Cornwell simply follows the evidence available and quite frankly, Wiliams's case against his great (great, great) uncles is better than Cornwell's and it's still not 100% convincing.

As for Moleskin - how can you even entertain such variety of "Rippers". Read the surgeon's reports for cryin' out loud. EVERY murder was done with the same knife (not similar knives - the SAME ONE !) ~ all knives, like all guns, have "signatures" that identify them when used and though this science was still in its primitive infancy, it was still advanced enough to be of value.

Secondly, the death-blows were delivered, according to the forensics of the day (again, primitive - but quite accurate all the same), by one person as they were all delivered by a person of equal height to the others and who used the same hand.

It was the killing blow that determined their similarities (not to mention the choice of victims): Since it was the fright the murders caused among the London populace NOT the choice of victims which caused the uproar and outrage.

London couldn't care less about a half-a-dozen more dead 'Bag-tells'- dead prostitutes were turning up every other day; there were literally thousands of them working London's streets in the late 1800's.

As for Tumbelty; he is no longer considered a front runner. Sickert, too, apart from Cornwell is not the preferred option either (though he IS one of the more popular).

The message on the wall read "The Juwes are not the ones who will be blamed for nothing" - inconclusive as it merely states that it was an intelligent (educated) statement deliberately mis-spelled (though the ancient mediaeval spelling of Jews was, in fact, Juwes)placed to mis-lead and stir foment and thus attention away from the real killer.

I'll check up on the latest about Prince Albert Edward (or Edward Albet - depending on the writer) and the latest "front runners as candidates)

Later

Muttley