Showing posts with label Charles Lechmere. Show all posts

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.

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.

Blood Spatter, Blood Volume: Comparing Singapore's Boy on the Tracks with the Murder of Polly Nichols

Author: Shane Lambert
Original Publication Date: January 25th, 2021
Updated Date: April 08th, 2025

Note: This article was originally published on January 25th, 2021, and has been updated on April 08th, 2025, to remove an expired YouTube link and enhance readability.

How Blood Evidence Shapes Crime Scene Investigations

How blood is left at a crime scene or a possible crime scene can be the result of many different processes: blood pooling, blood dripping, blood spattering, or blood spraying are some of the phrases that you will hear when watching forensic television shows.

But whether it drips, pools, sprays, or spatters, analyzing blood at a possible crime scene is part of the forensic sciences. It is in a branch known as forensic serology, which is the study of various body fluids, including blood.

It is important to know that the velocity of blood as it exits a human body can reveal important information as to whether the body was alive or dead at the time of the bleeding. Furthermore, the amount of blood at a possible crime scene can also reveal the same thing.

In this blog post, I'll look at two cases that are similar in one regard: in both cases, the blood at a crime scene was used to support the notion that the decedent at the scene was already dead when he or she bled out. The first case I will look at is the infamous 1888 murder of Polly Nichols in England, assumingly by the unknown serial killer dubbed Jack the Ripper. The second case I will look at is one from Singapore from 1972 where a boy thought to have died on train tracks in a train accident was then reassessed as already dead before being hit by the train.

The Murder of Polly Nichols: A Jack the Ripper Case

Firstly, let's look at the murder of Polly Nichols. She was killed in the Whitechapel area of London on August 31st, 1888. Due to her association with Jack the Ripper, there has never been a shortage of inquest into her death and that has produced expert conjecture pertaining to her murder.

Whoever killed Polly Nichols used a knife for either stabbing or making incisions on her neck, her vagina, her abdomen, and at other points on her body. However, one Forensic Physician, known as Dr. Jason Payne-James, expressed his opinion that Polly Nichols did not necessarily die as a result of these apparent wounds. Instead, there is a suggestion that Polly Nichols was first subjected to "manual strangulation" before her body was mutilated.

Dr. Payne-James shared this perspective in the 2014 Channel Five documentary "Jack the Ripper: The New Evidence." Originally, this article included an embedded clip from that documentary, but the link has since expired.

Strangulation, as the cause of death, has been used to explain why there was no blood spray at the scene of Polly Nichols's murder. There was blood pooling but that has to do with dripping, not spraying or spattering.

The difference between dripping and spraying results from a difference in blood pressure in the arteries. When the heart is beating, the arteries are pressurized. When the heart is not beating (i.e., the body is dead), then the pressures moving the blood are less forceful. If a corpse is pierced or sliced, then the blood might ooze out instead of being sprayed. That oozing would lead to blood pooling, and it’s this process that Dr. Payne-James described in his analysis.

The lack of blood pressure in a corpse has been used to explain how a man named Charles Lechmere, the man who was once thought to have only discovered the body of Polly Nichols, might actually have been her killer despite the fact that he had no blood spray on his clothes on the night of Nichols' murder. If Jack the Ripper (possibly Lechmere) strangled Polly Nichols to death before mutilating her, then he could still have walked the streets of the Whitechapel area without blood on his clothes. In short, that he was clean of blood spray does not clear him of the murder.

The Singapore Train Tracks Mystery: A Forensic Twist

The second case that I will look at is both similar and different. The case of a dead boy found on the Bukit Merah train tracks in Singapore in April of 1972 was covered in a course I took from Nanyang Technological University ("Introduction to Forensic Science" by Professor Roderick Bates).

According to Roderick Bates, the course instructor, in 1972 a train ran over a human body on a set of train tracks in Singapore. At first glance, one might have thought that the death of the boy should be ruled a suicide—that is, maybe he placed himself on the tracks knowing that the train wouldn't be able to stop in time to avoid running him over.

However, when a forensics-medicine specialist known as Chao Tze Cheng examined the scene, he concluded that there was not enough blood at the scene to make one think that the body was alive at the time that the train ran it over. That lack of blood had something to do with the unpressurized arteries that you find in a corpse. To Chao Tze Cheng, who was one of Singapore's top forensic authorities, that meant that the boy was already dead when placed on the tracks and that he may have been previously murdered.

Key Takeaways for Forensic Analysis

Websleuths or amateur investigators should note that blood spatter/spray and blood pooling/dripping could be a clue as to the state of the corpse at the time of any stabbing or incision. With the former, spattering and spraying would suggest that the decedent was alive at the time of the injuries. With pooling and dripping, it would suggest that the decedent was already dead at the time of the 'injuries.'

In both of the cases examined, the relative blood pressure between a living person and a dead person was central to taking an investigation in a certain direction. In the case of Polly Nichols, it showed that a suspect, Charles Lechmere, was not cleared of suspicion simply due to the fact that he had no blood on him. Since the cause of death may have been strangulation, the slicing and stabbing of the corpse would not have resulted in the spraying of blood on the person who wielded the knife. In the case of the boy on the tracks, it refuted the notion of suicide via train and allowed investigators to look for a murderer. According to Professor Roderick Bates, the investigation did conclude with charges.

Sources

Dr. Roderick Bates, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; the facts surrounding the case of the boy on the tracks from 1972 were covered in "Introduction to Forensic Science" and were described in a lecture of his that I watched in January 2021; date of lecture recording is not clear
Chao Tze Cheng: forensics examiner who worked on the case of the boy on the tracks
2014's Channel Five documentary "Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence"

Missing Person Commentary