Of the half dozen or so Ripper books I've read, hers was, without doubt, the least well-researched and her conclusion that Sickert was the Ripper was based on the flimsiest of evidence. One of the key pieces of "evidence" is that one of his paintings looks a bit like one of the murder scenes, even though his subject is patently not dead. I'm not sure what her motive was for publishing this book, but would hazard a guess it was to further enhance her reputation as an author of a series of novels about a coroner in the US. It's hard to believe she was motivated by a desire to expand the body of knowledge on the subject. AFAIK, not one single serious Ripperologist takes her assertions seriously - that's unique in the field. No one else has zero supporters.
