Who was Jack the Ripper — and how much of what we think we know about the Whitechapel murders is actually supported by the evidence?In this in-depth conversation, I’m joined by historian, author and long-time Jack the Ripper researcher Richard Jones to examine the history behind one of the world’s most famous unsolved murder cases.Rather than beginning with a favourite suspect and working backwards, we go back to the evidence, contemporary newspaper reports, inquests, police accounts and the streets of Victorian Whitechapel itself.Richard has spent decades researching the Jack the Ripper case and the social history of London. In this conversation, we explore whether it is really possible to profile the Whitechapel murderer, what witnesses may actually tell us about his age and appearance, whether the killer needed detailed knowledge of the East End, and the long-running debate over anatomical and surgical knowledge.We also examine one of the biggest questions in Ripper history: how many victims were there?Were there really only the so-called “Canonical Five” — Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly — or could Martha Tabram, Alice McKenzie and others also have been victims? Richard explains why he believes the idea of a fixed “Canonical Five” needs to be treated with caution and discusses the historical origins of that concept.Then we turn to the suspects.Charles Allen Lechmere — also known as Charles Cross — has become one of the most debated modern Jack the Ripper suspects. Richard examines what the surviving evidence actually tells us about the discovery of Mary Ann Nichols in Buck’s Row, Robert Paul’s testimony, Cross/Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest, his use of the name Charles Cross, and the difference between documented evidence and later speculation.We also discuss Aaron Kosminski, Walter Sickert, Montague John Druitt and Thomas Cutbush — including why Richard believes Cutbush deserves more historical attention and why the identification of Aaron Kosminski is not as straightforward as it is sometimes presented.And what if Jack the Ripper is not one of the famous suspects at all?Richard explains why he believes the Whitechapel murderer may have been someone whose name is completely absent from the familiar suspect lists — an ordinary-looking man who moved through the East End without attracting attention and may even have been questioned by police without ever becoming a serious suspect.We also investigate some of the most famous pieces of Jack the Ripper lore: the “Dear Boss” letter, the “From Hell” or Lusk letter, the Goulston Street graffito and Catherine Eddowes’ apron. Were any of the famous Ripper communications actually written by the murderer, or did journalism, publicity and public fascination help create the character history remembers as “Jack the Ripper”?Later, our conversation turns to something increasingly important in historical research: misinformation.Richard describes discovering an apparently historical 1888 murder suggested by AI which, when he searched the contemporary newspaper archive, appeared never to have happened at all. We discuss AI-generated history videos, fabricated information, the danger of repeating claims without checking their sources, and why researchers should continue to return to original evidence.But this conversation is ultimately about more than identifying a murderer.We talk about the women who lost their lives, poverty and alcoholism in Victorian London, the common lodging houses, the reality of Whitechapel beyond its modern image as a universal slum, and the importance of remembering that these were real people living in a real community — not simply characters in one of history’s most famous mysteries.Richard’s central message throughout the conversation is simple: question everything, distinguish evidence from speculation, and go back to the source.
