Sorry, SRS - not meaning to impugn you; as you say, anyone can throw money at a project and buy the right info; and I believe that's what she did. The TV program simply follows her lead because each new theory wants to be "the right answer" especially in the case of the Ripper.

However the reasoning that because she writes them makes her (or could make her) a competent detective I think is erroneous. She probably did little of the footwork herself (as you say - she threw money at the project and you don't need a lot to investigate files and archives yourself. Much of that money, I suspect was paid to other 'Ripperologist' specialists and crime-scene consultants to analyse what she was getting.

The bottom line; most Ripperologists (including the professional criminal investigators) disagree with her and Sickert remains a VERY highly dubious suspect - in fact Cornwell is about the only one to take him seriously any more.

not to MANITAS - You're right, The "Prospect" IS a riverside pub, but it too is timber-framed and it, too survived the Great Fire.

Just checked my holiday snaps 'cause I remembered that I took a photo of the "history" printed on a board above the stairs:
The story reads thus: "PROSPECT of WHITBY ~ London's oldest Riverside Inn. Built circa 1520 in the reign of Henry VII"
It then goes on to list all the monarchs since, to QEII

Back to SRS - I suggest (not unkindly) you read Cornwell's book and then look for the one by Tony Wiliams "Uncle Jack", you'll see that Williams book and arguments are far less 'slick' than Cornwell's, but for all that he presents a FAR more solid case for an (up until now) unknown and unconsidered suspect. He still falls short, of course all theories do because we a re too far removed in time and culture to accurately pinpoint the relevant facts.

Muttley