Portrait of a Killer. (Taschenbuch)

Of course Cornwell claim that the artist William Sickert was Jack the Ripper is open to debate. We need to remember that EVERYTHING involving this case is open to debate. One of the initial decisions you have to make in trying to reason out the real identity of the Ripper is to determine who his victims were. Even the acceptance of the canonical five (Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Kelly) is a basic assumption that is easily called into question. Stride and Eddows were both killed the same night; Strides body was not mutilated, the assumption being the killer was interrupted. The horrible mutilation to Eddows' face is assumed to be because the Ripper was enraged that he had been interrupted in his first killing. But what if Eddows had not been killed? Would we still assume Stride was a victim of the Ripper? If Eddows had been the sole victim that night what motivation would we have ascribed to her mutilation? Any and all assumptions made to deduce the Ripper's identity are debatable.

For most people familiar with this case the most astounding part of Cornwell's case against Sickert is the argument that he wrote MOST of the Ripper letters. The assumption has always been that only one or two of the letters might have been real, so Cornwell is making a radical argument in this regard. Ultimately this is the strongest part of Cornwell's case, especially given her repeated observation that these letters are confessions as far as the law is concerned. Given the prolific number of letters Sickert wrote to newspapers in his life, it would not be farfetched that he would do the same thing as the Ripper.

The other key part of Cornwell's argument is the psychological profile of Sickert. The problem is that this is more of a premise in the book than a cogently laid out argument, with bits and pieces scattered throughout the book. I think the problem is more organizational than argumentation and I would have appreciated a more clinical presentation of the profile.

The weakest part of Cornwell's case is also her strongest. Cornwell dredges up everything from Sickert's life and work that she can use to pin these crimes on the artist (e.g., suggesting an unopened letter by his first wife given to her sister contained suspicions Sickert was the Ripper) and there will be times when you think she is pushing it. But the sheer volume of accusations is such that you have to be open to the possibility that some of them are valid. From an argumentative standpoint, she does not have to be right on ALL of these accusations to prove her point; she only needs to be right on some of them.

One of the things that makes me think Cornwell might be right are the argument raised against her thesis. Cornwell repeatedly points out that she does not have "hard" proof of Sickert's guilt, so pointing out the inconclusiveness of her DNA matches is irrelevant. Yes, there is evidence that Sickert was in France during some of the killings, but Cornwell deals specifically with the problems of that evidence (Sickert claimed to be in France with friends who were no longer there, etc.). To be fair, it is hard to make substantial arguments against Cornwell's case in the context of a review limited to 1000 words, but you still have to deal with the specific points she raises. In the end Cornwell rests her case on an accumulation of coincidences sufficient enough to have Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve and an expert on the Jack the Ripper crimes to endorse her conclusion by saying he would be happy to put the case before the crown prosecutor.

One of the other things that works against "Portrait of a Killer" is that Cornwell uses more of a disjointed narrative structure than an argumentative one. The six murders that Cornwell ascribes to Jack the Ripper serve as a basic chronology for the book, but interwoven are chapters devoted to various parts of Walter Sickert's life that are unstuck in time. At one point I was convinced that maybe an editor had decided to rearrange these chapters and that I might be able to put all of them in a more traditional chronological order. With each of the murders Cornwell provides the main details and then talks about the limitations of forensic medicine at that time in contrast to what could be done today. "Portrait of a Killer" would work better if it were divided into a section that looks at the murders and then another making the case against Sickert.

The book is illustrated with tinted autopsy pictures of the Ripper's five canonical victims, including one of the horrible human wreckage of Mary Kelly. Cornwell uses these images, not only as a way of remembering the victims, but usually with the additional goal of showing how they are reflected in Sickert's artwork. Certainly the book would have been enhanced by more reproductions of the various works by Sickert that Cornwell alludes to in making her case. As it is, the key examples here have to do with the Ripper letters, the Lizard House guest book, and sketches known to be by Sickert.

Despite the presentational problems, "Portrait of a Killer" is going to be required reading for Ripperologists, all of whom will make of it what they will. Just be sure to read it before you dismiss it (or diss it). This is not something akin to the creative fantasy of Alan Moore's "From Hell."