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

By: Shane Lambert
Originally published: April 1st, 2025; second look on July 1st, 2026

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, unsolved serial killer of 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. To review, Jack the Ripper is a serial killer who had five canonical victims, numerous writers have tried to name him, and the theories regarding his identity are not credible in general, if only because he has been associated with scores of names in the past -- yet can only have one.

My position is that Charles Lechmere should be considered the leading suspect. This is a comparison between suspects, not an absolute claim that Jack the Ripper was Lechmere. In fact, I think Charles Lechmere is the only person who could be called a suspect using modern policing standards. Furthermore, I think modern policing standards should be used.

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

Charles Lechmere stands as the strongest suspect in the Jack the Ripper case because he is the only person who could be called a suspect. He holds 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, the fact that someone did not point out the things that were pointed out in 2014 discredits a lot of the so-called Ripper pundits from times beforehand. I will say that while there are some uncritical elements in the documentary, which can be found on YouTube as of 2026, it's still great food for thought on the unsolved mystery of Jack the Ripper's real name.

Link (good on July 2nd, 2026): The Missing Evidence

Lechmere’s Crime-Scene Connection

On August 31st, 1888, Lechmere supposedly or only ostensibly 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. It's possible that Lechmere did not discover her dead but was actually the murderer.

It's this event that links Lechmere to a crime scene. Unlike any other person who has been alleged to have been the Ripper, Charles Lechmere was physically present at a crime scene, alone with the corpse. Lechmere was there before Robert Paul, second on the scene at the Nichols' body, arrived. Lechmere quickly positioned himself as a witness as opposed to the perpetrator.

In the Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence documentary, the point is clearly made that Lechmere was at a Ripper crime scene. It's an integral point to their documentary. 

However, that Lechmere's status as a discoverer of a body had the potential to make him a suspect by the standards of modern police work is not made clear in the documentary -- and I think it should be. This is a major point because there are so many 'suspects' for Jack the Ripper by the standards of true-crime writers. But their standards are often only "will this help me get clicks?" Something solid enough to get into a proper police investigation is significant in the Ripper case. 

By modern police standards, if you find a body, then you need to be cleared to prevent becoming a suspect. That did not happen with Lechmere.

Modern homicide investigation procedures emphasize a methodical approach that avoids making early assumptions about anyone connected to a crime scene. Investigators are instructed to identify everyone present, verify their identities, separate and interview witnesses, and document their observations because a person's degree of involvement cannot be known at the outset.

The investigation then proceeds by developing and eliminating possible suspects through witness interviews, crime-scene analysis, and other evidence rather than relying on speculation. Under this methodology, someone found alone with a freshly murdered victim, like Charles Lechmere was, would inevitably become a major focus of the investigation until the evidence either excluded or implicated them. (John M. Howell, Homicide Investigation Standard Operating Procedures, 1999).

Lechmere's direct link to a crime scene and a Jack-the-Ripper murder victim is something no one else has claimed or proven concerning any of the other people who are thought to have possibly been the killer.

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. Other newspaper articles are examined for the documentary.

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.

Those documented articles give him a tangible advantage over the likes of Aaron Kosminski, Montague John Druitt, or Walter Sickert. These are people whose names are absent from contemporaneous reports. Compared to Lechmere, theories regarding these other individuals are therefore much less supported.

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, as stated in the documentary.

Then there are his inquest oddities: using “Charles Cross” instead of Lechmere, contradicting Paul’s account, and downplaying Nichols’ injuries to the 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.

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 Suspicion

Why should modern police perspectives on crime scenes be applied to historical crimes? My reasoning is that it's a better application than speculation or clickbait-driven efforts. 

Modern police work should be viewed as having improved upon the efforts of past generations. Therefore, it provides a better methodology for evaluating homicide evidence than Victorian police work or unsupported claims. Applying modern police standards to historical crimes could be viewed as a form of precovery, borrowing an analogy from astronomy. In astronomy, researchers sometimes identify previously unrecognized objects in archival photographs using knowledge acquired years later. Likewise, applying modern investigative methodology to historical homicide evidence can reveal investigative significance that was not appreciated by contemporary investigators.

Police work, like any industry, has been streamlined over the decades. It therefore improves as police authorities learn from the efforts of previous generations. Police work of a later time should not be presumed to be inferior to the police work of a former time.

Today, if you find a dead body, then you will need to be cleared as a suspect. Lechmere’s story wouldn’t pass muster without alibi checks or forensic scrutiny. Another relevant question regarding Lechmere is what it would mean in modern police work if someone tried to evade identity? 

Police Would Be Highly Suspicious of Identity Misrepresentation

Lechmere didn't give his correct name, a point made in the documentary from 2014. Police aren't fans of people using aliases. In modern police work, Lechmere giving a different name would lead to an adverse inference being drawn: it would be taken to mean he had something to hide. In modern times, police would think that he might have either a criminal record, warrants for his arrest, 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 until they knew who he was. 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 as the Ripper: Not a Serious Position

Lechmere would be under a microscope in modern times. But as far as Aaron 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.

With Lechmere, he can be placed at a crime scene as the discoverer of a murder victim. He would have to be cleared accordingly in modern times. Furthermore, the fact that he gave an incorrect name would only heighten suspicions. Then there is the circumstantial evidence against him that ties his commute and his mother's home to the other known murders (covered in the 2014 documentary). 

Circumstantial evidence is stronger than most people realize, even if it doesn't meet the high standard of proof required for murder convictions. Remember, my claim isn't that Lechmere is convictable or that he is the Ripper. Rather, I claim that he does trump the top candidates.

In conclusion, the only person who can properly be considered a proper suspect as Jack the Ripper 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). Lechmere was at the crime scene; he was the first to discover a body; he gave a misleading identity, and the documentary provides circumstantial evidence against him. That's more than just the clickbait you find: I really think Lechmere could be called a proper suspect by more than true-crime writers. For this reason, I would say Lechmere is the top suspect, and that any other suggested figure is an incredibly distant No. 2.