Famous Cases: Who Was Jack the Ripper? MPC's Top Theory

By: Shane Lambert

I will work on a series in the time frame ahead that I will tag/label "Famous Historical Cases." This will be a tangent away from missing persons cases for a little bit. I do it because I'm sure the readers of my blog enjoy historical cases and are fans of true crime in general, not just missing people cases.

To start the series, I will look at the case of Jack the Ripper, the infamous and unsolved serial killer case from the late 19th century. In doing so, I presume the reader has at least some general knowledge of the case from the 1880s in England. My position is that Charles Lechmere should be considered the leading suspect.

Charles Lechmere: The Leading Suspect in the Jack the Ripper Case

Charles Lechmere stands as the strongest suspect in the Jack the Ripper case, holding a clear edge over all other top 'contenders' due to his undeniable presence at one of the crime scenes.

My position certainly isn't unique: Lechmere has gained massive traction among Ripperologists since the 2014 documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence,  which featured Christer Holmgren's research into the case.

The revelations from that documentary were perhaps a long time coming. In fact, that someone did not point out the things that were pointed out in 2014 completely discredits the so-called Ripper pundits from times beforehand. 

I recommend watching the YouTube video below (embedding good as of April 1st, 2025). I will say that there are some uncritical elements but that it's still great food for thought on the unsolved mystery of Jack the Ripper's real name.

Lechmere’s Undeniable Crime Scene Connection

On August 31st, 1888, Lechmere supposedly discovered Mary Ann Nichols’ body in Buck’s Row. Her throat had been slashed, her abdomen mutilated, and she was still warm as though it was moments after her death.

Unlike any other suspect, Charles Lechmere was physically there, alone with the corpse before Robert Paul, second on the scene, arrived. Lechmere quickly positioned himself as a witness as opposed to the perpetrator.

But his direct link to a crime scene and murder victim that is attributed to Jack the Ripper is something no one else has claimed or proven concerning any of the other suspects. As shown in the documentary from 2014, Charles Lechmere gave the name "Charles Cross." His link to the crime scene appeared in newspapers at the time, as per the September 3rd, 1888 Evening Telegraph below.

Charles Cross would later be shown to be Charles Lechmere.

Accordingly, Lechmere's link to a crime scene isn’t speculation or hindsight: it is a documented fact from the inquest. Furthermore, it is something that modern researchers can double-check. That's an important point because some of the arguments in favor of other 'suspects' lack this criterion.

I can (and did) go into newspaper archives and look for the articles from that time that report Lechmere's association (ie, Cross' association) with one of the crime scenes. That gives him a tangible advantage over the likes of Aaron Kosminski, Montague John Druitt, or Walter Sickert. Compared to Lechmere, theories regarding these other individuals are built on the proverbial house of cards.

Circumstantial Evidence Strengthening Lechmere’s Case

Other aspects of Lechmere's involvement are, in fact, more tenuous. They are covered in the 2014 documentary mentioned earlier, which I will review.

His daily route from 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, to Pickfords in Broad Street ran through Whitechapel, brushing past murder sites like Hanbury Street (Annie Chapman) and Mitre Square (Catherine Eddowes).

Lechmere's mother’s residence near Berner Street (Elizabeth Stride) ties him to four of the five canonical killings. Add his job as a carman hauling meat, handling knives and blood daily, and his early-morning schedule, and the fit starts to look right. He has a cover and a reason to be in public with blood on him.

Then there’s his inquest oddities: using “Charles Cross” instead of Lechmere, contradicting Paul’s account, and downplaying Nichols’ injuries to police. Paul's account should be considered more credible based on the fact that he actually gave his real name. These circumstances aren’t proof of guilt, but they’re red flags no other suspect carries with such immediacy.

Down and Out in the Canadian Rockies

A BLEAK GLIMPSE INTO RESORT TOWN LIFE FROM A WORKER'S PERSPECTIVE

Get your copy of this engaging ebook now

Available on Amazon for Kindle or as a physical copy

Buy Now (Canada) Buy Now (USA)

Aaron Kosminski’s Flimsy Case Without DNA

Contrast this with Aaron Kosminski, whose case crumbles without its flimsy DNA crutch. The 2014 study by Jari Louhelainen and Russell Edwards claimed mitochondrial DNA from a dubious shawl linked Kosminski to a murder victim, Catherine Eddowes. 

But the shawl’s provenance is unproven, and no 1888 record ties it to a crime scene. It could be pointed out that contamination over a century could have taken place, but I don't think there is a need to go there, because the authors stonewalled scrutiny. In doing so, they forfeited their right to be taken seriously.

It is a scientific standard to share raw data. If they had a smoking gun and wanted to be regarded as credible, then they couldn't guard the research that led to their conclusion.

Some experts didn't like their research for poor science (Science.org/Mar 15, 2019/David Adam). This makes the claim that Kosminski is tied to a crime scene nothing more than a narrative.

 "Walther Parson, a forensic scientist at the Institute of Legal Medicine at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria, says mitochondrial DNA sequences pose no risk to privacy and the authors should have included them in the paper. 'Otherwise the reader cannot judge the result. I wonder where science and research are going when we start to avoid showing results but instead present colored boxes.'"

Without a direct tie, Kosminski’s case is vapor: he is a weirdo and nothing more. There are loads of odd people in alleys and late-night streets in any city. You don't need expertise to realize that, just some life experience.

Modern Policing Supports Lechmere’s Suspicion

Modern policing bolsters the suspicion around Lechmere in more ways than one. Yes, today, the body-finder is Suspect One until cleared, and Lechmere’s story wouldn’t pass muster without alibi checks or forensic scrutiny, tools absent in 1888.  Other points of view on modern police work are relevant as well.

For instance, what would it mean in modern police work if someone tried to evade identity? On this matter, I will digress to some personal experience I have. 

I actually work with identity evaders all the time in my profession, which is night-time hotel work that includes security duties. People causing a ruckus in public areas of the hotel at 3AM or thereabouts often refuse to give their room numbers, refuse to give ID, or give room numbers that do not exist. I have no doubt it's an effort to avoid any punishments (such as eviction) associated with their minor crimes. 

Such people who evade identification are always guilty of some kind of offense on hotel property, albeit minor offenses. But I will say that someone who attempts to evade identification is a very suspicious character in a hotel. I am basing this on my own work experience with the 3AM disturbing-the-peace types.

When someone doesn't give their room number or ID, I follow their footsteps on camera to their room number and flag the room for all staff to be aware of. Conversely, someone who gives ID or a correct room number is usually just given a casual verbal warning. In short, not identifying yourself has the opposite effect of the one that the person intends. They face greater scrutiny, not lesser.

Police Would Be Highly Suspicious of Identity Misrepresentation

In more serious contexts, police aren't fans of people using aliases. In modern police work, Lechmere's evading identity would be taken to mean he has something to hide. In modern times, police would think that he might have a criminal record, warrants, or be evading follow-up investigations.

In fact, something like this happened concerning Ted Bundy, the American serial killer. He was pulled over for a traffic violation in Florida while on the lam. He gave a misleading name and once that was discovered, there was no way police were letting him go. Bundy would never see freedom again.

Giving anything except your incontrovertible legal name could be construed as obstruction of justice. In modern police work, that could lead to a lot, such as home searches, interrogations, and penetrating investigations. If you found a body and gave an alias to the police, they would be all over you in modern times, as police tactics on these matters have evolved for the better over the last several decades.

Kosminski is the Popular Top Pick is Total Garbage

Lechmere would be under a microscope in modern times. But as far as Kosminski goes, modern police would not likely elevate his status higher than "person of interest."

His lunacy and hatred for women would be major red flags, especially since he had contempt for prostitutes. But without anything against him tying him to a crime scene, he would not be elevated to a suspect, I'm sure. If he were put to trial, I'm sure the result would likely be Not Guilty, especially if Lechmere's more convincing candidacy as the top suspect was raised in defense.

In conclusion, the only person who can be considered a suspect is Lechmere. Everyone else is either a person of interest at best or someone who was more or less arbitrarily suggested (there are scores of Ripper 'suspects' noted in crime writing).

In conclusion, I would say Lechmere is the top suspect, and that any other suggested figure is an incredibly distant No. 2.