Cornwell's Case
Patricia Cornwell's recently released Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed claims to have brought closure to the century old Jack the Ripper murders. She stakes her claim on the innumerable number of "coincidences" tying Jack the Ripper to Walter Sickert, a famous British painter. She applies modern forensics, psychological profiling, and DNA sampling to once and for all resolve the identity of Whitechapel's infamous butcher.

Throughout the book, Cornwell's talents as a best-selling fiction writer are evident. Her descriptions of 19th-century culture and it's level of forensic technology are extraordinarily vivid, with a rich, story-like detail throughout. Biographical sketches, the Ripper's biting taunts, and eye-witness accounts are impressively presented and bring to life the circumstances surrounding the crimes. But unfortunately, little is offered that will eclipse a host of other theories claiming to have pinpointed the Ripper. Furthermore, Cornwell's logic is faulty and self-contradicting. Oversights are common and alternative scenarios that point away from Sickert are either unmentioned or ignored. Contrary evidence is manipulated until it somehow points back to Sickert, and the validity of every point hinges on a profane number of speculations, few of which are supported by a single scrap of evidence.

In this article, Cornwell's arguments will be exposed for what they are, a series of unsubstantiated posits that only work when guilt is already assumed.

The Source of Rippers Rage
In order to turn Sickert into the Ripper, Cornwell must demonstrate that he had a seething hatred of women, prostitutes in particular. For this she turns to Sickert's early childhood where she believes three painful surgeries to his genitals may have spawned a sexual dysfunction that bread hatred of females. It's an interesting theory but one that contradicted by other information in the book. As an adult, Sickert shows no signs that he generally hated women or prostitutes. By Cornwell's own account, he painted numerous nudes, most of whom where prostitutes he rubbed shoulders with on his frequent visits to the music halls. He was known as "charming" and also married several times. Such details don't seem indicative of a hatred akin to that of the Ripper's, which was so acute it caused him to mutilate the genitals of his victims.

Nothing Nailed Down
It is interesting that a book filled with so many assumptions could have the words "Case Closed" in it's title. Such words suggest authoritative facts and incontrovertible evidence. But in this book, every assertion is tempered by a "may have", "could have", "possibly", "probably", "perhaps", "likely", etc. The damning chain of coincidences Cornwell is so certain points to Sickert's guilt are in actuality little more than an endless series of uncertainties knitted together by a fertile imagination. One assumption is built from another, and another from that until a connection is formed tying together Sickert and the Ripper. Cornwell applies this flawed methodology throughout the entirety of her book.

The Disguise Theory
Cornwell asserts that Sickert may have used a disguise when he traveled to the East End to do his butchering as Jack the Ripper, thus avoiding detection. This is another interesting theory, but it is laden with assumptions, and supporting evidence is ridiculously sketchy. Firstly, Cornwell offers nothing concrete that suggests Sickert ever dressed up and made treks into the East End, but only postulates this based on Sickert's known nighttime wanderings and his fondness for dressing up in uniforms and phony looking beards. Secondly, potential Ripper sighting don't match Sickert at all. According to Cornwell, some close range eyewitness accounts describe him as having "dark" features and a "weathered" look. The youthful Sickert had soft features and wavy blonde hair. Cornwell handles this conflict by suggesting Sickert, who was also an actor, may have worn makeup to mask his appearance. But she grossly overestimates the ability of 19th century stage makeup to actually fool anyone. A fake beard or a grease painted face would have been easily recognized. Even allowing for this, how a gentle-featured Sickert could have adequately forged "weathered" facial characteristics is difficult to comprehend.

Sickert's Art and the Ripper Victims
Cornwell makes her most colossal and subjective stretches when she suggests that elements in Sickert's art relate to victims of the Ripper murders. An innocent painting of people at a fair is transformed by Cornwell into a horde of onlookers huddled around a butchered victims body. Black paint strokes on the side of a woman's face become "mutilations" reminiscent of one side of a Ripper victim's head. Sometimes the connections are ridiculously loose and highly symbolic, such as a white necklace on a woman's neck in a painting supposedly representing a "necklace" (i.e. a cut throat) the Ripper gave one of his victims. Even more unwarranted is Cornwell's daydream that a white blob over a woman's shoulder in a painting within a painting is actually the face of an ominous attacker approaching from behind. Such grossly speculative interpretations reveal Cornwell's seeming desperation to indict Sickert by any and all means.

Perhaps part of the reason for this her misconception is Sickert's artistic style. His works are typically very low in detail, thus the faces of women are more difficult to make out, something that Cornwell interprets as mutilations. Indeed, the men in Sickert's artworks have equally "deformed" faces, a fact that garners no analysis from Cornwell whatsoever.

(For some photos of these works visit my website at http://home.columbus.rr.com/jetersnest)

Faulty Connections
In a pattern similar to that of her Sickert art analysis, Cornwell uses the loosest of connections to associate the Ripper and Sickert. She draws silly comparisons between Sickert carving up his unwanted paintings and the Ripper carving up the faces of prostitutes. She frequently relies on proximity to stimulate suspicion, even branding Sickert with a host of unsolved murders in distant locales merely because he "may have" traveled nearby. Many of these bear little resemblance to the wholesale butchery of the Ripper crimes and some of them occur 20 or 30 years beyond the Ripper's time.

The smallest common objects are also used to incriminate Sickert. Cornwell sees something unsettling in the fact that all the victims seem to have worn or been found with handkerchiefs, and Sickert had a red handkerchief he wanted no one to touch. But how convincing is this considering the voluminous number of red handkerchiefs that would have been adorned in the 1800's. A sun in a 1937 Sickert painting that looks "almost identical" to a sun etched in glass above a pub where a prostitute was murdered in 1907 (a full 30 years earlier) is viewed by Cornwell as some sort of "gotcha". Even a letter signed by someone else, after a few speculations that center on the writers "literate, creative mind", becomes the secret writing of Sickert, who is then tagged for yet another murder. This fickle brand of logic wears the mind down, making for many moments of frustrated reading.

Handwriting Inconsistencies
As progression through the book continues, contradictory statements begin to emerge. For example, Cornwell believes that because Sickert was an artist, he may have been able to disguise his handwriting and may have been able to write in many different styles. Thus she believes that even though many of the Ripper letters have different handwriting styles, most of them are authentic and were crafted by Sickert. But when it suits, this hypothesis is abruptly abandoned. In Cornwell's analysis of a Jewish slur written on a wall near one of the Ripper murders (which she assumes was done by the Ripper and not a prankster), she points out that it was "similar" to Sickert's writing style. But if her assertion is true that Sickert was so artistically endowed that he was able to disguise his handwriting in the Ripper letters, why wouldn't he have done so when writing a Jewish slur on a public wall? With this pattern of inconsistent reasoning, Cornwell is able to "see" Sickert wherever she pleases. Through guesswork she can account for handwriting that doesn't match and handwriting that does. Cornwell simply readjusts her level of speculation until it somehow fits Sickert.

A closer look at Cornwell's claim of similarities between Sickert's handwriting and the person who wrote the slur is laughable when considered. Cornwell bases it on a comparison of Sickert's writing with two copies of the slur an officer wrote in his notes. She believes that the officers copies stylistically "resemble" what was actually on the wall that night. In other words, Sickert's writing wasn't actually compared to the writing on the wall, but to someone elses handwriting who had copied it down. To accept such a comparison as accurate is the height of absurdity.

The DNA - Whittling Down to Coincidence
On her tour, Cornwell has touted DNA evidence that will link Sickert and the Ripper. But the few pages in the book that cover it are poorly written and demand re-reading. As one wades through the chapter, several problems with the tests become apparent and strain away sense of their meaning and reliability.

Problem #1: No Nuclear DNA
There are two types of DNA tests, nuclear and mitochondrial. Nuclear testing is by far the most accurate, comparing 3 billion pairs of genes to get results. On the other hand, mitochondrial testing only compares 16 thousand pairs. According to Cornwell, Dr. Paul Ferrara did nuclear testing on 55 samples, including letters, envelopes, and stamps from Sickert, his wife, Sickert's instructor (Whistler), and some Ripper letters. After several disappointing attempts, no nuclear DNA was found on any of the samples.

Problem #2 - Massive Sample Contamination
The more limited mitochondrial DNA tests did return results on the samples, but 53 of the 55 were contaminated, containing a mixture of DNA from many unknown people. The two remaining samples bearing uncontaminated DNA were a Whistler letter and a piece of a postage stamp from a Ripper letter to a Dr. Openshaw. This Openshaw stamp, of all the samples, is the only sample that could be used for any types of comparison testing.

Problem #3 - Is the stamp from a legitimate Ripper Letter?
From the start, the Openshaw stamp is plagued with uncertainties. There where hundreds of Ripper letters sent to the police, but which of them are authentic is difficult to determine. Many were considered hoaxes. The possibility exists that the DNA on the Openshaw stamp is from a prankster. Naturally, Cornwell believes the letter is authentic.

Problem #4 - Would Sickert have licked the stamp?
Even if we assume the Openshaw stamp is authentic, it is probable that Sickert wouldn't have licked it anyway. Cornwell admits that at that time licking envelopes was avoided by some for sanitary reasons. A dampened sponge was used instead. In later chapters, Cornwell states that Sickert was obsessively hygienic, even washing his hair after wearing someone else's hat. How likely then is it that Sickert would have licked the stamp?

Problem #5: No Sickert DNA for comparison.
There is no Sickert DNA with which to compare the DNA on the Openshaw stamp. Sickert wished to be cremated upon death and all known traces of his DNA went with him. Cornwell admits this is a problem, but maintains that they may have found him in "pieces". A base DNA sequence (16294-73-263) found on the Openshaw stamp is said to be found in four other samples. Those samples are an envelope from Sickert's wife Ellen, a Sickert stamp and envelope, and one other Ripper envelope. But each of those samples is contaminated, leading Dr. Ferrara to question whether the sequence match is merely coincidental. But supposing it isn't a coincidence, Cornwell openly admits that she has no way of knowing whether the DNA sequence on the Openshaw stamp and that on the other contaminated samples actually belongs to Sickert. It may have come from someone else.

Nevertheless, Cornwell maintains that these tests eliminate 99% of the population, seeing it as a "cautious indicator" that a DNA sequence on the Openshaw stamp and that on some Sickert items are the same. But even if we grant this, it is impossible to tell whether any of these DNA sequences actually came from the Ripper or Sickert. Far too many assumptions have to be made. Thus, the miniscule amount of DNA evidence presented is rendered useless.

Sickert the Surgeon
One of Cornwell's more amazing feats is how casually she tosses aside the theory that the Ripper may have been a surgeon. While it is true that random slashing would have caused the gory mutilations of the Ripper victim's faces and genitalia, his extraction of organs were not the happy accidents of chaotic swings. For Cornwell, the explanation is easy: Sickert simply got a hold a few surgeon's manuals, read up on human anatomy, and he was all ready to dissect unsuspecting prostitutes. But such a speculation is once again asinine. Cornwell takes great care to list the medical books of the 19th century that detail the human anatomy, but there is not even a hint of evidence that Sickert ever possessed one of them. However, let's assume that he did have one, are we really to believe that with only book knowledge Sickert killed his victims and in the darkness of night, with only 15 or 20 minutes to work, operated on their abdomens, extracted whatever organs he deemed necessary, and escaped without a trace, all on his first try?

Camden Chicanery
As mentioned previously, Cornwell has an inexplicable habit of blaming Sickert not only for the Ripper crimes, but other crimes near London, and even tries to pin some unsolved murders in far away France on him. A prime example is the 1906 murder of Emily Dimmock, a prostitute who was practically decapitated in her bedroom in the Camden area of London. With only a proximity argument to go on (i.e. Sickert had a studio near Emily's beat), Cornwell launches into one of her most elaborate "may have" scenarios yet, envisioning Sickert as stalking Emily, noting her movements, and even watching her have sex. But even a cursory examination of this case reveals not only why it was never considered a Ripper crime, but the almost obsessive stance Cornwell takes towards making Sickert guilty.

Emily's house had been rummaged through and items were taken by her murderer. Also, no taunting letter, typical of the Ripper, was left in connection with the crime. Those two clues should have been enough to quell any of Cornwell's unwarranted suspicions. Theft was never a motive in the Ripper murders and it is inconceivable that the Ripper would have committed this act without taking credit by a letter or some form of communication. Instead of yielding to the obvious, Cornwell simply reinvents Sickert, blaming the differences in the crimes on his age. Her new version of the Sickert took great care in staging crime scenes to look like robberies, and altogether abstained from his once prolific letter writing. Sickert was now a kinder, gentler Ripper.

Another difference in the crimes lies in the fact that Emily wasn't disemboweled. Cornwell excuses this by an even wilder speculation, noting that knowledge about diseases spread through blood had increased, and the hygiene conscious Sickert would not have exposed himself to the bloody ordeal of removing organs anymore. This statement is a colossal misfire on Cornwell's part. Emily's head was nearly severed in two. Are we really to believe this act wouldn't have drench the murderer in blood? Indeed, we find that he did expose himself. A bloody petticoat was found in a nearby basin, with which the killer cleaned himself off. If Sickert killed Emily, he was bloodied, and Cornwell's argument is completely bulldozed.

Cornwell also sees something sinister in the fact that Sickert was allowed to enter Emily's room and draw pictures of the crime scene. She wonders how he was so coincidentally walking by and stumbled upon the scene only hours after it happened. But Cornwell unwittingly neutralizes her own argument, admitting that it wasn't at all unusual for artists to be called in to sketch crime scenes. Furthermore, Sickert wasn't coincidentally wandering nearby, as if returning to the scene of his own crime. His studio was in the area. News of a woman with a near severed head was sure to travel fast. Sickert would likely have been contacted by the police to sketch the scene. But almost laughably, Cornwell sees Sickert using this opportunity to plant fingerprints, in case he was questioned later. Cornwell's imagination is truly limitless.

Case Unclosed
In Portrait of a Killer, Cornwell misapplies her heralded talents as a fiction writer. She is thorough in her research and quite astute in her knowledge of modern forensics, but her logic is defective. Time has impaired the application of any modern knowledge to the Ripper crimes. Mere conjecture and speculation, no matter how liberally applied, is not an adequate substitute for hard facts, few of which exist in this book. If Cornwell his done anything, she has unintentionally underscored just how much of a mystery the Jack the Ripper case remains. The case is still quite open. Perhaps it always will be.

Recommended: No