And Charles Allen Lechmere, the guy who was found at the scene of the murder by Robert Paul, was the killer. QC James Scobie says the case against him is strong enough for a modern murder trial.
16:45 She says that she is struck by how Chapman was left in an exposed way in much the same fashion as Nichols had been. The problem here is that Nichols was not left in such a way. At the scene, neither of the two men who found Nichols noticed any injuries. They just saw a woman lying in the street. Nothing more. It was not until Neil found the body and noticed the blood running from a wound in her throat that the truth began to surface. Later, at the mortuary, more injuries were found, such as large slashes to her body. These bodily injuries were being hidden by her clothing. It would appear that the ripper was disturbed and had to cover his tracks and hide Polly's injuries. This does, along with other pieces of evidence of course, put Cross in the spotlight.
Polly Nichols was discovered with her skirts pulled up. The 2 citizens who found her pulled them down to preserve her modesty. Perhaps the editing or the need to make television ratings standards caused a simplification of some details. There was no bare midriff and no visible ripped midsection when Nichols was found in Buck's Row, but her clothing was pulled up in a display, or some inappropriate nature. Most other documentaries spell it out a bit more clear.
@@One.DeSanctis. I believe it was Paul who rearranged her skirt and he said he did this to preserve her modesty. However, this fact does not prove that Nichols was left on display by the killer. Lechmere, who I believe killed Nichols and the others, covered his tracks as best he could on this morning. It just so happened that he did not have enough time to perfectly position her clothing, although he did successfully hide all of her injuries from Paul.
@@One.DeSanctis. I think you’re mistaken about the details of this incident. Paul didn’t know she was mutilated. He wasn’t even sure she was dead. Because her dress was already pulled down to her waist & she hadn’t started bleeding yet! Why would this infamous display killer waste time covering his tracks when no one was there to catch him? Why didn’t he pose the body in a provocative way? Why did Lechmere go out of his way to involve a stranger into this situation than refuse to help her? Why did he lie to Mizen and later about his name? Why did he accompany Paul up Hanbury St (past the sight of Annie Chapman’s would be murder site a week later) to his place of work when he should have went down Old Montague St? Especially when he was running late for work? These questions need to be answered to clear Lechmere. Until then, he should be suspect #1.
Particularly directed at Mr Smith Nobody had Anything to gain and instead had potentially Everything to loose in saying what they might know about any of the murders - it's 1888 - for example he had a relatively easy job with loads of kids a wife etc to provide for- They came first - at the time it was not a amusement like it is Today .
No one suspects DNA was found on the shawl. It is apparently Edwardian (so later than JTR), not listed amongst anyone’s possessions, and the type of DNA on the “shawl” can only narrow things down to several thousand. Complete dead end.
If the Ripper lived on Flower & Dean street he might’ve fit in by being alcoholic and appearing destitute. Drinking at local pubs, sleeping in a flop. Maybe he was a pickpocket for coins. Was he watching the aftermath of his crimes from a window up high? If victims all lived close to his possible lodgings at one time or another, he would’ve been familiar with the whole scene. How evenings unfolded, where to take his chances. Probably there are victims who were not attacked, maybe there are police reports of suspicious interactions. Luck always factors into situations where a perpetrator eludes capture. Always fascinating, thanks for this video.
It's said that the murderer (s ) wanted to shock and ( see ) enjoy the reaction to the crimes which is pointless unless you can see the finder's and other folks horror as the body's where found - so if that was a big deal for the rippers then yes he or they murdered within sight of their chosen place of the killings and enjoys the scene .
@@jamescorlett5272he couldn't have seen all the discoveries from one place. I wonder if he was hiding very close to the scenes of the murders, just out of sight of the police? It would've given him a big dose of adrenaline if he did; he'd be only feet away from being caught.
@greasylimpet3323 yeah that's if others reaction to his work is of much importance to him or they - the kill the risk and the shock value that's alot going on their in are killer's head - never mind his alleged sexual motives and let's not forget the hate for his mother - all these reasons have been put forward as " Jack's " motivated reasoning for good old fashioned butchery - cor I gotta lie down mate - I can't go Jack's pace . Oh his distaste for the police and of course the fair sex have also been remarked upon particularly by his piss poor victims.
@@jamescorlett5272 there are so many theories about who he was, why he killed who he did, the way he arranged their entrails and everything. Sure the police have a lot more things like dna testing these days, but they haven't got anyone they can talk to who might've known anything. I think it's all too far in the past now to work out who it was. I'd bet there were people who knew something and kept the secret to themselves out of fear they'd be next on his list. Even if the stories had been passed down through families, too much time has passed for them to be any use.
This is a fascinating case that will never be solved, who ever he was he took his secret to his grave. He's probably in a pauper's grave, who knows he might even be buried beside one of his victims.
Not bad. Left out some critical topics. I'd like to see a jtr documentary that presents the top possible motives and then discusses those in connection to known and unknown suspects.
I'd like to see a movie that just sticks to the evidence and facts with none of the hype and nonsense. Just show everything as it happened. Perhaps use a little guess work. You could have Polly meeting him on whitechapel road and walking down woods yard/woods buildings (piss alley)to bucks rowe but not show much of his face. The story is good enough as it is without adding doctors and top hats and carriages and stuff. Maybe get the guy who did Zodiac to do it and get the best ripperologists like Richard jones and others to guide him. I'd love to see a really accurate portrayal of it all.
He lived into his 80's - abroad, also had family. Worked in the slaughter house at the top of the road. Always walked into work in the early hours of the morning. A policeman actually questioned him a few minutes after murdering a prostitute. He found it funny that the policeman let him on his way, even though his apron was covered in blood! The policeman, once asking where he worked (literally 150 feet away) and his trade, thought no more of questioning him further. 🙁
45:04 He looks like one of them underworld figure member from the outskirts regions somewhere in NSW or Victoris australia. A typical pub goer and patron. 😂
Charles Allen Lechmere! The man who found Polly also didn't come forward for a few days! At the inquest into Polly's death, he gave the name Charles Cross! He was also several minutes ahead of Robert Paul!! People keep forgetting this little tidbit!!
My only issue with Charles Cross/Lechmere is why didn’t he kill Robert Paul? Robert Paul can now identify him. Why did he give Robert Paul his name? Lechmere/Cross has no documented history of violence or history of violence against women or hookers (a big ripper theme). Also- there’s no documentation of him doing time or being sent to an asylum. Why did he just stop? Serial killers don’t just typically stop. That last killing certainly must’ve sent someone over the edge as the killings seam to increase in aggression. Also, Lechmere didn’t seem to have a job that gave him an even basic knowledge of anatomy (another ripper theme). I think David Cohen or Aaron Kosminski are two suspects that’s for the profile much better
Charles Cross was the name he was registered with where he worked & he gave that information freely. There are other players in the JTR story that didn’t go under their real name for what ever reason.
They examed the case gave a lot of information that we already know but nowhere did they look at previous suspects for similar appearance or living areas or come up with new suspects. We are no closer to the killers identity than before.
Psychologist in the very first scene - not wasting 50mins of my life listening to some clown who talks about cases she has no involvement in. These psychologists should not be allowed talk anywhere except in a classroom of 10yr olds because they have the uncanny habit of stating the most obvious and just ruining anything the are filmed in
What would make a good documentary, would be to put these supposed crime solving geniuses to some sort of scientific testing to see how accurate their ramblings are. Maybe they could unknowingly evaluate solved crimes from countries such as Brazil and tell us all about the perpetrator, then they could reveal the truth to them and watch them twist, squirm and backtrack on what they'd said
And John Paul, as he was called by "Ripper expert" Donald Rumbelow in the video, was really Robert Paul. Who, as should have been known even back then by anyone who actually studied the case, didn't find the body of Polly Nichols together with "Cross" but approached the crime scene only when the other man (Lechmere) was already there. Did Rumbelow even read Paul's interview in Lloyd's and his testimony at the inquest?
I wonder if he mailed the letters, where did he buy the postage? He might have been a 'Police Officer'? A lot of trust is put in them. They should use a 'Trans Medium' to go to the sites, go back in time, and see what she or he can do, talk to the ladies, Jack or maybe stop the crimes.
I should imagine that if trans-mediums could do such a thing they'd go back and tell their younger selves the horse racing results and wouldn't need to peddle their nonsense today to make a living
NY Rochester, near the water is they bury his body there? Did you know that? Get off the airport in Rochester go north right to the water is there is a cemetery and everybody knows where that is Jack the Ripper.
Gilles de Rais (France) 1404-1440. First recorded serial killer. Accused of killing over 140 children. Stood trial and was executed for same. Interestingly, was previously assigned by the Dauphin to guard Jeanne d'Arc in battle, which apparently, he did quite well. So, no, Red Jack was not the first.
Charles Lechmere who lived off Cable st by the arches (post war flats occupy the site), his mother lived parallel to Bucks Row. His daughter lived with his mother not him. His family were horse slaughterers. He gave his name when questioned as Charles Cross his step father’s name. He was middle aged - late 40’s when the crimes were committed. Partial torso’s were found in his home on the kitchen table where he also cut horse meat up for sale. Read Edward’s forensic studies on Charles Lechmere. He is registered in all the census of the time under this name and ONLY when questioned by police and coroner does he give the surname Cross. Why….
Why did he stop though? Could he have been imprisoned for something else maybe? I'm surpised a psychic medium has never been able to shed some light on it. Just a thought :)
So you keep saying ! - I wonder why nobody suspected Cross especially after having got away with murder he decided to give Everybody a massive clue by changing his name at the Inquest - odd that you can't see this .
Amelia Dyer was a serial killer around the same time as jack ,only for much longer and for many many more times regarding victims ..400 victims. Jack was the first newspaper serial killer.
Jack the Ripper was not the first serial killer Giles de Rais a companion of Joan of Arc fought with her to free France from the british and was a serial killer of children.
As is always the case, Jack will never be discovered and so his anonymity continues and the guesses as to who he is goes on. Has anyone not been accused of being JTR yet ?
Jack the ripper was not the first serial killer. Google the one in Austin, Texas the year before . And for those of you with a comprehension problem I did not say the one in Austin was the first I just said it preceded the one that is being called the first. I have done something which is rare around RUclips and that is provide evidence.
do you know the name of sir Charles Warren's dog? I thought not, so I know more than you, & I'm not telling you its name because then you'll know as much as me
You can’t use modern speculation on a crime over 100 years old . We can’t possibly know the intelligence of the victims or the perpetrator of the crimes.
Just another and old JTR doco going over the same info.If you’re really interested to delve in deep just read Cutting point by Christor Holmgren , or Jack the Ripper the missing evidence on you tube. The house of Lechmere channel covers some serious ground.
There is multiple suspects One being a polish barber One being in the American military Even George Chapman (murdered his wife) was considered suspects And even more
@@malcolmdale9607 Depends on the accent. I like the east coast accents and many others but I can't stand the generic "have a nice day, you're welcome" accent.
So glad y’all said that ab the nonsense of Prince Albert, Gull, JANE the Ripper? Gtfoh w/that crap. A woman was not mutilating other women in London in 1888 & taunting the police! Ridiculous
the first serial killer was Elizabeth Bathory the bood countesss in Hungary back in the 16th century. not Jack the ripper. learn your lessions of history and do not tell lies and shit
did anyone consider the possibilty that a cop was the killer? he would have known the territory, known the people of the town, and known their schedules of when they were in and when they were out. their would have been a certain level of trust too. yet no one considered a cop?
Witnesses saw him with the victims. Dressed respectably but shabby. I think he was a local ruffian scruff. Highly doubt he was a copper. Although you aren't the first to point out that theory.
Not necessarily- the DNA evidence was shabby at best and the scientists who deemed it so won’t release their findings on how they got it. Also it was found through a victims shawl that was never documented with the victims body but a cop who happened to find it took it gave it to his wife and it happened to found years later? And if it was legit it would’ve been contaminated many times over. Far from case over and this evidence is flimsy at best fake at worst
They all were. Maybe not full time professionals, but they all sold sex when they needed to. That's why they went with a total stranger down dingy back streets in the early hours. They weren't out there selling cakes.
@@michellerenner6880 they did a mix of things, these unfortunate ladies anything to make money and that meant if needed sex fof sale, let's not denigrate there sad lives by lying about how they made extra money at 1 a in morning
First victim was found 136 years ago today August 31, 2024 (Polly Nichols found August 31, 1888)
And Charles Allen Lechmere, the guy who was found at the scene of the murder by Robert Paul, was the killer. QC James Scobie says the case against him is strong enough for a modern murder trial.
16:45 She says that she is struck by how Chapman was left in an exposed way in much the same fashion as Nichols had been. The problem here is that Nichols was not left in such a way. At the scene, neither of the two men who found Nichols noticed any injuries. They just saw a woman lying in the street. Nothing more. It was not until Neil found the body and noticed the blood running from a wound in her throat that the truth began to surface. Later, at the mortuary, more injuries were found, such as large slashes to her body. These bodily injuries were being hidden by her clothing. It would appear that the ripper was disturbed and had to cover his tracks and hide Polly's injuries. This does, along with other pieces of evidence of course, put Cross in the spotlight.
Polly Nichols was discovered with her skirts pulled up. The 2 citizens who found her pulled them down to preserve her modesty.
Perhaps the editing or the need to make television ratings standards caused a simplification of some details. There was no bare midriff and no visible ripped midsection when Nichols was found in Buck's Row, but her clothing was pulled up in a display, or some inappropriate nature.
Most other documentaries spell it out a bit more clear.
@@One.DeSanctis. I believe it was Paul who rearranged her skirt and he said he did this to preserve her modesty. However, this fact does not prove that Nichols was left on display by the killer. Lechmere, who I believe killed Nichols and the others, covered his tracks as best he could on this morning. It just so happened that he did not have enough time to perfectly position her clothing, although he did successfully hide all of her injuries from Paul.
@@One.DeSanctis. I think you’re mistaken about the details of this incident. Paul didn’t know she was mutilated. He wasn’t even sure she was dead. Because her dress was already pulled down to her waist & she hadn’t started bleeding yet!
Why would this infamous display killer waste time covering his tracks when no one was there to catch him?
Why didn’t he pose the body in a provocative way?
Why did Lechmere go out of his way to involve a stranger into this situation than refuse to help her?
Why did he lie to Mizen and later about his name?
Why did he accompany Paul up Hanbury St (past the sight of Annie Chapman’s would be murder site a week later) to his place of work when he should have went down Old Montague St? Especially when he was running late for work?
These questions need to be answered to clear Lechmere. Until then, he should be suspect #1.
Particularly directed at Mr Smith Nobody had Anything to gain and instead had potentially Everything to loose in saying what they might know about any of the murders - it's 1888 - for example he had a relatively easy job with loads of kids a wife etc to provide for- They came first - at the time it was not a amusement like it is Today .
@Steven-ze2zk " as best he could " yes of course .
Even if a suspect's dna is found on the shawl doesn't prove anything except he could've been a John. It doesn't prove he was the murderer.
No one suspects DNA was found on the shawl. It is apparently Edwardian (so later than JTR), not listed amongst anyone’s possessions, and the type of DNA on the “shawl” can only narrow things down to several thousand. Complete dead end.
If the Ripper lived on Flower & Dean street he might’ve fit in by being alcoholic and appearing destitute. Drinking at local pubs, sleeping in a flop. Maybe he was a pickpocket for coins. Was he watching the aftermath of his crimes from a window up high? If victims all lived close to his possible lodgings at one time or another, he would’ve been familiar with the whole scene. How evenings unfolded, where to take his chances. Probably there are victims who were not attacked, maybe there are police reports of suspicious interactions. Luck always factors into situations where a perpetrator eludes capture. Always fascinating, thanks for this video.
It's said that the murderer (s ) wanted to shock and ( see ) enjoy the reaction to the crimes which is pointless unless you can see the finder's and other folks horror as the body's where found - so if that was a big deal for the rippers then yes he or they murdered within sight of their chosen place of the killings and enjoys the scene .
@@jamescorlett5272he couldn't have seen all the discoveries from one place. I wonder if he was hiding very close to the scenes of the murders, just out of sight of the police? It would've given him a big dose of adrenaline if he did; he'd be only feet away from being caught.
@greasylimpet3323 yeah that's if others reaction to his work is of much importance to him or they - the kill the risk and the shock value that's alot going on their in are killer's head - never mind his alleged sexual motives and let's not forget the hate for his mother
- all these reasons have been put forward as " Jack's " motivated reasoning for good old fashioned butchery - cor I gotta lie down mate - I can't go Jack's pace . Oh his distaste for the police and of course the fair sex have also been remarked upon particularly by his piss poor victims.
@@jamescorlett5272 there are so many theories about who he was, why he killed who he did, the way he arranged their entrails and everything. Sure the police have a lot more things like dna testing these days, but they haven't got anyone they can talk to who might've known anything. I think it's all too far in the past now to work out who it was. I'd bet there were people who knew something and kept the secret to themselves out of fear they'd be next on his list. Even if the stories had been passed down through families, too much time has passed for them to be any use.
This is a fascinating case that will never be solved, who ever he was he took his secret to his grave. He's probably in a pauper's grave, who knows he might even be buried beside one of his victims.
Not bad. Left out some critical topics. I'd like to see a jtr documentary that presents the top possible motives and then discusses those in connection to known and unknown suspects.
In a book by Jay Robert Nash about unsolved crimes, his theory is Jack the Ripper was a doctor.
Check "JTR:The Missing Evidence" (best viewed on Daily Motion). And then read the book "Cutting Point" by Christer Holmgren, if you can.
I'd like to see a movie that just sticks to the evidence and facts with none of the hype and nonsense. Just show everything as it happened. Perhaps use a little guess work. You could have Polly meeting him on whitechapel road and walking down woods yard/woods buildings (piss alley)to bucks rowe but not show much of his face. The story is good enough as it is without adding doctors and top hats and carriages and stuff. Maybe get the guy who did Zodiac to do it and get the best ripperologists like Richard jones and others to guide him. I'd love to see a really accurate portrayal of it all.
There are some suspects who are seldom or never referred to in the Jack the Ripper mystery.
犯人は新しい有力な証拠でも出て来ない限り永久に分からない。で一世紀経過してるのでそのような証拠が出て来る可能性は限りなく0に近い。
He most certainly was not the first.
He was the first that made major media coverage
modern is the key word. what we all think of as a serial killer with the matching police investigation and media coverage.
Fedt content
He was not the the first serial killer they didn’t even use that term back then . There were people well before him
I believe the term they use is the first MODERN serial killer, meaning the first one to use the gruesome methods that the Ripped used.
@@Locktwiste72 Juhani Aataminpoika
This composite image of the murderer? Out of all the potential suspects questioned? Which out of all them resembles the composite image?
idk how they think it's a break through to decide freddie mercury was the ripper. this is still a face that stands out too much.
He lived into his 80's - abroad, also had family. Worked in the slaughter house at the top of the road. Always walked into work in the early hours of the morning. A policeman actually questioned him a few minutes after murdering a prostitute. He found it funny that the policeman let him on his way, even though his apron was covered in blood! The policeman, once asking where he worked (literally 150 feet away) and his trade, thought no more of questioning him further. 🙁
Certainly gives credence to Charles Lechmere as the killer. We'll probably never know for sure.
45:04 He looks like one of them underworld figure member from the outskirts regions somewhere in NSW or Victoris australia. A typical pub goer and patron. 😂
A classic. A novel. A story. An affair. An unsolved story. A hitman. An assassin. 😊
🙄
Why did he stop?
No matter how smart you think you are there's always someone that can prove otherwise
Charles Allen Lechmere! The man who found Polly also didn't come forward for a few days! At the inquest into Polly's death, he gave the name Charles Cross! He was also several minutes ahead of Robert Paul!! People keep forgetting this little tidbit!!
My only issue with Charles Cross/Lechmere is why didn’t he kill Robert Paul? Robert Paul can now identify him. Why did he give Robert Paul his name? Lechmere/Cross has no documented history of violence or history of violence against women or hookers (a big ripper theme). Also- there’s no documentation of him doing time or being sent to an asylum. Why did he just stop? Serial killers don’t just typically stop. That last killing certainly must’ve sent someone over the edge as the killings seam to increase in aggression. Also, Lechmere didn’t seem to have a job that gave him an even basic knowledge of anatomy (another ripper theme). I think David Cohen or Aaron Kosminski are two suspects that’s for the profile much better
Charles Cross was the name he was registered with where he worked & he gave that information freely. There are other players in the JTR story that didn’t go under their real name for what ever reason.
@@dillionoshea7535it was definitely a local .
They examed the case gave a lot of information that we already know but nowhere did they look at previous suspects for similar appearance or living areas or come up with new suspects. We are no closer to the killers identity than before.
Psychologist in the very first scene - not wasting 50mins of my life listening to some clown who talks about cases she has no involvement in. These psychologists should not be allowed talk anywhere except in a classroom of 10yr olds because they have the uncanny habit of stating the most obvious and just ruining anything the are filmed in
I know I've noticed, so glad they are there to point out the obvious for the rest of us.
What would make a good documentary, would be to put these supposed crime solving geniuses to some sort of scientific testing to see how accurate their ramblings are. Maybe they could unknowingly evaluate solved crimes from countries such as Brazil and tell us all about the perpetrator, then they could reveal the truth to them and watch them twist, squirm and backtrack on what they'd said
@@terryyakamoto3488 Not just the psychologists stating the obvious. Laura states "I think there's certainly a case for injustice" YA THINK SOOOO..
Why doesn't anyone talk about George Hutchinson?? I don't understand.
Was acting in a suspicious way that night and the things he told police too.
Anyone can call themselves a JTR expert simply by reading up on the case
Martha tabram is said to be the 1st victim of JTR murdered before Polly Nicolas
What's Laura doing these days? She was pretty young at the time of this programme. She can't be older than about 33 in this video.
If only Laura and her disposable coffee cup could have been on the " ripper " case - If Only Ohhh well .
Charles cross aka Charles Allen Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.
This documentary is old and didn't even know Charles Cross was actually Charles Lechmere. Yes, by far the best suspect yet named.
And John Paul, as he was called by "Ripper expert" Donald Rumbelow in the video, was really Robert Paul. Who, as should have been known even back then by anyone who actually studied the case, didn't find the body of Polly Nichols together with "Cross" but approached the crime scene only when the other man (Lechmere) was already there. Did Rumbelow even read Paul's interview in Lloyd's and his testimony at the inquest?
Lechmere was very slight of frame though. Doesn’t seem Jack was.
@@iancavon7125 The inquest transcript calls him *JOHN* *BAUL* !
But you can't prove that can you?
I wonder if he mailed the letters, where did he buy the postage? He might have been a 'Police Officer'? A lot of trust is put in them. They should use a 'Trans Medium' to go to the sites, go back in time, and see what she or he can do, talk to the ladies, Jack or maybe stop the crimes.
I should imagine that if trans-mediums could do such a thing they'd go back and tell their younger selves the horse racing results and wouldn't need to peddle their nonsense today to make a living
NY Rochester, near the water is they bury his body there? Did you know that? Get off the airport in Rochester go north right to the water is there is a cemetery and everybody knows where that is Jack the Ripper.
Gilles de Rais (France) 1404-1440. First recorded serial killer. Accused of killing over 140 children. Stood trial and was executed for same. Interestingly, was previously assigned by the Dauphin to guard Jeanne d'Arc in battle, which apparently, he did quite well. So, no, Red Jack was not the first.
Charles Lechmere who lived off Cable st by the arches (post war flats occupy the site), his mother lived parallel to Bucks Row. His daughter lived with his mother not him. His family were horse slaughterers. He gave his name when questioned as Charles Cross his step father’s name. He was middle aged - late 40’s when the crimes were committed. Partial torso’s were found in his home on the kitchen table where he also cut horse meat up for sale. Read Edward’s forensic studies on Charles Lechmere. He is registered in all the census of the time under this name and ONLY when questioned by police and coroner does he give the surname Cross. Why….
He was 39 when the killings happened.
Why did he stop though? Could he have been imprisoned for something else maybe? I'm surpised a psychic medium has never been able to shed some light on it. Just a thought :)
Sorry but Jack was not the first serial killer, there were ones before him.
I think they tend to call him the first “modern” serial killer
Very outdated now. Didn't even know that it was Charles Lechmere, not Charles Cross, who found Polly Nichols. By far the best suspect so far named.
So you keep saying ! - I wonder why nobody suspected Cross especially after having got away with murder he decided to give Everybody a massive clue by changing his name at the Inquest - odd that you can't see this .
Okey dokey🙄
Amelia Dyer was a serial killer around the same time as jack ,only for much longer and for many many more times regarding victims ..400 victims. Jack was the first newspaper serial killer.
6 confirmed babies to her name.
Not even close to being Jack
@@cylersmiley5259 6 ? Pfft .. still beats 5 thou
I doubt he was the first, it just took until then for people to actually suspect something so terrible,maybe.
Jack the Ripper was not the first serial killer Giles de Rais a companion of Joan of Arc fought with her to free France from the british and was a serial killer of children.
Jack the Ripper was Not the first serial killer
Watch Johnny Depp's movie "Hell" or In Hell". Very good Ripper movie.
LJ !!!!!!! Top notch !!!!
Just think he was most probably still alive in the 1930s. 😮
As is always the case, Jack will never be discovered and so his anonymity continues and the guesses as to who he is goes on. Has anyone not been accused of being JTR yet ?
Trump, Biden, Clinton, Jeremy corbyn, keir starmer none of them accused yet but give it time lol
@@mpol701 Yes just a matter of time and don't forget Winnie the Poo, prime candidate the murdering little sh*****
Lol
Too bloody late mate 😊
Garcia Sandra Williams Joseph Davis Thomas
Jack the ripper was not the first serial killer. Google the one in Austin, Texas the year before . And for those of you with a comprehension problem I did not say the one in Austin was the first I just said it preceded the one that is being called the first. I have done something which is rare around RUclips and that is provide evidence.
Yeh and there was other serial killers in England before jtr
@@natgem1094 oh I think you're absolutely correct about that this is not a brand new thing I think our history has had many of these. 🎩
First modern serial killer ! Sort the title out yeh!!
I like all these people calling them selves a ripper expert.what gives them the right to clam this.they don't know anymore than I do
do you know the name of sir Charles Warren's dog? I thought not, so I know more than you, & I'm not telling you its name because then you'll know as much as me
@@johncarlisle6865 Burgho and barnaby
@@paulanthony5274 nope, I'm not talking about the two bloodhounds, he didn't own them, I'm talking about his own dog
@@johncarlisle6865 Which has absolutely nothing to do with the jtr case.
@paulanthony5274 it concerns a prominent member of the Metropolitan police from that time
Learn your facts before titling a video. Far from the first.
You can’t use modern speculation on a crime over 100 years old . We can’t possibly know the intelligence of the victims or the perpetrator of the crimes.
Just another and old JTR doco going over the same info.If you’re really interested to delve in deep just read Cutting point by Christor Holmgren , or Jack the Ripper the missing evidence on you tube. The house of Lechmere channel covers some serious ground.
No suspect in the end even? Ah man wasted an hour of my life
I just finished watching and was thinking the exact same thing!
She said she wouldn't focus on a suspect in the beginning of the video. Watch it again. ♥️
House of Lechmere
There is multiple suspects
One being a polish barber
One being in the American military
Even George Chapman (murdered his wife) was considered suspects
And even more
It’s almost like she only followed the actual evidence and didn’t make shit up for drama. 🎭
I like listening to these English people talk.
I'm English and when I go to the States people always say "I love your accent." I don't like to tell them I hate theirs.
lol
@@malcolmdale9607 Depends on the accent. I like the east coast accents and many others but I can't stand the generic "have a nice day, you're welcome" accent.
👌👌
So glad y’all said that ab the nonsense of Prince Albert, Gull, JANE the Ripper? Gtfoh w/that crap. A woman was not mutilating other women in London in 1888 & taunting the police! Ridiculous
Didn't tell me anything I didn't already know!😮
AARON KOSMINSKI
the first serial killer was Elizabeth Bathory the bood countesss in Hungary back in the 16th century. not Jack the ripper. learn your lessions of history and do not tell lies and shit
Not the first we've been killing each other since the wheel
puede mo bang bantayan ang 7,400 islands of the Philippines? maliit lang Coast Guard natin..
we in the UK can't even guard one coastline from preventing rubber dinghies from entering. can we borrow your coastguard?
Lol...he by far wasn't the "first".....and sadly......won't be the last
Wasted...... her view at the very beginning is slewd by her rhetoric. The facts are not examined!!
Duh
So the several hundred thousand years of human history he was the first. ??? Load of crap
it has the be Charles Lechmere
So... the ripper was Freddie Mercury?
@@MrEko7171 no don’t be silly! It was his great great grand dad!
@@davesmith7432 Aaah fair
It was Jacob Levy
three ripper suspect doctor,polish guy butcher
Laura joins the list of failures
Everyone is gonna fail no one will ever know who JTR was
Jose Rizal was Jack the Ripper
Hey, I've wrote my Book as I think I know who he was, and put a Video on here; 'Jack The Ripper Spells It Out!'
No more Jack the Ripper documentaries please. It's like beating a dead horse. Nothing new.
This is well old. Decades.
Dont watch it then
@@christinamcilwaine350 I didn't
He or she was not even close to the first serial murder
Definitely not but definitely one with significant media coverage
The first modern serial killer
She? Don't be ridiculous!
He wasn’t a she
The ripper certainly was not the frist modern serial killer!!!
No he was not the first!
did anyone consider the possibilty that a cop was the killer? he would have known the territory, known the people of the town, and known their schedules of when they were in and when they were out. their would have been a certain level of trust too. yet no one considered a cop?
Witnesses saw him with the victims. Dressed respectably but shabby. I think he was a local ruffian scruff. Highly doubt he was a copper. Although you aren't the first to point out that theory.
Charles Allen cross lechmere is the riper there is no doubt
Yes there is doubt
Aaron Kosminski was the kiĺler. Case closed, move on!
Based on what?
Did you see him murder those lady's in 1888 if not case open keep looking my friend lol
Not necessarily- the DNA evidence was shabby at best and the scientists who deemed it so won’t release their findings on how they got it. Also it was found through a victims shawl that was never documented with the victims body but a cop who happened to find it took it gave it to his wife and it happened to found years later? And if it was legit it would’ve been contaminated many times over. Far from case over and this evidence is flimsy at best fake at worst
Charles Allen Lechmere
@@dillionoshea7535and that officer was from a totally different area so he couldn't of got hold of that shawl
The victims may not have been sex workers.
They all were. Maybe not full time professionals, but they all sold sex when they needed to. That's why they went with a total stranger down dingy back streets in the early hours. They weren't out there selling cakes.
All of them did sell sex when money was needed for rent, that's not in doubt
Surely polly went out to show her new pretty bonnet and get people to pay to look it at it?
They were its already been proven
@@michellerenner6880 they did a mix of things, these unfortunate ladies anything to make money and that meant if needed sex fof sale, let's not denigrate there sad lives by lying about how they made extra money at 1 a in morning
Jack wasnt the first serial killer
Jack was a devil worshiper.
Jack the ripper was not a solitary killer.
????????????
have you been watching the Michael Caine TV movie?
I DID IT.
It was Charles lemhere first suspect
Ah yes the 1st modern serial killer. Crap
So u sure jack didn't end up being abducted and used by the Vorlons?! 🤣😂🤣