Cornwell followed the evidence based on HER initial presuppositions and then followed the trail which best labelled her suspect as the killer.

If you want a an unbiased account - read Uncle Jack - the author never even set out to peove a case, in fact he openly admits he knew very little Ripper lore prior to following his uncles story.

Thge artwork and boarding house material has been done to death by hundreds of VALID investigators and very little has pointed to Sickert. In fact he is only now a suspect because he has always traditionally BEEN one. Even when proposed initially he was labelled a "too easy scapegoat" - though not in those words.

Cornwell is a detective thriller writer - it doesn't make her an authority. In other words she makes up her plot, decides on victim (or victims) and perpetrator and then sets about having her hero (or heroine) solve the case. She couldn't solve a real case if her life depended on it.

Finally, if you want an even better analysis of available material there was a panel discussion back in (I believe, the '80's or early '90's) where a group of modern Scotland Yard senior detectives, forensic investigators, forensic psychologists and criminologists analysed all the available suspects and in nthe end THEY couldn't comprehensively agree on one name: They fell roughly into two camps and neither was James Sickert - he was a nobody - a red herring and no true or informed 'Ripperologist' even takes him seriously any more.

My point about Cornwell "folowing the evidence available to her" also left unsaid (for those who know how to read between the lines) "and that SUITED her (presupposed) case".

Muttley

I DO urge you to visit the various Ripper sites and especially the 'Casebook: Jack the Ripper" site for better-informed data than Cornwell's. They even promote her book! As an opinion though; not an authority.