crime and criminals

To accept that the case of Jack the Ripper has been closed by this book and the evidence it presents is presumptuous. But I think that a valid argument has been made for Walter Richard Sickert as the killer. Most of the primary source material for the claims are from the 1800s rather than referencing material written and interpreted by intermediary sources.

I would have liked to have seen more samples of the Jack the Ripper letters and Walter Sickert's handwriting until I would have been allowed to draw my own conclusions. The other murders mentioned, but not originally attributed to the Ripper, could have been the work of the Ripper or a copycat - I will not comment further on that.

What I truly found fascinating was the examination of the evidence with the comparison of how modern forensic science would handle the same evidence interesting in the extreme. It is amazing to see how far science and criminal justice has come in just over a hundred years.

This book is not written to transport the reader to the dark, damp streets of London in 1888. This book is written in a way as to allow a 21st century reader interested in the Ripper case a chance to look at the evidence, procedures, and police work of that time. A resident of that era would not realize that the bull's-eye lantern carried by the police and shown in the papers as "beacons of light shining on the victims" were little better by our standards than a flashlight with dead batteries.

In truth, I find myself more aware of how dark and squalid the world of Jack the Ripper would have been. We see movies, but they must be lit until we can see what is happening -- when in actually most of the Ripper's victims could probably see no more than a few feet in front of them at the time of their deaths. I suspect to get a true taste of the nights would require one to close a room until it is completely dark then light a single candle, not one with a well trimmed wick, but one that gutters and spits in the melting wax and slightest drafts.

Whether or not a case is made does not matter to me. I found this book a fresh look at both a series of old murders and the time in which the occurred. In many ways, the Ripper case is no longer about who did it but the society that spawned the killer and the succeeding generations' interpretations of the evidence and society.

It was an excellent read, though it did jar at times in the beginning when the voice of the modern forensic scientist stepped in. But I quickly became accustomed to the intrusion and welcomed the insights it brought.

Was Walter Richard Sickert Jack the Ripper? Perhaps. I know that were I on the jury I would be looking very carefully at the evidence present and how it was processed.

If anything, this book is perhaps proof that the Jack the Ripper obsession will never die, if only because it's unlikely it will ever be solved, at least 'conclusively'.

The book is arrogantly sub-titled 'Case Closed', and of course, it's anything but a closed case that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, or that James Maybrick was the Ripper, or Lewis Carroll was the Ripper, or the royals were involved, etc.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole business anymore. There are now close to 20 suspects in the Ripper case, and indeed in the 1990s alone quite a few new suspects appeared on the scene thanks to research and fanaticism on the part of various writers. Now Cornwall has thrown herself into it, and it's somewhat troubling.

Of course, at the end of the day, there's no smoking gun. There hasn't been a smoking gun, and given that the murders took place in 1888, and evidence and various records are long gone, it's highly unlikely there will be a smoking gun. The whole business already inspired someone to forge a 'Ripper' diary and try to pass it off. This has since been debunked numerous times, with the author himself swearing that it's a forgery, yet people still believe it. Every year someone discovers someone who was in London in 1888, hated women, etc, etc.

Folks who are interested in the Ripper may peruse this book, but it's clear from the 'evidence' and the layout that this is anything but 'Case Closed', if anything, it says something about Cornwall, who writes about her own doubt to this theory. And admittedly, while there are some nice coincidences, and Sickert indeed may have been a bit off his rocker, and indeed may have penned Ripper letters (of which there were many fakes), it's no more convincing than several other theories of the past ten years.

Notice the '71% off' price tag of this book, which shows you something in comparison to other books on the subject. There are much better books about the whole case, and you'll likely learn more from those if you care. It would be nice to put the whole Ripper case to rest, finally. The energy and resources some folks have put into 'solving' this business is becoming more alarming. Recommended if you must, but it's hardly a 'final chapter'.

I can't think of another character assassination that is as unfounded as this, based as it is on pure conjecture and highly selective and inconclusive 'evidence'.

And just think of the irony of a writer who has based her entire written output on lingering over the sordid details of murder and mutilation claiming that Sickert was a violent psychopath because of the subject-matter of his paintings. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

This book reveals more about the neuroses and obsessions of Cornwell's own sick mind than it does about Sickert. Rather than 'case closed' on Sickert, it is 'case closed' on Cornwell.

Cornwell's reputation as a writer of FICTION remains intact.