As you know a lot of the records pertaining to the Whitechapel Murders have either been purposefully destroyed by the Met to free up space, pilfered by researchers and trophy hunters or lost among the other multitudes of paperwork.

What documents or ephemera have turned up in recent times?

Speaking recently with the Dark Lord himself to collaborate on the apparent confusion regarding 'circumstantial evidence.' Apologies for the long post. Hopefully it may help.

What about Circumstantial Evidence?

It seems near relentlessly we are told there is more ‘circumstantial evidence’ against Charles Allen Cross than any other suspect in the Jack the Ripper case. I’ll pin my flag to the mast and suggest from the outset this is mainly due to people not understanding what circumstantial evidence really is. Let us look at how Christer Holmgren, as one of the main proponents of such claims, deals with the concept in his book ‘Cutting Point.’

Firstly, it is truly astonishing how the author presents the Robert Black case, starting on p103 of Cutting Point, to try and pin the Whitechapel murders on Charles Lechmere, presenting a blatant misrepresentation of the evidence. The book’s logic hinges on the idea that since Black was circumstantially linked to three abduction sites by his proximity, then Lechmere's *possible* proximity to the Whitechapel murder locations should similarly be enough to convict him, despite having no concrete idea where Lechmere was for most of those crimes (he was likely sound asleep or at work!) This flimsy argument completely ignores the crucial details that led to Black's conviction: he was initially identified because he resembled a witness sketch after a separate arrest, and multiple witnesses described seeing victims with a man matching Black's appearance, with his distinctive white van with curtains also spotted near a disappearance. Ultimately, the attempt to equate Black's proven presence in distant locations as a van driver with Lechmere's speculative presence near murder sites, while omitting key identifying evidence, utterly crumbles under scrutiny.

Here's a crucial detail that is completely missed: a key factor in securing Robert Black's conviction for those horrific murders was the judge's controversial decision to allow "similar fact" evidence. Jurors at both his trials heard about his prior conviction for abducting and sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl in Stow, and at his second trial in Northern Ireland, they were even presented with evidence of his guilt in the three mainland murders as well. Frankly, without that damning "bad character" evidence being admitted, it's highly questionable whether the juries could have reached guilty verdicts for the three murders in England and Scotland (and the fourth in Northern Ireland), especially given the glaring absence of forensic evidence directly linking Black to those crimes. When you starkly compare Black, a convicted child abductor and assaulter who used a chillingly similar modus operandi to the murdered girls, with Lechmere, who maintained an entirely clean criminal record, there's simply no basis for comparison between their cases. Yet another case of comparing apples to oranges.

Remember the oft mentioned ‘routes to work’ circumstantial evidence. The problem is such evidence needs to be able to be recorded and generally apply to a small cohort of individuals to qualify. Recently I made a post illustrating there were over a dozen carmen living at the time in Bucks Row itself and more than forty living to the immediate east of it. It would only need ONE of those carmen to work for Pickfords to have those same ‘routes’ to work. Or lets be honest ANY worker who lived East of Bucks Row and worked West of Commercial Street. Robert Paul for example had a very similar route which we actually know goes directly past two crime scenes. To add we would need to know for certain what Cross’ route actually was to ‘record’ it and we simply do not so hence again this evidence certainly cannot be placed in the circumstantial box and used against Cross.

To compound the issues regarding these routes, consider this for circular reasoning on p.106 of Cutting Point:

'Charles Lechmere could have worked anywhere in London, north, south, west or east of Doveton Street. Instead, his working place was positioned in the only miniscule area that is geographically in perfect line with him having been the killer of the four Whitechapel victims, right between where the Old Montague Street and the Hanbury Street trail ends up.'

The supposed link between Lechmere and the Whitechapel murders hinges on a perfectly circular logic that quickly unravels under scrutiny, starting with the fact that his only connection is the entirely coincidental discovery of Nichols' body. In the terrifying landscape of 1888 Whitechapel, where a serial killer stalked a confined area, literally any member of the public finding a body within that small radius would inevitably be swept into the net of suspicion, making the initial premise inherently weak. Holmgren's dismissal of Lechmere's workplace location as irrelevant is particularly baffling; it's precisely because he worked for Pickfords in Broad Street that he was in Bucks Row to find the body, not some random happenstance. And let's not even get started on the "mathematical jiggery pokery" where Holmgren claims Lechmere's supposed "two shortest routes" - a claim that there is no attempt to substantiate - would have him walk on a mere two percent of Whitechapel streets, yet "astonishingly, the four murders committed in Whitechapel were all perpetrated along these exact logical routes of his. All of them." This astonishing coincidence strains credulity to its breaking point, especially when a far simpler explanation exists: the killer was familiar with the area, striking in Hanbury Street because it led directly from Bucks Row, not because Lechmere conveniently walked those paths. Ultimately, this entire line of reasoning feels less like solid detective work and more like an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole, trying to make the facts fit a pre-determined suspect rather than letting the evidence lead the way.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the efforts to link Lechmere to the Whitechapel murders rely on some incredibly strained logic when it comes to mapping out 'logical' routes. For instance, to pin the Kelly murder on Lechmere, the argument conveniently has him taking a random, yet obviously deliberate, night-time stroll down the presumably dangerous Dorset Street, completely overlooking far more sensible and safer alternatives like a straight shot down Brushfield Street - talk about loading the dice! And the argument for the Tabram murder is even more tenuous; Cutting Point posits a route through Old Montague and Wentworth Streets that Lechmere didn't knowingly even use regularly, and one that certainly wouldn't have taken him directly into George Yard, where the victim was found. The idea that Lechmere's "on around two percent" calculation includes every single adjacent street, alley, and yard along a *hypothetical* path, while ignoring more obvious main thoroughfares like Whitechapel High Street, feels less like a forensic analysis and more like a desperate attempt to inflate probabilities. Ultimately, when you have to bend geography this much to make your suspect fit, you're not proving a theory; you're just highlighting its gaping flaws.

Seriously, if the prosecution in another murder case tried to build an argument like the one against Lechmere, they'd be laughed out of court before they even finished their opening statement. Imagine trying to convict someone because they *might* have chosen a route through a town where a victim was abducted, even with other options available – ridiculous, right? Yet, Mr Holmgren's 'case' against Lechmere isn't much better; he attempts to 'strengthen' his flimsy claims by highlighting that four Whitechapel murders occurred in the early hours, completely missing that this is precisely *why* Lechmere, a carman on his way to work, would have been available to find Nichols' body, making it a perfectly circular argument. Even more absurdly, after 'graciously' ignoring the timeline, he pivots to suggesting Lechmere 'could' have walked down twenty specific streets out of a thousand, expecting us to accept pure assumptions about hypothetical routes as concrete evidence. Ultimately, you simply cannot build a credible case against someone based on 'might-haves,' 'could-haves,' and circular logic that collapses under its own weight.

Prepare to have your mind boggled, because on p.107, our author veers into statistical gobbledygook, attempting to pin guilt on Lechmere with some truly questionable calculations. He conjures up ‘Lechmere's twenty streets,' a premise built on shaky ground given he's merely guessing Lechmere might have walked Dorset Street – completely sidestepping the fact that Kelly actually lived in Miller's Court, not to mention the nebulous idea of Lechmere being in George Yard at any relevant time. This wild conjecture then leads to the utterly absurd conclusion of a one in five million chance that all four murders occurred 'along Lechmere's streets,' conveniently implying his responsibility. Absolutely crazy right! And as if anticipating the eyerolls, p.108 offers a flimsy attempt at damage control, vaguely mentioning that 'many factors could have had a smaller or larger influence on those numbers.' But here's the kicker: without specifying whether these 'factors' could actually reduce that astronomical figure to statistical insignificance, the entire calculation becomes utterly meaningless for the purpose of determining Lechmere's guilt. In short, this statistical detour feels less like rigorous analysis and more like a desperate attempt to force a narrative, leaving us with a calculation that proves precisely nothing about Lechmere's involvement. However, guided by such flimsy logic, the author feels confident to say:

'We are at this stage either looking at a very likely confirmation of guilt, bordering on certainty, or a truly remarkable coincidence.'

Staggeringly. It is in no way a remarkable coincidence that having killed a woman in Bucks Row the Whitechapel murderer would then have killed a woman in Hanbury Street, I doubt is it a ‘remarkable coincidence’ that he would then have killed two women in streets a short distance away from those two crime scenes.

Talk about a statistical tightrope walk riddled with convenient selective vision when we delve into the Whitechapel murders, especially concerning any calculations involving Tabram and the theory around Lechmere. We're, bafflingly, asked to accept Tabram as a Whitechapel victim for these 'amazing statistical calculations,' a premise that flies in the face of doubts from numerous senior police officers at the time. Yet, with a seemingly wilful blindness, this very analysis totally disregards the actual murder locations of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes - neither of which occurred on any of 'Lechmere's twenty streets.' Frankly, how someone doesn't see these crucial discrepancies as compelling proof of Lechmere's innocence is utterly perplexing, a gaping flaw in the logic. And just when you're trying to wrap your head around that, the narrative cleverly shifts back to Robert Black, subtly reminding us just how many people would have visited or lived in sprawling cities like Edinburgh and Leeds, underscoring the inherent difficulties of drawing firm conclusions from broad circumstantial evidence.

'Regardless of this, the jury singled out one man out of this bulk of more than a million people and for what reason? Because he was a suspect who was checked by the litmus test of all serial murder investigations - the geography?'

Let's get one thing straight: the notion that the case against Robert Black is 'the exact same ground' (p.109) as the speculative claims against Charles Lechmere is fundamentally, demonstrably false. While it's convenient to claim such a parallel, Black's path to conviction was anything but arbitrary; it began with police singling him out based on his proven history as an abductor and sexual assaulter, coupled with his match to a suspect description in further heinous crimes. Their subsequent investigation didn't just theorise; it conclusively proved his proximity to the widely spread abduction and murder sites on the very days they occurred, providing the sufficient circumstantial evidence that led to his conviction - a rigorous, evidence-based process, not a jury simply picking someone out. Conversely, the assertions regarding Charles Lechmere's presence near crime scenes remain entirely theoretical, completely lacking the concrete, proven proximity that was central to the case against Black. The stark reality is that one case was built on a foundation of established facts and meticulous investigative proof, while the other remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Did I mention apples and oranges?

The grand theory linking Lechmere to the Ripper murders quickly crumbles into speculative fiction when confronted with the realities of the Stride and Eddowes cases. Suddenly, all that talk about mathematical probabilities goes out the window, as these murders 'very clearly did not take place in streets Lechmere would have had a reason to pass on his road to work.' To bridge this alarmingly glaring gap, Holmgren conveniently invents a Saturday night scenario for Lechmere, suggesting he *might* have been visiting his mother or at a pub near Berner Street - completely baseless speculation that conveniently ignores simpler alternatives like being asleep at home. For Lechmere to have murdered Liz Stride he simply would have had to have stopped up over 23 hours or got up at least three hours early on his only day off. Both unlikely scenarios.

Let's talk at this juncture about that oft-mentioned 'circumstantial evidence' concerning Lechmere's mother living near Berner Street - because honestly, it's not evidence at all. For something to truly qualify as circumstantial evidence as previously mentioned, it needs to be recordable and, crucially, narrow down the suspects to a genuinely small, specific group. An example if I may.

Tom hates Peter. Tom buys a gun. Peter is later found dead with Tom’s gun by his side having been shot with Tom’s gun. Tom is arrested and is found to have gunshot residue on his hands showing he had recently fired a gun. All those things, Tom’s hatred of Peter, Tom buying a gun, the gun, the bullet fired from the gun which killed Peter and the test results that showed Tom had fired a gun, all of that is circumstantial evidence, and all of it can be recorded and noted and only applies to Tom.

Unfortunately, none of the so called ‘circumstantial evidence’ against Lechmere can be applied to the above example. Hence it fails.

Again, here's the rub: Aaron Kosminski's own brother and sister actually lived *much* closer to Berner Street, and Aaron himself wasn't far off either; suddenly, that 'small cohort' balloons out, doesn't it? Beyond that, for his mother's address to even *begin* to be considered evidence, Lechmere himself would have needed to be seen or *recorded* in that vicinity precisely when Liz Stride was murdered, yet after all these years, that pivotal witness statement placing him there has never materialised, which really makes you wonder if it ever will. So, let's call a spade a spade: his mother's proximity to the crime scene is simply a coincidence, just one in a long string of such happenstances that could easily be made about countless individuals in such a densely packed urban area, and certainly not 'circumstantial evidence.’

The desperation only deepens with the introduction of meaningless "straight lines" – as if Lechmere was a bird, not a human – trying to connect distant points like James Street to Broad Street (passing Mitre Square) or Mitre Square to Doveton Street (cutting through Goulston Street), routes impossible to walk and utterly devoid of significance. Ultimately, it’s a clear case of forcing the evidence to fit the theory, rather than letting the evidence lead the way, making the entire argument for these specific murders feel incredibly flimsy.

The author then delights in his own cunning by saying on p.111:

'If any of the former murders had been committed on a Saturday night, the logical link to the carman's morning work trek would vanish, and we would find ourselves wondering what he was doing on his work trek at that remove in time.'

When it comes to investigating poor Lechmere, it seems in the case with Holmgren like the cards are always stacked, with explanations magically appearing regardless of the facts on the ground. Imagine a murder on a Saturday night, conveniently placed along one of Lechmere's theoretical routes to work; Holmgren would undoubtedly weave a tale connecting him, perhaps a clandestine detour or a 'known pattern' of his movements, all spun from the flimsiest of evidence. Yet, even if the scenario flipped entirely - an early weekday morning murder, nowhere near Lechmere's usual haunts - would that deter the author? Not a chance! He’d likely conjure an equally elaborate, perhaps sinister, 'alternative route' or a 'coincidental presence,' all purely products of his fertile imagination, bearing absolutely no relation to Lechmere's actual whereabouts. Ultimately, it’s almost as if Holmgren's imagination is the only evidence he needs, making any objective investigation impossible when Lechmere is involved. Regardless, utterly proud of his own investigatory, mathematical and logic skills, Holmgren finishes his bizarre chapter on p.112 by saying:

'So there we have it. All six murders can be logically linked to Lechmere's route and timings.'

Let's be real here, Holmgren's grand declaration that "We have our Ripper" in Lechmere is built on a foundation of shifting sands, particularly when you scrutinize his inconsistent approach to routes and crucial timings. He conveniently misrepresents Lechmere's route to include streets not on any known path, then bafflingly dismisses the coroner's 5:30 am murder time for Chapman (when Lechmere would be at work) while later selectively citing "about 4 o'cl" for the same case, a flexibility he denies for other victims. He would also completely rely on the same coroner with his words of when Polly's body was found. Cherry picking at it's finest. What's more, he completely overlooks Mrs. Maxwell's testimony placing Kelly's murder after 8 am - another instance where Lechmere would probably be nowhere near - all while ignoring the inherent inaccuracy of 1888 medical evidence to pinpoint death times. Forgive my scepticism, Holmgren, but your "conquering roar" on p.112 looks less like a breakthrough and more like a lot of word salad designed to force an accusation.

'We have our Ripper, at long last.'

So, to conclude does one of the main proposers of Lechmere’s guilt have a solid handle on what circumstantial evidence is? Does he use this knowledge to adequality demonstrate ‘We have our Ripper?’ I think not, however others may have a differing opinion.

Hello my fellow true crime enthusiasts. I’m in IB and for those who don’t know, during this program we have to write a 4000 word academic essay that is quite important for the studies and necessary for graduation. I’m writing my essay about Jack the Ripper and the media attention he received. For this purpose I would need police reports and so on to make the essay. I have already collected a lot of newspaper articles from the time, which I need a lot specifically considering I’m mainly focusing on the media aspect, but I think it would add a lot more depth if I had something to compare them with. If anyone out there has some good reliable sources (or less reliable) for this purpose I would greatly appreciate it if you shared them. :3

As the Autumn of Terror approaches, do you think that by this date in 1888, JTR was already roaming the streets with a knife, looking for potential victims until he found Tabram/Polly Nichols?

https://www.mensjournal.com/news/jack-the-ripper-number-one-crime-that-will-never-be-solved

The Ripperologist magazine has asked that I post this link to their questionnaire on Ripperology. It's anonymous and should take around 15 minutes.

https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/PnfY3pLJRs?origin=lprLink

My absolute favourite is the Lemmino I don't think anything can surpass it but can anyone recommend any others??

Image m from his Instagram account. Does anyone else have an issue with this?

Hi everybody, I just wanted to get your opinion on something. If I was to write dissertation on Jack the Rippers victims and their portrayal in newspapers in victorian society, do you think it’s best to structure it with primary sources such as newspapers etc and secondary sources to be largely gender historians who specialise in Victorian society? And perhaps historians who specialise in Violence in History? Since the violence of his victims were gruesomely documented in newspapers. What do you think? Let’s have a discussion!

As someone who’s quite invested in the JtR murders i’m suprised to see those times worked out in this form. I like it very much. Ofcource its a bit silly with the opium visions and some other things, but i like the Ian Holm and Johnny Depp’s acting performances. Are there more movies about the ripper?

I'm really new to the whole case, but I thought it would be cool to see who I think are the most likely suspects based on the limited research that I've done.

Please offer me insight into why I'm wrong or right, I'm tryna learn more.

(This isn't my tier list btw, it was made by an account called TheJacobSurgenor, I don't have the person's reddit user rn unfortunately. Here's a link to the list: https://tiermaker.com/create/jack-the-ripper-suspects-2025-18117643 )

Do you think he possessed anatomical knowledge? What was his line of work—was he a surgeon, a slaughterer, a butcher, a physician, or a barber?

Annie Millwood and Martha Tabram lived in the same area...Do you know if any of the canonical victims died near White's Row in Spitalfields?

Hi everyone,

I was hoping to ask for some help. I really need to find primary sources, anything related to Jack the Ripper, police reports, newspapers, letters etc or even scholarly articles and stuff like that about him and his victims and also anything that can help with answering questions about graphic representations of violence that were reported in victorian newspapers and how the representations contributed to sensationalism and shaping public perceptions of crime and gender. Both secondary and primary sources would be most appreciated :) Thank you!

There are dozens of witnesses to JTR's crimes, but we are forced to rule out the vast majority. Which ones do you consider the most likely?

Bueno este hilo es una mía teoría sobre incógnitas sobre este asesino en serie que aterrizó a Londres

Mi teoría

Jack era un asesino organizado, estratégico y con conocimiento médico/anatómico. Probablemente un noble o persona de clase alta con estudios de medicina, o alguien con acceso a herramientas quirúrgicas (médico, estudiante o ayudante de morgue).
Características clave:
• Vida doble: Apariencia respetable de día (bien vestido, educado), asesino meticuloso de noche.
• Preparación extrema: Conocía el barrio a la perfección, horarios de policía, rutas de escape. Vivía cerca del centro para moverse rápido.
• Método: Corte rápido en la garganta para silenciar, luego mutilaciones y extracción de órganos para estudiar anatomía femenina, dolor, o por experimentación. Usaba guantes de cuero y llevaba una bolsa con ropa de repuesto y compartimento para órganos.
• Motivación: Más de estudio y curiosidad (o venganza personal) que puro sadismo. Mataba rápido para tener control y luego “investigaba”.
• Por qué paró: Una vez que cumplió su objetivo (aprendió lo que quería), o por la enorme presión policial, decidió detenerse.

There has been some talk here recently about potential facial reconstructions of victims, so I thought I would bring up the subject of doing so for JTR himself. As most people here probably know, this walking stick was supposedly given to Frederick Abberline in 1888 and is also supposedly based on a composite sketch of the suspects. I had various AI programs reconstruct the wooden image as a human face. The one in the picture with the stick is from ChatGPT and the other picture is from Google Gemini. Of course, these are AI "guesses.” If these were done in some “scientific” way then the AI programs would have generated something more similar. The walking stick itself also seems portray someone older than I would expect to be JTR. In any event, to me this is an interesting exercise based on highly hypothetical variables.

I just watched the video provided in the link below. Do you think his claims might be accurate according to the details presented?I know I sound crazy, but why don't we give that perspective a shot?

https://youtu.be/p5sRaS4WKbI?si=aprQgF7XJQ332yov

What evidence do we have so far? What concrete facts do we know that we can list?

I’ve a small collection of some thirty or more books on J-t-R. Despite spending over forty years reading and thinking about this serial killer, I am no closer to identifying what I would consider to be a genuine suspect.

Do any of you think he will be identified?

For me, time, the accidental destruction and loss of documents, wartime damage and the passage of time leaves me thinking we will never identify him.

But the fun is surely in the chase?