Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In 2002, crime author Patricia Cornwell wrote a very contentious book about Jack the Ripper, titled, “Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper – Case Closed.” In that book she recollected how, after a visit to London , she became interested in the Ripper case and concluded that artist Walter Sickert was responsible for the killings. I have to say that I, and many others, were unconvinced by her arguments. Considering the terrible ratings the book got and the way it was pretty much savaged, I was surprised to see this Kindle Single appearing. However, despite my misgivings, I decided to read this and see what her latest conclusions were. I was curious to see whether she would defend some of her earlier suggestions, such as Martha Tabram being his first victim (hotly disputed by Ripperologists) or the many assumptions she made about Sickert himself. In fact, this seems to be little more than a rant, in which the author defends her first book, whilst also making some rather wild accusations about Sickert continuing to kill; murdering many more women and children than she first suspected and generally confusing the issues outlined in her first arguments even more. From the beginning, Cornwell admits that she is asked constantly about her conviction that Jack the Ripper was British artist Walter Sickert – more than anything else she has done. Considering her successful career as a crime writer, I am sure that this must rankle and, indeed, Ms Cornwell’s hackles are up in this book. She questions aloud - why is she so sure? “How did he get away with serial homicides for more than a century?” Hmmm, she is still obviously convinced that he IS, without doubt, the Ripper, but he is only one of a number of proposed possible suspects and not a front runner in any other book I have read about the case. Again, she shows disturbing certainty – “I feel sure,” crops up time and time again – that Sickert followed the murders, that he read all about the Ripper, that he wrote letters to the police. However, even if he DID write to the police, the fact that he was the killer does not necessarily follow. He was obviously quite obsessed with the case, but then so were many people living in the city of London at the time. In this book, Cornwell considers her decision to write her book on the Ripper. She claims it gave her no pleasure and that weird happenings occurred during the time she was writing her book. If she is obsessed by the Ripper, than possibly she needs to take a step back and distance herself from something which is obviously causing her distress. She bemoans the fact that, wherever she goes, she is taken to view gruesome sights. Presumably, specialists think they are aiding her writing, but it obviously disturbs her – and she would not be normal if it didn’t. However, a chance tour of Scotland Yard and a comment about Walter Sickert led to her book and a furore she obviously did not anticipate. She discusses her early research on the case and yet still dismisses other Ripperologists theories as ‘utter nonsense.’ One of the problems I had with the first book, also occurs here. Cornwell asks, “what if modern science were applied?” The problem is, it wasn’t and now it can’t be. She complains of being ‘ridiculed’ and ‘resented’ and finally admits to being ‘too adamant….’ Again, also, she puts modern judgements on those inhabitants of Victorian London – too drunk, too poor, too uneducated… In fact, considering the distain in which she seems to hold those concerned with the Ripper murders, it is confusing why she seems to so concerned about the murder of a series of women little known for their sobriety. In fact, her obsession has little to do with the victims and far more to do with her desire to label Sickert as the Ripper and for us to agree with her. Does she answer her critics in this ill advised ebook or simply defend her position? She tries to answer criticisms aimed at her, but comes across badly. Even in the ‘About the Author’ section it states, “Cornwell has written a definitive book about Jack the Ripper.” Well, no, she didn’t. She hasn’t here either; she has taken the evidence she found and fitted it around a theory, while discarding anything which disagrees with her stance. She is obviously resentful of being questioned, especially by any British Ripperologists, and is too eager to state her case as the correct one. Personally, I do not think Walter Sickert was the Ripper, but I would be more willing to read her argument, if it were a little less biased. As it is, I think Ms Cornwell should go back to writing her very successful crime novels and let go of this obsession which is obviously causing her enough distress that she feels the need to answer her critics in this way. Frankly, this whole book sounds like a long complaint of how she has been treated and, although I am sad she feels so resentful and ill-used, this book does not help her case.