Compare Jack the Ripper suspects side by side

Status key: Well supported Weakly supported Disputed Unknown Unverified. Numbers in brackets are source passages.

Evidence matrix: rows are questions, columns are suspects
Question	Unknown offender (the 'null hypothesis')
Verified backgroundBiographical facts with sources.	Retrieved No one was charged; officials backed different suspects. Well supported claim: No one was charged with the canonical murders; senior officials disagreed on the culprit (Macnaghten: Druitt preferred; Anderson: a Polish Jew; Abberline: Chapman; Littlechild: Tumblety 'very likely', adding that Anderson 'only thought he knew').[1][2][3][4][5][6] Retrieved The 'five victims only' canon and the 'died or confined' cessation theory are Macnaghten's opinions. Well supported claim: The 'five victims only' canon originates as Macnaghten's opinion in 1894, not as an established fact. Well supported claim: Macnaghten's reasoning that the murderer must have died or been confined after Miller's Court is a theory ('a much more rational theory'), which shaped which suspects were favoured.[1][2]
Opportunity and timelineWhere the person is documented to have been, and where the record is silent.	Inference Thousands of men had comparable opportunity; undocumented whereabouts are not opportunity evidence. Well supported claim: On the surviving evidence, no named suspect is linked to the murders by forensic evidence, a reliable identification or a confession; the offender may be someone never named in any record.[1][2][3]
Strongest supporting evidenceThe best case proponents can make from the record.	Retrieved Macnaghten: 'No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer;... no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.' Well supported claim: In the same memorandum Macnaghten wrote 'No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer' and that 'no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one'.[1] Retrieved Littlechild: Anderson 'only thought he knew'. Well supported claim: No one was charged with the canonical murders; senior officials disagreed on the culprit (Macnaghten: Druitt preferred; Anderson: a Polish Jew; Abberline: Chapman; Littlechild: Tumblety 'very likely', adding that Anderson 'only thought he knew').[1][2][3][4][5][6] Inference Every named suspect rests on inference, late recollection or later-surfacing documents. Well supported claim: On the surviving evidence, no named suspect is linked to the murders by forensic evidence, a reliable identification or a confession; the offender may be someone never named in any record.[1][2][3]
Strongest contradictory evidenceEvidence that tells against the theory.	Retrieved Anderson claimed the murderer's identity was a 'definitely ascertained fact' (unsupported by surviving records). Well supported claim: Anderson called the murderer's being a Polish Jew 'a definitely ascertained fact'. Disputed claim: Anderson wrote that 'the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him'.[1][2][3][4]
Disputed and missingPoints in dispute, and records that do not exist or were not found.	Retrieved Victim list itself disputed; police files incomplete. Well supported claim: The 'five victims only' canon originates as Macnaghten's opinion in 1894, not as an established fact. Weakly supported claim: No surviving official police document names Aaron Kosminski except Macnaghten's memo.[1][2]
Assumptions requiredWhat a reader has to accept for the theory to work.	Inference Assumes no named suspect has been proven; does not assume the killer was a stranger or local. Well supported claim: On the surviving evidence, no named suspect is linked to the murders by forensic evidence, a reliable identification or a confession; the offender may be someone never named in any record.[1][2][3]
What would change the assessmentEvidence that, if found, would move the picture.	Inference Would be displaced only by new primary evidence: a contemporary record of a confession/identification, reliable forensic evidence with secure provenance, or documents that place a named person at multiple scenes. Well supported claim: On the surviving evidence, no named suspect is linked to the murders by forensic evidence, a reliable identification or a confession; the offender may be someone never named in any record. Disputed claim: A 2019 Journal of Forensic Sciences paper claimed shawl mtDNA matched an Eddowes descendant and a Kosminski-line descendant, but its own Figure 7 shows two differences from the suspect sequence (an exclusion threshold under SWGDAM guidelines absent heteroplasmy), and the journal later issued an expression of concern.[1][2][3][4]
Contradictions (documents disagree)From the review pass. A contradiction is not a gap.	None recorded.
Gaps (no document exists)Undocumented whereabouts are neither an alibi nor opportunity.	Lost police files; no forensic material of agreed provenance
Load-bearing assumptionsAssumption records the theory depends on.	Which murders are attributed to a single offender (the "series"). Contemporary and later opinion differs; the medical evidence alone does not settle it.
Bottom line (editorial)The suspects pass’s summary, labelled as editorial.	Editorial Best supported position on current evidence: the identity of the Whitechapel murderer(s) is unknown. Contemporary officials disagreed; none produced evidence that would have stood in court; Macnaghten admitted 'no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer'.