case closed by Patricia Cornwell

[kensei]

Thanks for that comment. But I will never accept Barnett- one simply does not do THAT to someone one has once loved. Nor Druitt- the only evidence seems to be that his family suspected him and no one has ever been able to explain to me exactly WHY.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I Agree, I actually give her a double A for effort, infact i would place him in the top five, along with Barnett, Druitt, Fleming, and a unknown Market porter.
I may be going mad , but using all circumstancial form , I could place him in the top two.
Regards Richard.

[kensei]

I agree with you. I also read the book but I have no idea how she really got to Walter Sickert. I think this is something that will never be solved. Although it is interesting trying to figure it all out.

Hi- I think Cornwell made it pretty clear that she "got to Walter Sickert" through her meeting with Scotland Yard detective John Grieve when she was on a research trip to London for her crime novels and he took her on a Ripper tour, something she claimed to know little to nothing about previously. Grieve is supposed to be the one who told her something along the lines of, "I've always wondered about that Walter Sickert fellow, I think you ought to check him out." And when she did- ok, yes, she did take a lot of flying leaps. But when she examined the details of his life, if you go over her book with a fine tooth comb and list every little bit of circumstantial evidence she presents that seem to fit with the general profile of a budding serial killer's mindset, that list has far more than just a few points on it. She does the same thing in trying to connect him to the Ripper crimes, and to other crimes that came after into the early 20th century. (She thinks Martha Tabram was his first murder.)

Like certain others have said, I had a general interest in the Ripper case and very basic knowledge of victims and chief suspects before I read Cornwell's book, which really made me delve into the case in depth and become an amature Ripperologist. I thought Sickert seemed likely until I learned more that seemed to rule him out, and out of the whole motley list of suspects I'd now place him somewhere in the middle, nowhere near the top but not at the bottom either. (And I'm suspicious about his involvement in the Camdentown murder, even if he wasn't the Ripper.) But basically, I don't slam Cornwell like a lot of others do. I think she was probably wrong, but no more wrong than a lot of other authors have been about their favorite suspects and I definitely give her a "A" for effort.

Oh, by the way to Gary who started this thread- I hate to correct you but the title of the book doesn't say "Portrait of a Serial Killer," just "Portrait of a Killer."

[lynnovosel]

I agree with you. I also read the book but I have no idea how she really got to Walter Sickert. I think this is something that will never be solved. Although it is interesting trying to figure it all out.

[Celesta]

Hello Gary, and welcome.

I read Cornwell's book twice before I started lurking here. Basically, Cornwell took a large leap when she decided (or assumed) that the Ripper letters were legitimate, ie written by the Ripper, despite the view by many Ripperologists that they are not. I understand her reasoning, but she made the wrong assumption. The evidence didn't pan out as she had hoped either and we're not much further along than we were.

I hope you enjoy the site.

Cel

[Graham]

Gary,

have a look at the Suspects forum and open the Walter Sickert threads. All you want to know and more!

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jenny,
Six million dollars of poor research, now that is a waste, seriously hats off to the woman, she spent a aweful lot of money, in a attempt to put old Walter in the frame, and has left a legacy, that mayby he sent a Ripper letter or two.
But us Ripperologists still dismiss that possibility as irrelevent, 'so what I hear', and when i suggest what if it could be proven that other suspects such as Barnett, Fleming, Cutbush, Druitt etc, etc, may have written such posts to the police/press, would be still say 'so what'.
If we did then we are all mad.
Sickert is a suspect, albeit not one that is top of the list, but he is far better then some.
Richard.

[babybird67]

hi Gary

that is the book i read that first got me interested in the case...well, actually, i saw the TV documentary first, which prompted me to buy the book to see what research had been carried out.

My opinion is: Cornwell convinced herself she had discovered who the Ripper was, then set about trying to assemble evidence to support her supposition. In my view, the evidence should be looked at before one comes to the conclusion of who did it. The research she carried out was of very poor quality and even had the DNA testing been able to establish a link between Sickert and one of the letters, all this would have established was that he had written one of the letters, which is a far cry from establishing he was the man who was terrorising the women of London as the Ripper.

She makes a lot of his interest in the Ripper and his painting of the room the Ripper may have stayed in...having an interest in crime does not make one a criminal...after all, we are all here, yet none of us are the Ripper! I think he was just an early Ripperologist myself...and who can blame him?

Welcome to Casebook, by the way, and do post your own thoughts on the book and on any of the other subjects you find interesting.



Jen

[garydobbs]

HI all,

I am new here and hope this is the correct way to start a thread. I am currently reading Patricia Cornwell's Portrait of a serial killer: Case Closed. And I was wondering what is the general opinion on this book?