Was Charles Lechmere Jack the Ripper? Examining the Leading Suspect
By: Shane Lambert
Originally published: April 1st, 2025; second look on July 1st, 2026
I worked on a series that I tagged "Famous Historical Cases." To start the series, I looked at the case of Jack the Ripper, the infamous serial killer of the late 19th century who has never been identified. In doing so, I presumed the reader had at least some general knowledge of the case from the 1880s in England. You can click on the "Famous Historical Cases" hashtag to see the other articles in the series.
Jack the Ripper is an unknown serial killer who had five canonical victims. Numerous writers have tried to name him, but, in my opinion, the theories regarding his identity are generally unconvincing, 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 involves a comparison between candidates, not an absolute claim that Jack the Ripper was Lechmere. In fact, I think Charles Lechmere is the only person who can plausibly be called a suspect using the modern policing standards I believe should be applied to this historical case. Furthermore, I think modern policing standards should be used.
Charles Lechmere: The Leading Jack the Ripper Suspect
Charles Lechmere stands as the strongest candidate in the Jack the Ripper case because he is, in my opinion, the only person who can plausibly be called a suspect in the modern investigative sense. He holds a clear edge over all other top 'contenders' because of his documented 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, I think the fact that these points were not emphasized by more Ripper researchers before 2014 says something about the quality of some earlier speculation about the case. 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
Charles Lechmere and the Mary Ann Nichols Crime Scene
On August 31st, 1888, Lechmere, perhaps only ostensibly, discovered Mary Ann Nichols' body in Buck's Row. Her throat had been slashed, her abdomen mutilated, and she was still warm, suggesting that her death had occurred only shortly beforehand. It's possible that Lechmere did not discover her after she had been murdered but was actually the murderer himself.
It is this event, and his status as the man who discovered the body, that links Lechmere to a Ripper crime scene. Unlike any other person who has been alleged to have been the Ripper, Charles Lechmere was physically present at a canonical Ripper crime scene very close to the apparent time of death. Lechmere was there before Robert Paul, the man who was second on the scene, arrived. Lechmere then -- perhaps only ostensibly -- positioned himself as a witness.
Lechmere's Presence at the Crime Scene
In the Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence documentary, the point is clearly made that Lechmere was at a Ripper crime scene. It is an integral point in the documentary.
The documentary itself goes further, stating that “Charles Lechmere's actions on the night of the murder of Polly Nichols implicate him as a prime suspect.” I think this is an important observation, but I also think the wording is somewhat passive in the context of the broader Ripper debate. Calling Lechmere a prime suspect places him among a category of other prime suspects. Yet, who in this world has as much evidence against him as Charles Lechmere does?
My position is stronger: Lechmere is not merely a prime suspect. He should be the prime suspect on any Ripper-candidate list: he should be No. 1. Furthermore, I hope the police will consider him a proper suspect in the future.
The distinction between police and writers matters because the Ripper literature contains countless people who have been labelled “suspects.” The word can be used very loosely in books, articles, documentaries, and online discussions to describe almost anyone who has been proposed as a possible identity for Jack the Ripper. But being given the label “suspect” by a writer is not necessarily the same thing as having circumstances that would justify "suspect" status in an actual homicide investigation.
For the writers making their lists, Lechmere has something that the other leading Ripper candidates do not comparably have: a documented presence at the scene of a canonical Ripper murder, with the victim apparently having died only shortly beforehand. He was not merely someone who lived in Whitechapel, worked in a relevant occupation, behaved strangely, or was retrospectively associated with the murders. He was actually with the body very close to the point of death.
This is why I think the modern investigative perspective is important. If Lechmere's circumstances could justify treating him as a suspect in a modern homicide investigation, then his position is fundamentally different from that of candidates whose connections to the murders are based primarily on speculation, personality, geography, occupation, or evidence that appeared decades later.
How Modern Homicide Investigators Would Treat a Body Discoverer
By modern police standards, I believe Lechmere's circumstances could be sufficient to make him a suspect, although terminology and investigative practices can vary between jurisdictions. He was found with a freshly murdered woman at a time very close to her death, and he was the first known person to encounter her body. Police across many jurisdictions do take these circumstances seriously.
When you study modern homicide investigation procedures, you learn that they emphasize a methodical approach that avoids making early assumptions about anyone connected to a crime scene. This does not mean assuming someone is guilty, but it also means preserving the possibility that someone connected to the scene may have been involved. Investigators identify everyone present, verify their identities, interview witnesses, and document their observations because when someone is associated to a crime scene, his or her 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 with a freshly murdered victim would warrant serious investigation until the evidence either excluded or implicated them. (Source: John M. Howell, Homicide Investigation Standard Operating Procedures, 1999; the author writes about crime scenes in general, not the Lechmere case).
There is also a direct modern policing perspective on Lechmere's circumstances in the documentary. Dr. Andy Griffiths, former head of the Sussex Police Murder Squad, states:
“Certainly in the modern age, you couldn't prosecute anybody else without eliminating him first, because obviously you've got someone who's been with the body very close to the point of death and possibly is the person who caused the death. So he is definitely a very significant person in terms of the investigation.”
Griffiths' statement illustrates why Lechmere's presence at the Nichols crime scene differs from that of most other proposed Ripper candidates. He describes Lechmere as someone who was with the body very close to the point of death and who could possibly have caused the death. Griffiths calls him “a very significant person in terms of the investigation.”
Griffiths stops short of explicitly calling Lechmere the suspect, and I make that distinction deliberately. His characterization is his own; my classification of Lechmere as the prime suspect is my conclusion. I wouldn't call Lechmere just "a very significant person" but rather the most significant person.
Who, on the record, is more significant than Lechmere? You can only allege that there's someone unknown who's more significant, but this is without support.
I hope that Lechmere will be considered a suspect based on the circumstances described above and the additional evidence discussed below. Furthermore, the fact that a plausible argument can be made for treating Lechmere as a suspect makes him a much stronger candidate for being Jack the Ripper than any of the other men who are commonly mentioned.
The word "suspect" has significant meaning in a murder investigation. Writers might use it loosely when constructing lists of Jack the Ripper suspects. However, my argument is that a lot of these lists are completely uncritical: a person should not be called a suspect merely because a writer has placed his name on such a list. There should be an evidentiary basis for suspecting that person of involvement in the crime.
Lechmere has that basis in a way that the other leading candidates cannot comparably claim. He has a documented connection to a canonical Ripper crime scene and was with the body very close to the point of death. The additional circumstances discussed later in this article strengthen that initial basis for suspect status.
Whether this or something else that is discovered ultimately proves him to be the murderer is a separate question. But if the standard is determining who has the strongest basis for actually being considered a suspect, rather than simply being proposed as one by writers, Lechmere stands apart.
Charles Cross: Documentation Advantage
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 in 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.
The documentation that exists gives those who believe Lechmere is the top candidate a tangible advantage over the likes of Aaron Kosminski, Montague John Druitt, or Walter Sickert. These are people whose names are absent from the contemporaneous reports discussed here. Compared to Lechmere, theories regarding these other individuals are therefore much less supported by direct documentation connecting them to a canonical murder scene.
Circumstantial Evidence Against Charles Lechmere
Other aspects of Lechmere's involvement are, in fact, more tenuous. They are covered in the 2014 documentary mentioned earlier, which I will review.
Lechmere's Route Through Whitechapel
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 Family Connection to Berner Street
Lechmere's mother's residence near Berner Street (Elizabeth Stride) ties him geographically 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, as covered in the documentary: he had a legitimate reason to be out early in the morning and a plausible occupational explanation for the presence of blood.
Questions Raised by the Nichols Inquest
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 that become more significant because they occurred in connection with Lechmere's immediate presence at a Ripper crime scene.
Aaron Kosminski and the Jack the Ripper DNA Evidence
Kosminski tops the list on many lists of Jack-the-Ripper candidates. But his case crumbles without its disputed DNA evidence. The 2014 study by Jari Louhelainen and Russell Edwards claimed mitochondrial DNA from a dubious shawl linked Kosminski to a murder victim, Catherine Eddowes. The claim has subsequently been challenged.
Problems With the Kosminski Shawl Evidence
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' handling of the research and the criticism of their methodology are sufficient reasons to question the conclusion.
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 reasonably expect readers to accept a conclusion while withholding the underlying research data needed to independently assess it.
Some experts criticized aspects of the research (Science.org/Mar 15, 2019/David Adam). This makes the claim that Kosminski is tied to a crime scene substantially less persuasive.
“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 reliable direct tie to the crime scene, Kosminski's case is considerably weaker. There are many people whose unusual behaviour or circumstances can be made to look suspicious after the fact. That alone does not establish a connection to a murder.
How Modern Policing Changes the Jack the Ripper Investigation
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.
Using Modern Investigative Standards to Reevaluate Historical Evidence
Applying modern police standards to historical crimes could be viewed as a form of precovery, which is 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: I think it should generally be assumed to benefit from the experience accumulated by previous generations.
Today, if you find a dead body, the circumstances surrounding the discovery would be investigated carefully, including the identity, movements, and account of the person who discovered it. Lechmere's story would warrant scrutiny of his movements, his account of the discovery, and any available evidence that could confirm or contradict it. Another relevant question regarding Lechmere is what it would mean in modern police work if someone provided a name other than the one by which he was legally known.
Would Police Be Suspicious of Lechmere Using the Name Charles Cross?
Lechmere didn't give the name by which he was later identified, a point made in the documentary from 2014. Police would naturally want to establish the identity of anyone connected to a homicide investigation. In modern police work, Lechmere giving a different name from his legal one could therefore lead investigators to investigate why he used it and whether there was an innocent explanation.
In fact, something somewhat analogous 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, police had a reason to investigate his identity and circumstances further. The circumstances, however, are not identical to Lechmere's, and I don't suggest that they are.
Giving a name other than one's legal name can raise questions in a police investigation, particularly when the person is connected to a homicide scene. In Lechmere's case, the use of the name "Charles Cross" is therefore another circumstance that deserves examination rather than being dismissed as irrelevant.
Why Aaron Kosminski Is Not a Stronger Suspect Than Lechmere
Lechmere should be compared to Aaron Kosminski, the latter of whom is usually No. 1 on many Jack the Ripper lists. I think that Lechmere would be under a microscope in modern times. But as far as Aaron Kosminski goes, I don't think modern police would necessarily elevate his status higher than "person of interest" without additional evidence connecting him to a crime scene.
Kosminski's Alleged Motive and Behaviour
His mental illness and reported hatred of women would be major red flags, especially given the claims about his attitudes toward prostitutes. But without reliable evidence tying him to a crime scene, I don't think those characteristics alone would justify placing him above Lechmere as a suspect.
Comparing Lechmere and Kosminski
With Lechmere, he can be placed at a crime scene as the discoverer of a murder victim. That is a fundamentally different evidentiary position from merely being suspected because of personality, geography, occupation, or later allegations. Furthermore, the fact that he gave a different name would warrant questions in a modern investigation. Then there is the circumstantial evidence against him that ties his commute and his mother's home to the other known murders, as 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 because he has an evidentiary basis to argue suspect status that is not established with other candidates.
Conclusion: Charles Lechmere is No. 1 Candidate
In conclusion, Lechmere is, in my opinion, the only person who might plausibly be considered a proper suspect as Jack the Ripper on the evidence discussed here. 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 known person to discover the body; he was with Nichols very close to the apparent time of death; he gave a different name; and the documentary provides additional circumstantial evidence against him. That's more than just the clickbait found in some sources. I think Lechmere can legitimately be called a suspect in a way that the other leading candidates cannot comparably claim.
For this reason, I would say Lechmere is the top candidate, and that any other suggested figure is an incredibly distant No. 2. This does not mean that Lechmere has been proven to be Jack the Ripper. It means that, when the proposed candidates are evaluated according to the evidentiary basis for suspect status rather than simply the number of theories written about them, Lechmere stands apart.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
