Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #70330 in Books
• Published on: 2003-09-01
• Binding: Paperback
• 432 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Few books receive the kind of pre-publicity that Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper--Case Closed generated. Some of it was good, some of it not so good, but all was calculated to get reader interest running at fever pitch. In fact, Patricia Cornwell's actions in trying to solve the world's most famous serial-killer mystery (just who was Jack the Ripper?) have been highly controversial, but since when has controversy undercut interest in a book? And who better than a writer whose name is synonymous with the scientific solving of crime to tackle London's legendary mass murderer?

Using the methods of her character Kay Scarpetta, Cornwell's forensic investigation has pointed the bloody finger of guilt at a figure who has long figured prominently in the Ripper files. The investigation here is an intriguing mix of the personal and the professional: as well as orchestrating a Scarpetta-like search for the identity of the Ripper, Cornwell involves several very personal connections with the task she has set herself, and this is no dry thesis. Needless to say, the more gruesome aspects of this famously grisly case give no pause to a woman who has taken us into the grimmer aspects of forensics with her unsqueamish protagonist, and we are spared no details here (but who would purchase Portrait of a Killer if they had delicate sensibilities?). The arguments here are intelligently marshalled, and laid out with the precision and attention to detail of Cornwell's novels.

In order to prove her thesis, Cornwell purchased (and made tests on) some great works of art, but the tale of how she arrived at her highly contentious conclusions is quite as fascinating as one of the Scarpetta books. You may not agree with her, but you will not put this book down. --Barry Forshaw

Publishers' Weekly
'Compassionate, intense, superbly argued, fluidly written and impossible to put down ... the most important true-crime book ... of the 21st century.'

Mail on Sunday
'Particularly gripping is the way she uses up-to-the minute technology.'

Customer Reviews

An Insult to Ripperology
"Portrait of a Killer" is interesting, but as a serious Jack the Ripper investigation it's an absolute disgrace. Cornwell undertakes a total character assassination of the artist Walter Sickert - she even hints he may have harboured paedophilic tendencies -, without proving much other than that parts of his work reflect a certain disturbed mind.

A lot of the passages in the book are pure conjecture, based on logic rather than hard facts. There are lots of "if"s, "assuming that"s, "supposing thats", "had ... happened"s and "Sickert would have"s etc. throughout the book, and Cornwell constantly admits not knowing, or not having access to, certain facts, such as Sickert's whereabouts on given dates etc, and that she's unable to prove certain things. She's only human of course, but that's completely unacceptable when she's publicly accusing someone of some of the most horrific crimes ever to have been committed.

One of the other things I didn't like about the book was the sheer arrogance and the total lack of respect she shows for the police officers of the age (she even refers to them as "dolts" admittedly through the eyes of the Ripper). And whilst criticising their methodology she also digresses to tell us how wonderful the methods and resources are for such cases in Virginia, US - why didn't she discuss more how Britain has advanced in this aspect?.

The worst thing is her confession very early on in the book of not having read any Ripper books; of not knowing anything about the Ripper murders, and of not knowing that prostitutes were his selected victims (wasn't the last one the main and most basic fact on case?). And yet here she is announcing to the whole world she's solved one of its greatest murder mysteries.

Don't bother with this book if you want to read a serious theory on who Jack the Ripper was. This book is pure sensationalism, relying on Cornwell's reputation as an author of crime fiction. It should never have been published.

Best served with a pinch of salt..."Ha ha!"
Not the most objective analysis I've ever read, in Portrait of a Killer Patricia Cornwell determinedly presents us with the killer (in her opinion) from the word go. The book undeniably starts with a bang and grabs your attention, but it did raise my eyebrows. In the manner of the stereotypical arrogant American she steams straight in. Case Closed?! Who says?! Chapter one shouts "Ok. Listen up Readers. This is whodunit. Period." This caused a very slight rising of the proverbial hackles, but I read on.

Cornwell goes on to back up her theory with "evidence". Using modern forensic techniques such as testing for mitochondrial DNA and psychological profiling, she seeks to prove that Jack the Ripper was in fact British Impressionist artist Walter Sickert. Well thank goodness for that. One of the greatest unsolved crimes of the last 150 years has finally been worked out. Where would we bumbling, backward Brits have been without good old Trish to help us?

Gimme a break!

The book is interesting. Notwithstanding Cornwell's, at times, atrocious grammar I learnt a good few things both about the artist and the gruesome murders that took place in the East End in the late 1880s, a period which has always interested me and, like 99% of the population, I have a slightly morbid fascination with the most famous serial killer of all time. It's just the tone of the book that irks me (the last line of the book is priceless!). Cornwell is so vehement, yet she frequently uses phrases like "Sickert could have done..." or "Sickert may have done...". Occasionally she is courageous enough to use "he would have done...". A large majority of her evidence is circumstantial and supposition. Walter Sickert may have been Jack the Ripper. But equally he may not have been. Handwriting experts have proved that he wrote a significant number of the hundreds of Ripper letters received by the Police, but that doesn't necessarily mean he went out and committed the murders. The DNA evidence taken from the stamps on the envelopes is far from conclusive due to the time elapsed and the contamination of the samples over the years. Cornwell says that the results don't prove that Sickert was the Ripper but, she says, "they don't prove that he wasn't". It feels she is clutching at straws somewhat.

However, I still enjoyed the book. It reads in parts like a novel, as it is of course written by a hugely successful and talented forensic crime novelist. As I said in the title - take with a little pinch of salt and it should be much easier digested.

An English Vitcorian serial killer finally caught by an American writier? No,
I brought this book in 2008, long after the hype about it had died down.

Having seen a tv show where this book was mentioned I was looking forward to sitting down and engrossing myself in Cornwell's version of events. The book begins with Cornwell complaining about how writing the book had adversly effected her life...the first question that popped into my mind was 'why do it then?'. Firstly, I personally do not believe it is a good idea for the author to use the first chapter of book to complain about writing it, simply it gives a bad impression.

As other reviewers have mentioned, this book is not written in a coherant manner and seems very muddled a pionts. This is quite unlike Cornwell. There does not seem to be any logical flow to the text and no structure to the book. It jumps rather randomly from murder to murder and time period to time period.

Having spent the last 3 years of my life studying at university for a history degree, one thing that REALLLY gets my goat is counter-factual history. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN SO DON'T MENTION IT! Counter-factual history is irrelevent and should be treated as such. Cornwell bases alot of her book on counter-factual history stating "its obvious that if...". If it could've happened in a different reality then don't mention it! This use of counyer-factual history is used to back up weak arguements that don't have much supporting evidence.

As for her DNA findings and hand writing comparisions...I suggest that you read the final chapter of Paul Begg's book 'Jack The Ripper: The Facts'. Begg's section on Strickett explains the flaws in this section of her anaylisis very well.

Also, most importantly, JACK THE RIPPER WAS NOT IN 21st CENTURY VIRGINIA. Quite simply I don't car how it would have beed delt with in Virgina today. This is once again counter-factual and useless.Discussing the merits of Virginia's system has no bearing on turn of the century London. I am fairly insulted that an American writer can take it upon her self to demean the work of the 19th century met police for not fully understanding fingerprints or working to a system simular to Virgnia today.

Overall Cornwell brings up some interesting points, but the book is poorly written and is not a historical account but a speculative piece of work. It lacks supporting evidence.