Talk:Portrait of a Killer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know if this comment fits in the article, but I've read the new book (2nd edition?) and found it absolutely terrible. For the first time in my life I felt that I should retrun the book to the bookstore for a full refund.
For what it is worth, she seems to show that the paper used to write some of the letters was available to Sickert. But there is a long way from that to saying that Sickert is J the R. 205.147.242.4 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Q
What does this mean? "The fact that she invested a reported 1 million dollars during her 'research' would precipitate a well known figure being named as the guilty party in her work." Rich Farmbrough 11:00 27 August 2006 (GMT).
[edit] Critics point out...
This entire page is crying out for citations. Which critics mentioned these things? When?--Nalvage 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Personaly, I feel that maybe there's more to this book than meets the eye. In fact, Sickert's own wife once admitted that there was no real way of telling where her husband was on any given day.24.79.5.32 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DNA Evidence
Something should be added concerning the fact that in interviews preceding and immediately after publication, Cornwell made misleading statements about her case being supported by DNA, while in the book itself being forced to admit that the DNA "evidence" was inconclusive at best, meaningless at worse.
[edit] The Paper Match
Where did she say this? This article is useless if it appears to be entirely hearsay. (Saboater 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC))
Originally it appeared on Cornwell's webpage as a follow-up to the hardcover edition of Portrait of a Killer. Supposedly the paperback edition contains update information, so perhaps the paper evidence made it to that version.
