Regarding the Jack the ripper programme screened at 9:00 p.m. on 11th October 2009. I set out to watch this programme with interest, but I have to say that from start to finish the presenter/researcher did not produce a single piece of concrete evidence to support his contention that Jack the ripper was a mortuary attendant.

He started out deciding that this particular mortuary assistant was Jack the ripper, then proceeded to make suppositions, and make his cir****tantial notions fit his premises.

For example, is it really any surprise that the victims bodies were found in relatively close proximity to each other in an area of London? Not really! What did he expect.

Did he examine time and distance between the two bodies on the night of the two killings? Er, no.

He does the worst kind of research. That is, he makes statements which he has not proven in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and then proceeds to turn them into fact. At the close of the programme we are told that THAT mortuary assistant WAS Jack the ripper.

Unfortunately, this is the worst piece of research that I have seen presented as fact, ever.