Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper/Case Closed Patricia Cornwell 2002 0-399-14932-5 Putnam 387 pages/ $ 27.95

As Ms. Cornwell did in her prologue and first chapter, I shall come right to the point. I found Ms. Cornwell’s thread of evidence to be about as logical, convincing, and amusing as the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game. Unlike Ms. Cornwell, I will cite a direct reference from her text to support my claim. She quotes a letter dated October 4, 1888, filed with the Whitechapel Murders papers at the Corporation of London Records office as saying: “My theory of the crimes is that the criminal has been badly disfigured --- possibly had his privy member destroyed --- & he is now revenging himself on the sex by the atrocities.” Ms. Cornwell writes of the purple pencil used to write the letter and that it is signed, “enigmatically”, by “Scotus”. I now quote from Ms. Cornwell herself: “which could be Latin for Scotsman. “Scotch” can mean a shallow incision or to cut. Scotus could also be a strange and erudite reference to Johannes Scotus Eriugena, a ninth-century theologian and teacher of grammar and dialects.” Ms. Cornwell says that a Walter Sickert was treated for a penile fistula that left him disfigured. This disfigurement is impossible to verify “because cremated bodies reveal no tales of the flesh.” She offers no proof of this disfigurement. She determined the case closed and the killer to be Walter Sickert following similar leaps of logic.

In reading the book you’ll see DNA evidence that ties Sickert to Ripper letters. She fails to mention that 1% to 10% of the population has that type of DNA and that the Ripper letters she refers to are considered by most experts in the field to be hoaxes. She also painstakingly analyzes the paper the some of the letters are written on, finding some letters were written on the same watermarked paper as paper found in Sickert’s household. That this paper was produced by one of the largest mills of his day and widely available isn’t mentioned.

From letters actually written and signed by Sickert, it is apparent that he was abroad during four of the six murders. Her only proof that he was, indeed, in London at this time refers once again to the aforementioned letters and the supposition that he could have traveled back from France to London and back via train or ferry.

The evidence that galls me is her interpretation of Sickert's art. In Ennui, a painting by Sickert, she says “Leaning over the left should of the woman in the painting on the wall appears to be the partial face of a man coming up behind her.” I went online, looked at the painting and a sketch for the painting. Ms. Cornwell has a lively imagination and an untrained eye. She states: “I have avoided the recycled inaccuracies that have metastasized from one book to another.” In this, she is also wrong. She has narrowed any inaccuracies down to a chosen suspect and thrown out any evidence, theories and depositions that don’t support her claim. If she were prosecutor going to court with this case, the case would be thrown out and she would be severely chastised.

Jennifer Jordan