buy the lost Manet masterwork of a woodpecker I own?)

9. Somehow I doubt that Cornwell is the only Ripper expert who worked hard, despite what she implies.


10. Cornwell keeps saying she wouldn't do something, and then does it. She says she won't psycho analyze, and then there she goes.

11. How does she know about the penis of a dead and cremated man? (I really want to know the answer to that one).

12. If he wasn't a good actor (which is what Cornwell says), how could he be so good at disguises that no one recognized him until Cornwell did?

13. She does not rebutt fully the claim that Sickert had an alibi.

If you want to know how NOT to construct an argument, read this book. Otherwise, skip it.(less) "

Matt read and liked Bo's review of Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper - Case Closed:

"ms. cornwell clearly did her research, and i applaud her for that. many of us wouldn't have waded through piles and piles of 100-year-old documents.

but i don't completely buy her argument. i will agree that sickert sounds like a disturbed...more ms. cornwell clearly did her research, and i applaud her for that. many of us wouldn't have waded through piles and piles of 100-year-old documents.

but i don't completely buy her argument. i will agree that sickert sounds like a disturbed fellow, and i've since looked at his paintings and sketches and he certainly does paint on some dark themes. and i will say that many of the sketches look lifeless.

but her 'case closed' argument is predicated on too many ifs, too many unknowns (did sickert have a fistula on his penis?), and way too many contradictions. she states repeatedly that the contemporaneous assessments of police and doctors are not to be fully trusted, but then relies upon them to help make her argument. she does the same with the testimony given at inquests. she includes murders that fall outside the ripper's MO and attributes them to him - after going on about how important an MO is to a psychopath. she points out that sickert wasn't a very good stage actor, which was why he'd turned to art, but then continuously points out how a 'good' actor could have masked himself to be unrecognizable on the streets of whitechapel. she says that many of the ripper letters we likely hoaxes, but continually turns to them as support for attributing other murder to jack the ripper/sickert.

the thing is, i'm not unconvinced that sickert may have been the ripper. it DOES seem plausible. the evidence is plausible enough to take it to a prosecutor if it were happening today. THE EVIDENCE is strong enough. her argument is not.(less) "