In this first part of a two-part Ripper special, I take a look at Portrait of a Killer by Patricia Cornwell — a book that made bold claims about the identity of Jack the Ripper. Two decades later, how convincing does the theory remain?
This is a book that has been in my house for twenty-three years. It’s one of my mum’s. I distinctly remember when she bought it because it was written by one of her favourite authors, at the time, and my mum told me that Patricia Cornwell was pretty certain she had identified Jack the Ripper. Of course, I was amazed. I didn’t know a whole lot about the case at the time – I’d have been about thirteen – but if you grow up in Britain then at some point in your life you will hear about Jack the Ripper.
There is also a tie-in documentary, which I remember us all watching at the time, and I remember being pretty convinced at the time. In short, Patricia Cornwell is convinced that the true identity of Jack the Ripper is none other than German-born painter, Walter Sickert. I think it’s also worth noting that Cornwell spent a great deal of her own money on this case and I’m sure some of the top forensic methods at the time were used. She also talks to FBI profilers who their professional opinion on how they would’ve handled the case. Of course, Victorian London was a very different time and they simply didn’t have the methods of investigation that we have now.
A lot has happened in my life since this book first entered the house and it’s one of those things that I never got around to. But the topic of Jack the Ripper comes up every so often and I always find myself curious to know more, and I frequently tell myself: “I must read that book.” So, I decided that this was the time to finally dig in and see what she had to say.
The crux of Cornwell’s argument lies in the Ripper letters. She compares the handwriting in the letters to handwriting in many of Sickert’s letters and journals. It’s the sort of thing that would’ve blown my mind when the book was first published. I didn’t know then – which I do know now – is that the majority of Ripperologists reject the letters and consider them to be hoaxes. Many of them are believed to be written by journalists in an attempt to sell more newspapers. But the fact is there were so many hoax letters. I’m not going to lie, I’d have probably sent some in if I’d have been living in that time. It wouldn’t surprise me if Sickert sent a few letters in – he comes across like a bit of a dodgy bloke – but sending in letters wouldn’t prove that he was Jack the Ripper.
Secondly, we get the topic of Sickert’s paintings, many of which were of quite a morbid in their subject matter. He even did a painting called “Jack the Ripper’s bedroom”. But I also don’t see this as proof. As I understand it, the subject of his paintings appealed to the tastes at the time. To make a contemporary comparison. The Terrifier franchise are currently very popular horror films and events within those films are morbid. I think that Damien Leone (creator of the franchise) writing and directing something which he feels would appeal to an audience. It doesn’t make me believe he’s a serial killer any more than I’d think Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
Now comes the biggest clincher of all. Walter Sickert was a fairly affluent man who married well and quite often spent time in other countries. People far better qualified than I are certain that Sickert was out of the country and was actually in France at the time of most of the Ripper killings. Something that Cornwell does not address at all.
Case closed? I don’t think so.
My Goodreads rating: ★★★☆☆ (3 stars)
