In my opinion this book is appropriate reading material for perhaps a fifth grader who wants to do a book report. In fact, I read it and returned it.

If one is serious about the disappearance of Ms. Earhart disregard this book and order Amelia Earhart: The Mystery Solved by Elgen M. Long and Marie K. Long. The Long's book goes into much greater detail and makes for better reading.

A fantastic, true book that tells about Amelia Earhart

Spring .. 1937. A specially prepared, "State of the Art" Electra L-10e twin engine aircraft. Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan attempting their flight around the world. A well detailed and documented book, by authors who worked with and know the limitations of the Electra L-10e. The exact route, written in a format easy to understand and follow. Amelia Earhart's disappearance has been researched by many, but Mr. Walter Roessler, Leo Gomez, and Gail Lynne Green have done an excellent job, if you "Really" want to know what happened in 1937.

The author is a professor of history who has written about four murder cases as a "scholarly inquiry". He claims the verdicts in all four cases were wrong! The author is wrong about Lizzie and OJ; the jury verdicts were correct.

Page 24 does not mention the other suspects: Brayton, Carpenter, etc. Page 41 quotes Lizzie as saying "she heard her (Abby) come in", but misdirects the reader to think of the guest bedroom. But if Abby did come in she would take the back stairs to her room, not the front stairs to the girls' rooms; Andrew did just that. Page 42 repeats the lie about the "broken handle" of the hatchet; it was sawn off! Page 44 quotes Fleet as to a cursory search; in fact they searched the house "down to a bump in the wallpaper". Page 47 tells that the new hatchet did not fit the wounds, but doesn't tell about the shred of gilt paint found. Page 48 quotes two boys as saying the barn was "nice and cool"; perhaps lightly dressed boys had a different experience from adults?

The author claims Lizzie was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (p.56) but can give no proof. Only Bridget and Lizzie were known to be present from 9AM to after 11AM. Bridget was seen outside around 9:30 when Abby was killed; Lizzie was seen outside at 11AM when Andrew was killed. If one person killed them both then neither Bridget or Lizzie did it. No bloodstains on dresses, no murder weapon found. Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father"; the jury said it wasn't Lizzie. The author knows Bridget was ordered to wash the windows that morning (p.57) but doesn't know its significance. Page 59 mentions that the testimony about an attempted poison purchase was barred; could it be that they knew it wasn't Lizzie? It is dishonest to say Arnold R. Brown "insists that (WSB) dropped into the Second Street home to murder the Bordens" (p.265). Hixson should have read David Kent's "Forty Whacks".

The last murder case seems to be the reason for this book. It is an attempt to rewrite the historical facts on the trial of OJ Simpson.

Page 207 tells why a preliminary hearing was used rather than a grand jury. This put all the witnesses on the record just after the murders, and prevented the prosecution from concocting a story months later. It was not a mistake to hold the case in downtown LA where the facilities were superior, and closer to the command post. Page 210 tells of "TIME" magazine's darkened mug shot of OJ, but does not realize this was done to hide the fact that OJ had no scratches or bruises on his face! Page 214 does NOT mention that Johnnie Cochran Jr. was an Assistant DA in the 60s, and the #3 DA in the late 70s; why? Page 215 says "media coverage ... had now become more favorable to the defense"; how was that measured? One page 219 he talks about DNA tests, but doesn't say the flesh and blood found under Nicole's fingernails did not match the blood type and DNA of OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman, or Nicole herself! Page 229 says the limousine driver saw no white Bronco when he came to pick up OJ, but claims he saw the Bronco obstructing his view when he left; is the author inventing facts? The truth is that rehearing the limo driver's testimony convinced the jury to acquit. Page 233 says "brown leather gloves" but the crime scene photos show black leather gloves (with Caucasian limb hair!).

Why is OJ Simpson innocent of the murders? When the police arrived at 12:15AM they found two bodies whose red blood was trickling down the sidewalk. The photos taken showed this red blood. This means the murders occurred after 11:30PM, because the blood would be black and clotted if they were dead for over an hour. Since the limo driver left for the airport with OJ at 11PM, he could not have been present at the murders. In 1999 Herb MacDonnell said this in a newspaper interview, and discussed other facts in this case. Perhaps the author should show more regard for these facts?

I suggest anyone who loves crime to go out and buy this book. It gives you a good perspective of 4 great trials of american history.

Like most people I know, I never wanted to see or hear another word about OJ Simpson. I was however interested in some of the other cases discussed. This book puts all the cases into cultural perspective. It is hard to realize how much we are influenced by the attitudes and social norms of our times. Only with hind sight is everything clearer. My son is 13 and hopes for a career in law and politics. I have encouraged him to read this also. This should be required reading for everyone involved in the media or law.

Thats the great book and very helpful for my disertation... IT useful for everyone that interested with accounting that related to environment. That very basic book for U that study environmental accounting. I searching everywhere then I founded in Amazon...... Thanks for Amazon

I love Patricia Cornwell's style of writing for her novels. However, it is not particularly suited to a scholarly research work, especially not one that purports to "close the case" in regards to one Jack the Ripper.

The tome could have very well been half its size, were it not for her suppositions and verbal meanderings. Some of the verbiage contains obvious question-begging, such as the subsequent murders (1889) that were unsolved. Cornwell draws no conclusion to the fact that the cases were unsolved, and just leaves to information to hang in the reader's mind.

The ending was decidely downletting: there was only a dramatic portrait painted of Sickert, who Cornwell asserts was the Ripper, throwing his late wife's ashes into the wind at his friends. What are we to conclude from that?

Cornwell's book may very well have been a more conclusive work IF she had left the drama to be drawn simply from the facts of the case and not her own part in the research or her verbal prowess at argumentum ad hominem. Leave that to your fiction works, Ms. Cornwell, and please us with a new version of "Jack the Ripper" that doesn't insult our intelligence.

Readers, I suggest checking out this book from the library, as I did; it will save you money.

For more than a century, the mystery of "who was Jack the Ripper" has fascinated both sides of the Atlantic. Who perpetrated the brutal murders of so many Whitechapel prostitutes in England in the late 1800s? And why?

Numerous theories have been put forth over the decades: a lunatic, a crazed doctor, a member of the royal family, a famous artist. And now, for the first time, someone has taken Scotland Yard's evidence, along with other letters and ephemera, and applied modern-day forensic science to the still-open investigation.

The someone is Patricia Cornwell, author of the critically acclaimed Kay Scarpetta mystery series and a forensic specialist herself. The results, while not entirely convincing, are compelling.

Cornwell asserts, with great confidence, that Jack the Ripper was the impressionist artist Walter Richard Sickert, an apprentice to Whistler, and, in his own right, a highly accomplished and recognized artist. In fact, Cornwell posits that Sickert's work is perhaps one of the greatest clues of his culpability. First, his paintings are menacing and threatening, particularly towards women of a lower class. Also, known as an artist who painted what he saw, a few of Sickert's canvasses eerily resemble the Ripper's crime scenes. Coincidence? Perhaps. But Cornwell interprets his work as revelatory, confessional almost. In profiling the famous serial killer she suggests that the Ripper would have been a man who harbored a keen, deep-rooted hatred of women, most likely founded in his own sexual inability or inadequacies. Sickert at a young age underwent a series of corrective penile surgeries, which quite possibly left him impotent. There is no proof one way or another that he was entirely sexually dysfunctional, but there are hints at problems that lend some credence to Cornwell's theory.

The Ripper did not exist in a vacuum, and Cornwell did an extraordinary job of setting the scene, placing the reader in late 1800 England. Detailed references to John Merrick (the elephant man), Henry Irving (one of the stage's greatest stars of the time), Henry James (author and constable) and others frame Cornwell's story. The Ripper was very much a part of the happenings of the time, and his name was as likely to be found in the pages of the newspaper as any of the abovementioned notables. Sickert, a voracious reader with morbid sensibilities would have been captivated by the stories of the Ripper. As a prankster and prolific writer, he might even have been tempted to pen a faux Ripper letter or two to the police or the daily paper. (At the time, many of the Ripper letters were thought to be hoaxes.) As a murderer, if he was a murderer, Sickert's well-known vanity would have thrilled at and thrived on the publicity. To be mentioned on the same pages as royalty and celebrities would have fed his hungry ego.

Cornwell offered much supposition and hints at Sickert's guilt. For instance, he was a master of disguise and could have easily lured a prostitute to her death and then escaped undetected, Cornwell suggests. He was enthralled by the music halls and the "unfortunates" who frequented them, and he was known to walk the streets of the Whitechapel area late at night for long periods of time. He had an unhealthy fascination of the anatomy of the human body that went far beyond an artist's natural curiosity. And the Ripper letters included allusions Sickert would have known and drawings in the fashion of Sickert's own work.

From DNA to mitochondrial DNA, from handwriting experts to watermark experts, from newspaper articles to authentic Sickert paintings, Cornwell left no stone unturned. She described in lay terms --- using easily understood analogies --- the forensic methodologies she and her impressive crew of colleagues used in their thorough investigation. Along the way she spent an exorbitant amount of money trying to prove his guilt. (She even went so far as to purchase several of his paintings, and destroyed one in the hopes of finding conclusive evidence.) The science is fascinating, albeit more often inconclusive than convincing. Her research did not always glean the results she had hoped for. But taken all together, the evidence, mostly circumstantial, is damning and probably would have been enough in today's court system to bring Sickert to trial.

Case Closed? I can't say I was convinced by book's end that Sickert was indeed the Ripper. I wanted a smoking gun that left no room for doubt, and Cornwell did not deliver a smoking gun because she did not find one. She found compelling evidence that makes the strongest case of guilt to date. But with no death bed confession, or bloodstained canvasses, or eyewitness reports, we will never really know his innocence or guilt. The strong science, the history lesson, and the story of Sickert's life make PORTRAIT OF A KILLER an intriguing read, and on those fronts I recommend the book. But I leave you to decide for yourself if she has found enough evidence to label Sickert the Ripper --- or not.

--- Reviewed by Roberta O'Hara

This book was well written. I could visualize being in the Whitechapel area of London back in the late 1800s. I knew very little about Jack The Ripper, no more. She did a excellent job of proving her case. Wonderful book.

Roessler and Gomez have made a sincere effort I'm sure, but they are they make some assummptions and conclusions that are a bit off the mark. While both are civilian light aircraft pilots, their primary involvements appear to have been in aircraft maintenance. It is amazing to see the strong endorsements by well known aviation personalities, who exposed themselves as either not having read the book or not being familiar with the details of Earharts last two attempts at oceanic flying and some of the much better written and more accurate books published about the Earhart/Noonan disappearance. There are many mistakes in the book