Portrait of a Killer

by Patricia Cornwell

"I knew the identity of a murderer and couldn't possibly avert my gaze," declares bestselling author and Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine chairman of the board Cornwell (The Last Precinct). Claiming to have cracked the unsolved case of Jack the Ripper, the author, combining superb investigative skills and meticulous research with modern technology, presents strong, albeit largely circumstantial, evidence as to the true culprit in this uncharacteristic work of nonfiction. Cornwell's man is the handsome, educated actor-cum-artist Walter Richard Sickert, and she delves into his life, probing the psychological pain and sexual deformity which led to his "impotent fury." Despite some tedious and over-detailed readings of medical records, laws and police reports, as well as descriptive accounts of Cornwell's experiences re-opening the case, this book turns potentially dry material into an enthralling exploration.

Genres: Nonfiction, True Crime, History, Crime, Mystery, Biography, Historical

400 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Patricia Cornwell sold her first novel, Postmortem, in 1990 while working as a computer analyst at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond, Virginia. Postmortem, was the first bona fide forensic thriller. It paved the way for an explosion of entertainment featuring in all things forensic across film, television and literature.

Postmortem would go on to win the Edgar, Creasey, Anthony, and Macavity awards as well as the French Prix du Roman d’Aventure prize – the first book ever to claim all these distinctions in a single year. To date, Cornwell’s books have sold some 100 million copies in thirty-six languages in over 120 countries. She’s authored twenty-nine New York Times bestsellers.

Patricia’s novels center primarily on medical examiner Kay Scarpetta along with her tech-savvy niece Lucy and fellow investigator Pete Marino. Celebrating 25 years, these characters have grown into an international phenomenon, winning Cornwell the Sherlock Award for best detective created by an American author, the Gold Dagger Award, the RBA Thriller Award, and the Medal of Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters for her contributions to literary and artistic development.

Fox 2000 bought the rights to Kay Scarpetta. Working with producer Liz Friedman, Marvel’s Jessica Jones and fellow Marvel EP and Twilight Saga scribe Melissa Rosenberg to develop the film and find Scarpetta a home on the big screen.

After earning her degree in English from Davidson College in 1979, she began working at the Charlotte Observer.

Cornwell received widespread attention and praise for her series of articles on prostitution and crime in downtown Charlotte. From the Charlotte Observer, Cornwell moved to a job with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia – a post she would later bestow upon the fictional Kay Scarpetta.

When not writing from her Boston home, Patricia tirelessly researches cutting-edge forensic technologies to include in her work. Her interests span outside the literary: Patricia co-founded of the Conservation Scientist Chair at the Harvard University Art Museums. She appears as a forensic consultant on CNN and serves as a member of Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital’s National Council, where she advocates for psychiatric research. She’s helped fund the ICU at Cornell’s Animal Hospital, the scientific study of a Confederate submarine, the archaeological excavation of Jamestown, and a variety of law enforcement charities. Patricia is also committed to
funding scholarships and literacy programs. Her advice to aspiring authors: “Start writing. And don’t take no for an answer.”


Social and Digital Outlets

http://www.patriciacornwell.com

https://www.facebook.com/patricia.cor...

https://twitter.com/1pcornwell

https://instagram.com/1pcornwell/


Other areas of expertise & interests
Forensics | Forensic Technologies | Ballistics | Weapons | Explosives | Pathology & Autopsies | Crime | Historical and Unsolved Criminal Cases | Jack The Ripper | Helicopter Piloting | Suba Diving | Archaeological Excavation Experience |

Reviews

[Stacey · Rating 1 out of 5]

For weeks, I attempted to finish Patricia Cornwell's "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed" I haven't written a real book review, (or even been inclined to write one,) since High School English Lit., but this book frustrated me enough to write one.

I've heard from many people what a wonderful piece of forensic investigation it is, how interesting, and that it seems the most plausible answer to the question of "whodunit."

It must be confessed, that though I ordinarily like Patricia Cornwell's style of writing, and find her fiction very entertaining, I could not finish this book. It's just too big a fish tale to swallow. I just cannot finish a book that purports to have "solved" the case "100%" when every page is peppered with phrases such as "may," "could have been," "not saying absolutely," and "it seems likely..."

This is not good investigation. This book is full of theories, based on assumptions, based on shaky premises, originating from a supposition that the man who produced such 19th and early 20th century dark and tawdry expressionist works such as the "Camden Town" paintings could actually have been the real killer. It is a theory that very few Ripperologists feel is even worth mentioning, aside from the fact that it has gotten a tremendous amount of media play since its 2002 publication date, even being made into a BBC documentary, (co-produced, naturally, by the heavily-invested, and completely biased Cornwell.)

She relies strongly on 100 year old mitochondrial DNA, which, as far as I know, would not hold up well in a true prosecutorial case, especially as it does not particularly do anything more than exclude certain groups of people, thus potentially narrowing the field of suspects who licked stamps and envelopes. The fact is, there is no crime scene DNA known to be from Ripper, with which to compare her envelopes' mtDNA.

I agree that Ms. Cornwell's high profile as a compelling crime-fiction writer, generates a predisposition to believe her suppositions. Her manner of "proof," however, throughout her "Portrait of a Killer" pages, begs her reader to agree with her subjective assessment of the psychopathology of Sickert's art as evidence of being the most likely, and indeed unassailable perpetrator of the Ripper serial killings.

I don't buy it. It may be that she has a viable theory, but I am turned off completely by the shaky ground on which she builds her theory. She expects us to stipulate so much guesswork, in order to substantiate her case, (which, surely she has not substantiated, as there is very little substantive evidence in her guesses.)

In her dedication, she arrogantly tells the Scotland Yard Detective, John Grieve, "you would have caught him." "HIM," I assume, referring to Sickert, as is her premise. Yet, try as I may, I cannot find any evidence that Det. John Grieve concurs with her conclusions. Does she, perhaps, toss his name about to lend credence to her ideas?

This book makes me wonder if she decided on a suspect, then focused purely on gathering all the little bits of evidence that could lend credence to her ideas, while eliminating from her work all the bits of evidence that disprove her theories.

I do have to give Cornwell this credit though... I had never bothered to look up any information on Jack the Ripper, prior to this book. I knew he was a British serial killer, I had seen parts of "From Hell," and other movies that fictionalize his crimes. Yet I had, (and admittedly still have,) little more a rudimentary knowledge of the case.

My final opinion? Buy the book second-hand, and read it like fiction. You may find it entertaining. Then again, you may not. Better yet, I'll lend you my copy. It's only half used.

[Jonathan Ashleigh · Rating 1 out of 5]

Let me first say, I hate when an author prints his or her own name larger than the title on a book cover. That was not the worst thing about this book.

I found “Portrait of a Killer” because it rates highly among other true-crime books and I thought I was learning about actual events, until I was about a quarter of the way through and did some research of my own. At that time I realized the only value of this book is a description of the life and times of a successful British artist who should probably be thankful he is being accused of being Jack the Ripper because his paintings are being discussed more widely than they, otherwise, would have been. This book should be advertised as a theory and should not say, “case closed,” on the cover (also in smaller print than the author’s name).

[Gina · Rating 1 out of 5]

I decided to read Patricia Cornwell's book Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed because I have an interest in Walter Sickert. I continued to read the book, despite the fact that it was by far the most absurd book I've ever read, because I assumed at the turn of every page that it couldn't get any sillier. At some point, I thought, Cornwell would have to present solid evidence that connected Walter Sickert to the Ripper murders. After all, you can't go around accusing people of murder left, right and centre when you have no proof, can you? Apparently, you can.

According to Ms Cornwell, she began to wonder about Walter Sickert being Jack the Ripper when she was flipping through a book of his art and came across his 1887 painting of Ada Lundberg performing at the Marylebone Music Hall. When Cornwell looked at that painting, she didn’t see a performer singing for an audience, she saw a woman screaming as menacing men looked on. ‘I am sure there are artistic explanations for all of Sickert’s works,’ Cornwell writes, ‘but what I see when I look at them is morbidity, violence, and a hatred of women.’

Well, you can find all sorts of things in paintings, if you're determined to see them, and Ms Cornwell certainly was determined. A good researcher examines the information available and uses it to form a theory; Cornwell, on the other hand, proceeded from the firm conviction that Sickert was her man and set about constructing an argument that would produce her desired conclusion.

To be fair, Ms Cornwell is not the first person to construct a ridiculous theory regarding the true identity of Jack the Ripper that involves Walter Sickert. It was in the 1970s that his name was first linked with that of the famous Whitechapel murderer, and I’ll now attempt to give a brief synopsis of how that came about.

In the late 1960s, a fellow by the name of Joseph Gorman turned up claiming to be Walter Sickert’s illegitimate grandson. He then amended his story and claimed that Sickert was not his grandfather, he was in actual fact his father; his grandfather, he claimed at that point, was the eldest son of Edward VII, Prince Albert Victor. Gorman adopted a new name, HRH Joseph Sickert, to go with his imaginatively fabricated identity. He claimed that his grandmother, a shop girl by the name of Annie Crook, had married Prince Albert Victor in secret and had given birth to a daughter, Alice (Joseph Sickert’s mother). Mary Jane Kelly, a friend of Crook’s, knew about this marriage, as did several of her prostitute pals and was set to blackmail the British government. To avert a scandal that might have brought down the British monarchy, the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, persuaded the Royal Physician, Sir William Gull, to go off on a murder spree with two fellow Freemasons and do away with the troublesome women. Little Alice Crook, having been spirited away to France, later became Walter Sickert’s mistress. Walter Sickert knew the truth behind the Ripper murders, Joseph Sickert claimed, but had not been involved in them. Joseph Sickert, who later claimed that he regularly had tea with the Queen, had a furtive imagination.

Stephen Knight, author of Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (published in 1978) went further and, based on Joseph Sickert’s claims about the masonic Ripper plot, concluded that Walter Sickert must have been a co-conspirator in it. In the same year, Joseph Sickert, whilst maintaining that he was the illegitimate son of Walter Sickert and the grandson of Prince Albert Victor, told the Sunday Times that the story about the Ripper conspiracy had in fact been a hoax. This didn’t prevent Jean Overton Fuller from publishing a book in 1990 which claimed that Walter Sickert was the actual perpetrator of the crimes, rather than a co-conspirator. Nor did it prevent Melvyn Fairclough from regurgitating Joseph Sickert’s masonic-royal-Ripper plot nonsense one year later.

But let's be clear about this, during Sickert’s lifetime he was never a suspect in the Ripper murders. Were it not for HRH Joseph Sickert’s absurd conspiracy claims, which he later admitted were a fabrication, nobody would ever have suggested Walter Sickert as a possible Ripper suspect.

Anyway, getting back to Cornwell's theory (though she considers it to be a matter of fact). Having decided that the Ripper was a sexually dysfunctional psychopath with a severe hatred of women, Cornwell's mind was made up from the outset that Sickert was an impotent woman-hater. According to Cornwell, 'Sickert was dependent on women and loathed them’. But Sickert did not hate women; at times he liked them rather too much. He was never faithful to his first wife, Ellen. Regarding Sickert's marriage to Ellen, Cornwell claims that 'it is possible the brotherly and sisterly couple never undressed in front of each other or attempted sex'. Based on what evidence?

'Sickert was born,' Cornwell asserts, 'with a deformity of his penis requiring operations when he was a toddler that would have left him disfigured if not mutilated'. She goes on to suggest that he may not have had much of a penis at all and it was 'quite possible that he had to squat like a woman to urinate'. Sickert did undergo an operation when he was an infant; that much is true. He was treated for an anal fistula at St. Mark's Hospital. Cornwell herself admits that Sickert's doctor's specialities 'were the treatment of rectal and venereal diseases,' and that 'no search of his published writings or other literature unearthed any mention of his treating so-called fistulas of the penis.’ Nonetheless, she concludes that it was Sickert's penis that was the problem. Why? Because Jack the Ripper had to be impotent, so Sickert had to be impotent, and an anal fistula does not produce impotency! If it looks like an apple and tastes like an apple, but Cornwell wants an orange... it's an orange.

I shall now provide you with a sampling of the nonsense that passes for 'evidence' in the mind of Patricia Cornwell:

1. Martha Tabran was seen with a soldier before her murder. The murderer of Martha Tabran was therefore Walter Sickert dressed up as a soldier. ‘Walter Sickert was familiar with uniforms,' Cornwell explains, and as a boy he 'frequently sketched men in uniforms and armor’. Heavens to Betsy, a male child who draws soldiers... a sure sign of early-onset homicidal psychopathy.

2. Jack the Ripper liked to call people fools in his letters; Walter Sickert called people fools.

3. A witness saw a man with a black Gladstone bag after Elizabeth Stride was murdered; Sickert had a Gladstone bag.

4. During the Ripper murders, bloody knives started turning up all over the place. A coconut dealer by the name of Thomas Coram was leaving a friend’s house in Whitechapel when he noticed a knife at the bottom of steps leading into a laundry. The knife was later described by a local constable as the sort a baker or chef might use. ‘Sickert was an excellent cook,' Cornwell writes, 'and often dressed as a chef to entertain his friends’.

5. (And this is my personal favourite) One of the Ripper letters included the address ‘Punch & Judy St.’; Cornwell points out: 'Sickert would have been familiar with Punch and Judy'.

Cornwell, unlike most Ripperologists and the police who investigated the Ripper murders, believes that most of the Ripper letters sent to police and the local press (from all over the place, with several posted on the same day from distant locations) came from Jack the Ripper himself. The letters are central to her claim that Sickert was the Ripper. The fact that the handwriting of the numerous Ripper letters doesn't resemble Sickert's does nothing to deter Cornwell from asserting that he did write them; the difference in handwriting simply proves that he was an incredibly devious little psychopath. She points out that Sickert could even write backwards. So could Leonardo da Vinci, but I don't think she's about to pin the murders on him (though we shouldn't rule that out entirely). For that matter, I can write backwards; do I need an alibi?

As for the doodles on the Ripper letters, Cornwell claims that most, if not all, were penned by a skilled artist, namely Walter sickert. Anna Gruetzner Robins, author of Walter Sickert: Drawings, supports this claim, though she doesn't believe that Sickert was the actual Ripper. Matthew Sturgiss, author of Walter Sickert: A Life, remains unconvinced about the claims of Cornwell and Robins. Sickert expert Wendy Baron has also dismissed the claims, having found nothing in the doodles to suggest that Sickert was the person responsible for them. But even if it were proved that Sickert was responsible for some of the letters (and that's a big if), it would simply show that he was a Ripper letter hoaxer. That is a far cry from being a slayer of East End prostitutes.

Several Ripper letters mentioned horse racing and gave the police betting tips. 'Sickert painted pictures of horse racing', Cornwell points out, 'and was quite knowledgeable about the sport. 'While I have no evidence that Sickert bet on horse races,' she goes on, 'I don’t have any fact to say he didn’t.’ According to Cornwell's logic, the absence of proof passes for proof in itself. When trying to determine if the artist was in London at the time of a particular murder, she points out that she has no proof that he was not in London. Well, there’s no proof that I wasn’t in Madagascar yesterday evening; I guess I must have been there.

In actual fact, Walter Sickert was abroad for most of the late summer of 1888, when Jack the Ripper was murdering prostitutes in London. Two days before the murder of Annie Chapman, Sickert's mother wrote to a friend that she and her family (including Walter) were all having a happy time in France. Whilst Cornwell does refer to Sickert's mother's letter, and to a letter written by Sickert's wife, Ellen, about him being in France with 'his people', which Cornwell incorrectly assumes are his arty friends in Dieppe rather than his family, she dismisses the importance of such evidence of his absence from London. After all, even if he had been in France, he could have hopped on a steamer to scoot across the English Channel, then caught an express train to London in order to do away with an East End tart (presumably because a French tart wouldn't do) before dashing back to France in time for dinner without anyone noticing he'd gone. I imagine he managed to fit in posting several Ripper letters from Liverpool, London and Lille (in northern France) while he was at it.

Having gone to great trouble to demonstrate that Sickert was a crazed killer who couldn't even holiday in France without rushing back to the East End to assassinate a prostitute, how does she explain the fact that the Ripper murders came to an abrupt end following the slaying of Mary Jane Kelly on 9th November 1888, even though Sickert lived for another fifty-four years? What did he do, take up fishing or stamp collecting to fill his time? Well, apparently he didn't stop murdering people... he went on going. Sickert wasn't just Jack the Ripper, he was responsible for the Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89 too, and he committed the Camden Town Murder in 1907. He may even have murdered a widow named Madame Francois at Pont-à-Mousson, in north-eastern France, in 1889, and another French woman in the same area. He was a busy fellow.

Ms Cornwell provides no evidence that links Walter Sickert to the Whitechapel murders. She seems to believe that by her simply asserting that he was guilty we'll all be daft enough to believe her. In places, the book seems to be more about her than Sickert or Jack the Ripper anyway. About a quarter of the way through the book she writes: ‘I had been a police reporter for the Charlotte Observer in North Carolina and was no coward when it came to dashing off to crime scenes.’ Then she tells us that she had a moment of enlightenment (something I strongly doubt) whilst in Aspen with her family, in a condo at the base of Ajax Mountain. In what way are these details, or reminiscences of her days working in the medical examiner’s office, relevant to the Whitechapel murders? There's a lot that seems to be there just to fill the book out. Chapter Thirteen gives a history of the British coroner from the reign of Richard I. And what’s the point of giving the reader an explanation of how the Ripper murders would have been investigated in present day Virginia? Do I need to know that ‘the US has never had a national standard of death investigation’?

This may be the longest book review I will ever write. But a short one just wouldn't have done justice to the astounding absurdity of this book.

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Angie · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was not what I expected. I thought it would be a sort of historical re-cap of the Jack the Ripper killings with Cornwell revealing the person that she thought to be the killer, with evidence to substantiate her opinion. I did not expect to be lectured over and over and beaten over the head with her opinion on the identity of the killer.

From what I've read, Cornwell went a little bonky in the head with trying to prove that her guy was the one, spending millions of dollars to acquire paintings and writings that belonged to him. Although she may be 100% correct in her belief, it seems to be pointless after this many years.

Recommended for anyone that enjoys a good, repetitive lecture.

[Sezin Koehler · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a phenomenal and utterly disturbing book. I learned:

1) The identity of Jack The Ripper, with 98% certainty, is the British artist Walter Sickert, proven by intense forensic analysis.

2) He not only killed the prostitutes for which he is best known, but possibly 40+ others, including children, men and non-prostitute women, some of whom he hacked to pieces and possibly ate.

3) 1888 London was an absolute shithole and why anyone would have wanted to live in those conditions is beyond me.

4) Scotland Yard completely botched the Ripper investigation and because of them Jack The Ripper continued killing for decades after they called off the dogs.

5) Jack The Ripper was an even bigger sicko than I had ever imagined, and the root of his psychosis may have been related to the fact that, like many serial killers, he had a deformed penis and could not have sex.

6) This book is not for the faint of heart and I almost threw up a few times while reading it. Excellent research though. Shame they didn't catch that pervert before he died in 1942.

[Louie the Mustache Matos · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I read this for the first time, ten to fifteen years ago. Cornwell was doing an interview on one of the news shows, Dateline, or some such. She was communicating a compelling argument, about the real Jack the Ripper, such that I bought her book. It is extraordinarily dry. However, her arguments are exceedingly convincing.

She writes about watermarks on paper and makes it fascinating. This is NOT for everyone, but if you are interested in the science of forensics, this might be for you. If you are intrigued by Jack the Ripper and his pathology, this might be for you, as well. I “enjoyed” this book, as much as one can enjoy the horrifying subject matter.

It is a difficult read for people that are sensitive to graphic violence because Cornwell is graphic about the crime scenes left behind. She makes an argument that Jack the Ripper never stopped killing; he just became more careful. She even names the killer and why she believes so strongly that she is correct. She convinced me years ago that she was right, and over the years she has become even more unflinchingly assured and compelling.

[Rebecca Huston · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have to say, I know I am in the minority when I say that I find this argument for artist Walter Sickert to be the Ripper rather convincing. Not everyone is going to agree, and that's ok -- I feel that the truth behind the Ripper killings in 1888 London will remain a mystery for all time. There just isn't enough data out there on the killings to point the finger at one particular person.

All that said, what makes this book so interesting is how Cornwell draws out the pathology of a sociopath. Was Sickert the Ripper -- from what I see here, it's pretty evident that he was a profoundly disturbed person and bore a real hatred/fear/contempt of women. If you can handle it, go on and read the book. And then let me know what you think. In any case, it's well written and very carefully thought out.

For the complete review, please go here:
http://www.bubblews.com/news/7051076-...

[Χρύσα Βασιλείου · Rating 3 out of 5]

Αυτή η γυναίκα πραγματικά δεν θα με αφήσει να αγιάσω σε ό,τι αφορά τα βιβλία της. Εκεί που πάω να βρω κάτι καλό να πω, έρχεται και ανατρέπει κάθε ρημάδα καλή μου πρόθεση.
Ξεκίνησα να διαβάζω αυτό το βιβλίο κυρίως γιατί ανέκαθεν με ενδιέφερε η ιστορία του Τζακ του Αντεροβγάλτη. Δεν πίστευα εξαρχής πως ο ένοχος είναι αυτός που υποστηρίζει η Cornwell πως είναι, αλλά ήθελα να δω την έρευνα που έκανε και τη διαδικασία που ακολούθησε έτσι ώστε να αιτιολογήσει το σκεπτικό της.

3 αστεράκια γιατί σέβομαι τον χρόνο και τα χρήματα που αφιέρωσε σ' αυτή την έρευνα. Δεν μπορώ να μην παραδεχτώ πως ως περιεχόμενο είναι προσεγμένο και καλογραμμένο. Το καλό κομμάτι του βιβλίου, άλλωστε, αφορά περιγραφές της εποχής, του τότε Λονδίνου και των συνθηκών ζωής εκεί, ειδικά στην περιοχή του Γουαϊτσάπελ, όπως επίσης και τη ζωή του -κατά την άποψή της ένοχου για τους φόνους του Αντεροβγάλτη- Ουίλιαμ Σίκερτ. Πραγματικά, η αφήγηση σε ταξιδεύει πίσω στον χρόνο. Επιπλέον, τα εγκλήματα του Αντεροβγάλτη περιγράφονται παραστατικά και με λεπτομέρειες, ενώ περιλαμβάνονται επίσης και φωτογραφίες και σκίτσα ακόμα κι από την προσωπική συλλογή της Cornwell (που δεν κυκλοφορούν ευρέως, δηλαδή). Ως εδώ όλα καλά.

Εκεί που αρχίζει να χωλαίνει το πράγμα είναι στην επιμονή της πως η ταυτότητα του Τζακ είναι αυτή του ζωγράφου Σίκερτ. Δεν λέω να αποδείξει , γιατί η συγγραφέας δεν προσπαθεί να αποδείξει ΤΙΠΟΤΑ. Θεωρεί αυτονόητο πως έτσι είναι τα πράγματα, γιατί έτσι θεωρεί η ίδια πως είναι. Και περιμένει ο αναγνώστης να το καταπιεί αυτό αμάσητο, απλά επειδή το υποστηρίζει εκείνη.
Ενώ λοιπόν παραδέχομαι το πείσμα της ως προς την έρευνα, τα αποτελέσματα αυτής είναι το λιγότερο παιδαριώδη. Όλα βασίζονται σε εικασίες και συμπτώσεις (λέει και κάτι ψιλά για μιτοχονδριακά DNA, αλλά δεν τα αναλύει και δεν πολυέδωσα σημασία - εδώ δεν έδωσε εκείνη, ως ερευνήτρια και ως άνθρωπος που γνωρίζει από Ιατροδικαστική και Παθολογοανατομία). Αντίθετα, αναλύεται σε εικασίες που έχουν να κάνουν υποτιθέμενες ομοιότητες ανάμεσα στον Τζακ και τον Σίκερτ, χωρίς να σκέφτεται το προφανές: ότι ο Σίκερτ -ψυχασθενής με σοβαρά προβλήματα και μισάνθρωπος, αναμφίβολα- μιμήθηκε τον Αντεροβγάλτη, για δικούς τους λόγους. Ίσως επειδή τον θαύμαζε. Ή επειδή τα ειδεχθή εγκλήματά του τον ενέπνεαν. Ή ότι οι ψυχοσυνθέσεις και οι ιδέες τους έμοιαζαν, γιατί και οι δύο ήταν άρρωστοι στα μυαλά τους άνθρωποι και ηδονίζονταν με τον πόνο και τη φρίκη των άλλων. Τέτοιας λογικής είναι όλα τα "στοιχεία" της Cornwell που σύμφωνα με την ίδια ταυτοποιούν τους δύο. Πολύ... επιστημονική σκέψη, τι να πει κανείς!

Οι τελευταίες εξελίξεις στην υπόθεση του Τζακ του Αντεροβγάλτη αφορούν τον Πολωνό κομμωτή Άαρον Κοσμίνσκι (αναφέρεται στη λίστα της Cornwell ανάμεσα στους άλλους πιθανούς υπόπτους, που σύμφωνα με τη συγγραφέα "αποκλείεται να ήταν ο Τζακ, κανείς απ' αυτούς"). Εδώ η επιστήμη δεν βασίζεται στο ένστικτο της Cornwell, όπως το βιβλίο της, αλλά σε τεστ DNA που έγιναν σε λεκέ αίματος που βρέθηκε επάνω στην εσάρπα της Κάθριν Έντοους (4ο θύμα του Αντεροβγάλτη), όπου ταυτοποιήθηκε τόσο το δικό της DNA, όσο κι εκείνο του Κοσμίνσκι. Όσο να πεις, είναι πιο σοβαρό ως αποδεικτικό στοιχείο κάτι τέτοιο - κάνοντας ταυτόχρονα "σκόνη" τις εικασίες της Cornwell στο παρόν βιβλίο.

Αυτό που με ενόχλησε και με σύγχυσε ήταν η εκνευριστική σιγουριά της για την ταυτότητα του δολοφόνου, ενώ πραγματικά μέσα σε όλο το βιβλίο ανάθεμα κι αν υπάρχει ΕΝΑ και ΜΟΝΟ στοιχείο που αποδεικνύει 100% τους ισχυρισμούς της. Θα έπρεπε λοιπόν να είναι πιο προσεκτική και να αναφέρει πως πρόκειται για μια έρευνα που προσεγγίζει τις διάφορες εικασίες για την τ��υτότητα του δράστη κι όχι να πανηγυρίζει (ναι, ναι) στο τέλος του βιβλίου, λέγοντας για την ομάδα της "Μαζί τον πιάσαμε. Τα καταφέραμε." Πας καλά, καλή μου; Πόση υπεροψία πια; Βέβαια, το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 2002-2003, οπότε είναι απόλυτα λογικό να μην είναι σε τέτοιο εξελικτικό στάδιο η επιστήμη, όσο είναι σήμερα. Εδώ παρατηρούνται θαυμαστές εξελίξεις από μήνα σε μήνα κι από χρόνο σε χρόνο, πόσο μάλλον σε μια δεκαετία και περισσότερο. Αλλά το ύφος της συγγραφέως είναι προκλητικό και ναι, ομολογώ πως θα ήθελα πολύ να είμαι από μια μεριά και να δω τη φάτσα της όταν θα έμαθε τα αποτελέσματα του τεστ DNA της εσάρπας της Έντοους.

Με λίγα λόγια, και για να μην σας κουράζω περισσότερο, μιλάμε για ένα βιβλίο που εν μέρει θεωρείται έρευνα, αλλά από την άλλη μιλάμε για εντελώς ερασιτεχνικές καταστάσεις που θυμίζουν πράκτωρ ΘΟΥ-ΒΟΥ. Και θα περίμενε κανείς από την Cornwell περισσότερη σοβαρότητα και σιγουριά για τα ευρήματά της, προτού βγει να πανηγυρίσει για την αποκάλυψη της ταυτότητας του Τζακ του Αντεροβγάλτη. Ο οποίος, αν μπορούσε να διαβάσει το βιβλίο της, πιθανότατα θα έκλαιγε από τα γέλια.

Για περισσότερα "φαρμακερά" σχόλια, διαβάστε παρακάτω εκείνα των αναγνωστών - ειδικά αυτά με το 1 αστεράκι. Είναι πέρα για πέρα ειλικρινή και αληθινά, όσο σκληρό κι αν ακούγεται κάτι τέτοιο για την επίδοξη ντετέκτιβ Cornwell. Είθε ο μύθος να παραμείνει μύθος.

[Anthony · Rating 1 out of 5]

I started reading Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed while I was down in Florida, and finally finished it the day before yesterday. I remember reading reviews of the book when it first came out a few years ago, and never picking the book up. I found it by chance in the stacks at my godmother's house, and decided to give it a try.

It's not that I'm not interested in Jack the Ripper. When I was in high school, I could be counted on to track down just about any book, movie or comic that was connected in any way to two subjects: King Arthur and Dracula. I remember WARP Graphix releasing the comics mini-series Blood of the Innocent in which Dracula came to England on an advance fact-finding mission several years before the events of the novel and encountered Jack the Ripper. That led me for a while to read up on the Ripper -- novels where Sherlock Holmes meets him, and so on.

The problem with this book is that although Cornwell claims that she has solved the case beyond a shadow of a doubt and that The Ripper was noted artist Walter Sickert, her evidence is no more complete or compelling than say, Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's evidence that the Ripper was the royal physician Sir William Gull, or Hempel and Wheatley's evidence that the Ripper was Prince Edward. The problem is: Moore and Campbell's From Hell, on which the movie was based, and Hempel and Wheatley's Blood of the Innocent are admittedly fictional works, however well researched they may have been. The authors admit they are putting words and thoughts into the mouths and minds of historical figures to suit their own theory. Cornwell's book is meant to be non-fiction -- and yet she assigns thoughts and feelings to Walter Sickert that she can only presume he had, since he never left a confession. Yes, the circumstantial evidence is strong -- and in a modern court of law, that might even be enough to convict Sickert for the murders commonly credited to Jack the Ripper, if not the long list of Ripper-like murders in years following that the police did not assign to the Ripper.

I had to force myself to finish the book just to see if Cornwell would pull one fully damning piece of evidence out at the end. But the book ends as it starts: with the clear knowledge that this writer of popular crime fiction has let her quest for the Ripper's identity consumer her life professionally and personally, full in the knowledge that at least for the time being, her suspect is no more or less plausible than so many of the others that have been fingered in fiction over the years.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cornwall’s foray into her version of non-fiction is an entertaining read, but objective investigation it is not.

Even in recounting the, largely undisputed, facts of the canonical five murders, the author commits the cardinal sin of ignoring evidence that doesn’t support her theory, while manipulating and over-emphasising scraps of information or conjecture that do. She also crosses the line into personal judgment, going so far as to describe one hapless victim as “belong[ing] in a dustbin”!

When it comes to the artist Walter Sickert, her favoured suspect, her case is vaguely circumstantial at best. She may arguably have established the possibility that he wrote a few of the hundreds of (mostly hoax) “Ripper letters”. He may also have had a certain preoccupation with the Whitechapel series of murders and the later Camden Town murder, but that proves nothing at all. There’s not a scerrick of direct physical evidence against Sickert, or any other suspect to my knowledge. Yet there are at least a dozen others who present a more likely psychological and logistical fit for the crimes than Sickert.

For a more objective (factual) overview of the murders and the more likely suspects, I’d recommend Philip Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack the Ripper or Donald Rumbelow’s The Complete Jack the Ripper.

[Leo · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a true crime novel stating to have solved the jack the ripper case it isn't very good. But it had a huge sense of gossip and pointing fingers and was oddly intriguing to read. Sloth the first part of the book did put me up quite a bit. I do get that Sickert deformed private parts could be a good motive to those horrible crimes, although I found the amount of discriptves about it and the sheer amount of time she felt the need to point it out felt both disturbing and unnecessary. I wanted to scream "I get it!! He's penis is deformed!!" But do think my neighbors would have wondered what was going on. The need of solving the jack the ripper case might never cool down as I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Yes the forensic and such is getting a lot better but this case is very old and I doubt the evidence collected are much help. But fascinating nevertheless

[Shauna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Possibly the most horribly "researched" book I've ever read. Case closed, my ass.

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Patricia Cornwell has more money than sense. I can't believe that she spent a million dollars of her own money to research the true identity of Jack the Ripper.....and, despite the title, she has come away with little to no proof - she relies a great deal on mitochondrial DNA evidence that she admits is inconclusive, and paintings done by Sickert years after the fact. Sickert seems to have been an ass, and perhaps he was the Ripper, but Cornwall has done nothing in this book that would allow her valid use of the subtitle "Case Closed".

The only thing that keeps this book from one star are the great photographs included, especially those of the Ripper letters.

[Tiffany PSquared · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this during a time in my life when I wanted all mysteries solved! Unfortunately, my needs weren't fulfilled with this book. In fact, I think I had more questions afterward than I did when I started.
Am I satisfied that she may have, in fact, closed the case and the mystery of Jack the Ripper's elusive identity has finally been solved? Sorry, no. And I think that this is one mystery that I am content to leave just that.

[Erika · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hey lady! Don't write a book saying you solved a case when the best you can do every other line is something "probably" or "may certainly" have happened.

[Bérénice · Rating 2 out of 5]

(copied from my amazon review)
If a prosecutor went to court and presented a case against Walter Sickert with the evidence the author gives us in this book, the judge would laugh hysterically and require of the prosecutor to chose another profession.

So let's see what are some of the evidence that would make Sickert the killer. He knew a guy who was american and laughed with a "ha ha". In the ripper letters, the ripper writes "ha ha", so he's gotta be Sickert! Or because Sickert occasionally wrote on a certain type of paper, that happened to be the same type as the one used in the ripper letters, then it had to be him! And he wrote most of the 250 (????) letter jack the ripper sent to the police too! Also, Sickert drew pictures that were called jack the ripper and showed women being mutilated by a man, so he's guilty, who else would paint such things? Sickert was a sexually frustrated man who was very morbidic, selfish, weird, a pathological liar and since he lived in london, he had to be the ripper, right?

This all sounds very stupid doesn't it? This is just a brief summary of Cornwell's ridiculous evidence. She goes on and on about the type of paper used in the ripper letters, and does say that maybe even if the paper is the same it does not mean Sickert is the killer, yet she decides that he is. From the beginning she does not just accuse him, she tells the world that she knows and refers to the Ripper as Sickert. On what basis? That maybe he wrote one of the hoax letters because the handwriting was very similar. That's the only evidence i agree with, that maybe he wrote a letter. And so what? Does that make him the killer? How can it be proven that those letters were real anyway?

The couple points i agree with: he did not have to be a doctor like often suspected. You don't need to be one to open someone's abdomen and take their organs out. It's not surgery, no skill is needed. I further agreed with her as she explained how each murder was more and more gruesome which showed how he was learning his "craft".

I give this book two stars because i like the profile she makes of the killer, even if her whole sickert thing is a stretch of her imagination. And if she's right, it's by luck, not thanks to her investigating skills. Sickert could be the killer, just like every single other man living in London at the time, but she was not able to prove it one bit.

It'll never be solved, his name was Jack the Ripper, that's who he was, that was his name, not Walter Sickert, Ha ha!

[Susan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I cannot claim to be a Ripperologist, but I have read a fair number of books about the Ripper murders and none so arrogant and uninformative as this. Before I say any more, let me just say that I enjoy Patricia Cornwell's novels, she's a good writer, so I am simply unable to decide what on earth made her write this. In the beginning of this book, the author states that she became interested in the Ripper murders on a visit to London and was soon convinced that the artist Walter Sickert was responsible. Having decided on this, she then claims to have solved the murders and sets about, rather unconvincingly, attempting to convince us that this is the case.

Alarm bells began to ring when Cornwell states with utter conviction that the Ripper's first victim was Martha Tabram - a fact hotly disputed amongst those who have investigated the Ripper murders. Her total and utter conviction that she is right in everything is rather concerning. She has a rather naive view of Victorian London, is quite insulting about the people who lived there (they may have been poverty stricken, drunk, uneducated, illiterate etc, but no person deserves to be described as "rubbish") and discusses in great depth the way postmortems would currently be carried out now, which is interesting but ultimately irrelevant, as the murders happened so long ago. Bodies found in dark alleyways in the middle of the night and carted off to the nearest poorhouse or shed to be examined are obviously not going to be subject to the same scrutiny or scientific testing they would be now.

Now we come on the subject of Sickert - the man Cornwell says categorically was the Ripper. Her evidence is very flimsy. Many of the Ripper letters were written on paper that can be traced to him - if we accept this it says he may have written some letters to the press or police, but the writers of the letters was not necessarily the murderer. Again and again she makes assumptions - about his health, his childhood, his marriage, his whereabouts, his love of disguises and rented rooms where he could work in private, the fact he may or may not have defaced a visitors book at a guest house... Sickert may have been a very odd man - he certainly had an obsession with Jack the Ripper, he claimed to stay in a room the Ripper lived in, he was compulsive, a news addict, a prolific writer, he liked his models to be extremely unnattractive and was certainly attracted to the underlife of the city. Does this him a murderer? I would have preferred to have read a balanced account - this was not it and I remain unconvinced of Cornwell's arguments.

[Janet Roger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spread-eagled, naked on rucked bedcovers in some crummy backstreet crib. Is the woman alive or dead? Is a lurking figure in the shadows, her murderer? Patricia Cornwall’s work of non-fiction detection wants us to look at Walter Sickert’s merciless take on the underbelly of London and expects, after some persuasive argument, to agree that for once and all, beyond reasonable doubt, the case is closed.

But is it? For my money it’s not. Sickert’s Camden Town Murder Series was meant to shock. Painted in a period when gothic horror was in full flight, enjoyed and loathed at the same time and tongues hanging out for more, wherever it could be found. And in 1908 after a gruesome set of murders in North – not East - London Sickert got himself subjects and settings gruesome enough to satisfy most tastes. Which is not to say he murdered the victims.

Patricia Cornwell tries her best, compiles evidence, tries to fit it to the facts and when it doesn’t, points to Sickert’s paintings as though they are photographic proof of the artist’s involvement in the Ripper killings.

DNA … no significant match. Fingerprints … circumstantial. There’s still another book in this for someone with a brighter idea.


You may enjoy some other of my related reviews:

Virginia Woolf: Walter Sickert: A Conversation
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Stella Bowen: Drawn from Life
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Arybo ✨ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Non voglio più leggere questo libro.

Davvero. Mette i brividi. Ti fa immaginare Jack lo Squartatore ad ogni angolo, che tu stia a casa o in città.


Walter Sickert - The Camden Town Nude - c. 1908


La scrittura della Cornwell è diretta, senza fronzoli, non indora la pillola. Descrive benissimo le situazioni, gli eventi, l’atmosfera di Londra nel 1888.
Attraverso una ricostruzione piena di prove riscopre il “vero” Jack lo Squartatore e ne studia la personalità.
Un lavoro lunghissimo e pesantissimo, difficilissimo e macabro (non posso scrivere macabrissimo).
Non mi impressiono facilmente, non mi dà fastidio leggere scene raccapriccianti o libri su delitti crudeli. Ma qui stiamo su un altro livello: si tratta di delitti veri, reali, accaduti nella realtà. Fanno venire i brividi.

L’approfondimento sull’epoca vittoriana è fatto magistralmente. In questo libro si può leggere della mentalità degli uomini (e delle donne) di quegli anni, delle loro passioni per il teatro e le corse, dei problemi sociali di Londra. Si parla della condizione delle donne (dalle prostituite alle grandi dame), si parla della medicina del periodo e della “nascita” della medicina forense. Si discute sulla psicologia dei psicopatici, oltre a parlare in generale di diverse malattie mentali e malattie fisiche.



London, East End, 1888


Se da una parte sono stata molto “felice” di apprendere tutte queste nozioni (che mi hanno fatto capire come l’autrice di Stalking Jack the Ripper non abbia neanche cercato su Wikipedia le informazioni basi sul periodo storico), dall’altra parte non vedevo l’ora che finisse questo “film horror”, queste continue descrizioni inquietanti e macabre, che mettono ancora più paura se si pensa che tutto è avvenuto veramente, a Londra, per le strade di Whitechapel.




Non so fino a quanto l’identità del killer sia azzeccata, forse si tratta di una persona totalmente differente, in fondo a Londra vivevano migliaia di persone nel 1888. So solo che la Cornwell porta sufficienti prove per ritenere “chiuso” il caso di Jack lo Squartatore.


🕯 NEWTs readathon (August 2018): History of magic, exceed expectations (read a book at least five years old)

[Alyss · Rating 1 out of 5]

After months, I finally buckled and put this one down... I should have taken it into the yard and shot it... It literally was that bad...

[Maria Thomarey · Rating 3 out of 5]

2’5

[Carla · Rating 2 out of 5]

Patricia Cornwell apresenta na obra “Jack, o Estripador – Retrato de um Assassino”, o que eu considero ser apenas “mais uma” teoria acerca da identidade de Jack, o Estripador.
Não apreciei a estrutura narrativa do livro que pretende ser um “documento” em que se deslinda a identidade do homem que cometeu a série de assassínios brutais no East End de Londres (e possivelmente noutros locais) a partir de 1888… As ideias, os factos, as asserções por vezes não têm grande ligação entre si, sendo introduzidos um pouco ao acaso (ou pelo menos assim parece…).
Este deveria ser um livro com um ritmo bem mais cadenciado do que aquele com que me deparei e deveria apresentar novos dados absolutamente convincentes que provocassem no leitor a desconfortável sensação de que um mistério com mais de 100 anos tinha finalmente sido desvendado contudo, na minha opinião, o ritmo é irregular e a autora faz demasiadas suposições, utiliza demasiadas vezes a expressão “não sei” o que me parece uma clara inconsistência para quem afirma no fim da obra “… ele foi apanhado.”.
É certo que são revelados alguns interessantes dados “físicos” relativos, por exemplo, às marcas de água dos papéis de carta utilizados pelo estripador nas cartas enviadas à polícia e jornais que, por coincidência ou não, correspondem aos utilizados pelo pintor Walter Richard Sickert, o Jack, o Estripador de Patricia Cornwell. Mas depois há tantas suposições, tantas conjecturas, tantas hipóteses sem base suficientemente sólida que não consegui “agarrar” esta teoria.
Já tive acesso a várias teorias a respeito da identidade de Jack, o Estripador e esta revelou-se como apenas mais uma que, muito honestamente, não me convenceu.

[Donna · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's interesting to observe how "common knowledge" sometimes lags behind real knowledge. Just the other day, I heard someone on television say what I've heard all my life: that the true identity of Jack the Ripper has never been discovered.

Not true. Patricia Cornwell figured out who he was, made her case compellingly, and closed the file in 2002. The only mystery left in my mind is how some people can read the book and not be convinced. It should not be surprising that the murderer turned out to be someone who was cultured, urbane, and very, very smart. "Successful" psychopaths often match that description. They can be very good at "hiding in plain sight."

I'm reading this book for the third time, now--and I know "who done it." What's fascinating is not the gruesome details about the six murders originally attributed to the Ripper (he actually committed many more) but rather the historical detail and the psychological profile of an incredibly brilliant and complex man.

[Zing · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book because Patricia Cornwall presented quite a stirring case for her argument that the killer was a rather famous artist named Walter Sickert. She compared pictures painted by the artist with photos from the crime scene and of the victims, postmortem, and the similarities gave me shivers! She created this protrait of Sickert with such passion, convinced she really has solved this case, that I couldn't help but get excited, too. It didn't hurt that I read it the week leading up to a trip to London, finishing the book on the plane just before landing. I had a chance to walk around in one of Jack the Ripper's hunting grounds, making it all the more exciting. It wasn't until I got back to the States that I was able to do some research on my own that I learned just how far off the experts consider Cornwall to be. Honestly, it was a fun read and I don't regret reading it, but my advice to anyone who may be interested: enjoy the hype, but take it all with a tiny grain of salt!

[James Glass · Rating 4 out of 5]

Patricia Cornwell delves into the Jack the Ripper case. There's probably not many adults in this world who don't know the name of the serial killer who murdered women in the White Chapel District in London.
She claims to have identified who The Ripper was. I believe her insight and knowledge of the murders, papers, and other evidence during the killings is very well portrayed in her book. I'm not entirely convinced the true killer is identified, but of all the evidence and other books I've read about Jack the Ripper, I believe her investigation of the crimes to be the most accurately portrayed on the subject. Even if you believe or don't believe Cornwell identified who Jack the Ripper is, this book is a great read.

[Renata · Rating 2 out of 5]

first of all, this is the most ambitious book title I've ever experienced.

second of all, I cannot believe what a huge percentage of this is spent talking about Walter Sickert's (allegedly) deformed penis!!!!!!!!!! so much!!!!!!!!

finally, I simply do not care who was Jack the Ripper, not even if he had a normal penis

http://www.frowl.org/worstbestsellers...

[GoldGato · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oy.

I'm one of those folks who is forever entranced by the Jack the Ripper saga. Victorian crime in the grimy, fogbound, poverty-ridden streets of London. I've even done the walking tour. So, I picked up this volume with high anticipation.

Oy.

Prior to this, I had never read a Patricia Cornwell book, so I was not a follower of her mystery books. Safe to say, after making it through this "expose" of the Ripper, I won't be reading any other Cornwell books. She could have made her case fairly quickly, but instead she goes on and on and on and on. Since I have always felt the responsibility of reading a book from cover-to-cover, this meant torture. By the time I finished, I had lost interest in Jack the Lad.

In fact, this is the kind of book that has to sit in quarantine on a bookshelf, because it's so creepy the other books want nothing to do with it. Like goths in high school.

Book Season = Winter (hope for a blackout)

[Kph · Rating 2 out of 5]

so, patricia cornwell has solved the ripper case. she's convinced she has; and she doesn't tire to try to convince you, too. which makes portrait of a killer an extremely annoying read. you'll be forced to wade through plenty of the brackwater of standard bourgeois reaction to anything and anybody involved with prostitution (hey compassion - hey contempt!), the standard true-crime-solved insight about the psychological mechanism (yes, singular: one mechanism, and one mechanism only) that produces serial killers ("the ripper hated women - sickert has had surgery on his penis as a boy - sickert is the ripper"), and some wailing and whining about the hardships of the london police force in the dying century.
cornwell's final argument is based on handwriting samples. haha! anyways. fun to read alongside with from hell; and if it's just to see how ripper speculation can be cool, too.

[Rabbit {Paint me like one of your 19th century gothic heroines!} · Rating 3 out of 5]

Buddy read with the awesome Sarah! We read different publications of the same book, which I initially thought was a completely different book.

Disclaimer: I recently had a med adjustment, so I've been really drowsy until my body adjusts (usually about 2 weeks), so I'm not sure how much this is me vs the book. I need to re-read this one eventually. I also skimmed starting 50% in. If it wasn't for the buddy read, I would have put this one on hiatus until I was in a better head space.

Pros:
-She really did her research and put a ton of effort in here.

Cons:
-I found myself bored a lot of the time (see disclaimer above).
-The pacing and the flow felt off. I felt off-kilter a lot of the time (see disclaimer above).
-I think better editing could have made it more concise and flow better.

I'm going with my default rating of 3 stars, until I re-read and give a more accurate rating.