Patricia Cornwell's "Jack": First Impressions of "Case Closed" - Part 1
Published August 22, 2003
from the RipperLady blog
Okay, I finally got a copy of the Patricia Cornwell book (Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper, Case Closed). I already knew about some of the research that she's done on Walter Sickert, her suspect. So I expected a fairly straightforward, logical approach in her presentation of the evidence.
I think my first hint that this may not be the case occurred when I was flipping through the book, looking at the photos. In the very first section of photos, I came across a picture of Sickert's first wife. But how is she captioned? As "the first wife of Walter Sickert, Ripper suspect"? (which would be the most intellectually honest way to do it). No, she's captioned: "the daughter of a famous politician and the first wife of Jack the Ripper."
Now, I don't know about you, but when I read an argument (i.e. a piece of writing attempting to convince the reader of something), I want a fact-based, logical presentation of the case. Rhetorical bells and whistles are fine, but I don't want to be manipulated into accepting an argument by rhetoric or repetition, and I do want the writer to anticipate potential objections to her case and refute them by using some type of evidence. This is what I taught my college students when I taught argumentative strategy at places like UCLA and Fullerton College. And it's certainly what I expect from an argument written by a professional!
Instead, Cornwell loads her argument here, without having to produce evidence. She can just use a caption to make her argument for her, with no qualifier (like "first wife of the man most likely to have been Jack the Ripper"), and no indication of an opportunity for rebuttal. The caption to this photo "begs the question"--i.e. it assumes the very thing that it's Cornwell's job to prove.
Now, I'm not going to accuse Patricia Cornwell of sloppiness or dishonesty, but it is true that sloppy or intellectually dishonest writers try all the time to sway readers through these means. So today's blog is really a lesson on the sorts of things to look out for when a writer crosses the line from legitimate argument into manipulation. And captioning a photo "first wife of Jack the Ripper" is nothing if not manipulative. I doing so, Cornwell is indicating her own certainty that Sickert is Jack the Ripper, and by that means is rhetorically bullying you to buy into her case.
Well, naturally, we assume that Cornwell will ultimately produce evidence of Sickert's possible guilt in the actual content of her book, and eventually she does. So how is her presentation there? Is it tight? Is it sloppy? Does she leave a lot of hanging threads? Does she tie up her case nicely, by anticipating potential reader objections and refuting them?
Well, here's one sample of a type of strategy she uses at least twice early on in the book: she mentions that since there was nothing really negative written about Sickert in his sister's memoirs, entire sections of negative material must have been excised. Hello? She has no evidence that there ever was anything negative in the sister's memoirs. All she knows is her own supposition that there must have been. And how does she know there must have been? Well, Sickert's the Ripper, isn't he?
- Patricia Cornwell's "Jack": First Impressions of "Case Closed" - Part 1
- Published: August 22, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: Crime
- Writer: Cindy Collins Smith
- Cindy Collins Smith's BC Writer page
- Cindy Collins Smith's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Thanks for the comment, Joe. I'll probably have another blog on the topic tomorrow!
I need a short 10 question interview about jck the ripper, can you help?
I have read the book and found it very nonconvincing as to whom she thinks the actual killer is, but I also found her book confussing and hard to follow.
By the time I had read to chapter 10 she had meandered of the topic completely with almost every page a different subject entirely. For example the chapter was about Medicine of the Courts yet almost the entire chapter was dedicated to everything else. She began with the Mary Ann Nichols inquest which was a great start but then she proceeded to ramble and jump from one thing to another with no warning and I am going to list the following examples from this very chapter.
1)Mary Ann Nichols inquest (100-102)
2)Ennui painting (102-103)
3)Royal conspiracy (103-105)
4)Death of Mr. Maybrick due to an overdose of arsenic and the wrongful conviction of his wife (105-107)
Now this one I would like to make a note of because it was a very good idea to acknowledge that there had been a falsefied diary but this had no reason to be in the chapter involving Medicine of the Courts and even if she believes it does just because Mrs. Maybrick was wrongfully convicted in a court it still gives no reason for her to have put it in the chapter.
5)Waltel and the killing of Mary Ann Nichols (107)
6)Dr. Llewellyn, Mann and Hatifield at the inquest (107-110)
This did have something to do with the chapter yet she gave it less then three pages of her time.
7)"Behind" the killing and what the dead say (110-112)
It went well with the chapter using forensics and the dead to explain a murder and the murderer but she should not have used modern references instead it would have been more appropriate to have used Jack the Rippers victims as her references since this book is of the 19th century and not the 21st.
8)The origin of the name "ripper" (112-113)
Again this should not have been here. Using this and why Sickert may have choosen it was good but not in this chapter. It would have been better suited if the chapter was on the psychological aspects of Sickert and the developement of the name and not Medicine of the Courts. And listing Shakespearean plays as a reference to how he may have come up with it was idiotic for what should have been the subject to this chapter.
One more little negative comment about this book other then her rambling and utter chaos is that in chapter 3 pg 15 she wrote and I quote "...a weekly allowance of twelve shillings..." but then in chapter 8 pg 81 and again I quote "His support of five shillings each week..." Both of these were about Mary Ann Nichols and her husband yet the information she gave is conflicting. She tried too hard to convince me of Sickert's guilt yet gave no fool proof evidence of that fact. She even admits in the first chapters that she barely knew of Jack the Ripper or that he killed prostitutes which is amazing for someone who works with forensics and murderers or even someone who has ever studied history. So how convincing can she be with all of these mistakes and utter ignorance surrounding her.
Thank you for reading this.
Desi Farhat
Just finished the book and am now scratching my head. Where was the evidence? Case still open.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/7756)
Good critical review. I'm interested in hearing more about it. I enjoyed her non-fiction work although I like the earlier novels better than the more recent ones.