Jack the Ripper -- The Final Solution (???)

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Sorel36

So there was a 3.33% chance the killer had this particular type of mtDNA according to what you wrote. This man who was always a prime suspect is in that group. Not definite proof, but common sense tells us he is likely the guy, no ?

3.33% chance worldwide - what's the percentage in England or Northern Europe in general? It could be significantly higher and if it's locally prominent the finding loses a lot of relevance.

[Babe_Ruth]

Originally Posted by nighthouse66

By FAR the best explanation I have heard was the one about the fella who was found on the scene of the first murder. I believe his name was Cross. There was a complex timeline involving another person, who rounded the corner at the same time as Cross who was standing over the body..

yeah, Charles 'Cross' Lechmere was discovered by the body of the first victim. But his explanation, that he simply came upon her dead body on his morning commute, was basically accepted, unchallenged, for over 100 years.
It's a strange blind spot that more Ripperologists haven't speculated that Lechmere may have been by the freshly murdered victim.. because he was actually the killer.
In Lechmere's defense, I think he was basically cooperative in the inquest of the murder.. other than giving his childhood surname (Cross), instead of his current name (Lechmere). But it would be a tragic irony if the Ripper was known from the very first crime scene.

I don't believe any other suspect was ever seen at any of the crime scenes like Lechmere

[katharsis]

This is an interesting summary of the case for and against (mostly against) Charles Cross Lechmere being JTR:

https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...ck-the-ripper/

[Babe_Ruth]

Originally Posted by katharsis

This is an interesting summary of the case for and against (mostly against) Charles Cross Lechmere being JTR:

https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...ck-the-ripper/

I think after 130 years, most of the circumstantial cases will be more 'against' each potential suspect's guilt, than 'for'.. too much time passed, and long gone physical evidence. But being found alone at a murder scene, is pretty compelling evidence 'against' Lechmere.
It is entirely possible, Lechmere just innocently found her on his early morning commute.. especially since Lechmere showed up for the subsequent inquest.. But there is cynical strategy Lechmere may have been deploying. He basically got away unvetted the night Nichols was murdered. But he may have thought that someone would eventually recognize him as the man who discovered & reported Nichols.. so he didn't want to avoid coming forward, because it would look suspicious if/when he was identified/remembered (by a constable) as the discoverer of Nichols' body. Showing up at the inquest makes him look like an incidental Good Samaritan, which is largely how he was viewed for 100+ years.

I think Lechmere's presence at Nichols' murder scene was uniquely suspicious (he didn't find her along with a group of other commuters, he was encountered alone with her fresh corpse).. and Lechmere as a regular early morning commuter, had a good cover for regularly being out on the street without drawing attention to himself.
But it's certainly not hard evidence, etc. And I've never heard any conjecture about Lechmere & the Ripper letters. How did his known personality traits match up with Ripper criminal profiles