What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Fisherman]

When you say that Scobie is, in effect, saying is that there is a need to hear Lechmere explain himself the problem is, as Trevor has pointed out, this did not occur in the documentary. For anyone watching, that wasn’t well versed in the case, it was almost presented as a done deal. Lech was guilty.

No, not at all. You are mistaken if you think it was not pointed out in the documentary. I believe what is said there is more or less exactly "QC and barrister James Scobie reviews the evidence AGAINST him" - which is of course exactly what he did. And what I say he did.
At the end of the day, what matters is that Scobie came to the conclusion that a case could be built that suggested Lechmere was guilty. Take away everything else, and this remarkable fact tells us that Lechmere is not any middle of the road suspect. He is by far and away the best one, legally speaking. And practically.

He (Scobie) only tells us the points of accusation taken in isolation are per se enough to make a legal case.

When I accused you of obfuscating in a previous post this is exactly what I mean Fish. You are seeking to justify a partial and potentially inaccurate view of the case against Lechmere.

There is no need for any justification at all. Of course the evidence must be assessed and its quality established. That part is absolutely crucial. The fact that there can always be counterarguments is not in any way suppressed, is it? You are welcome to produce criticism, and to try and find exonerating factors. If they are about, they are just as important as any act of accusation.

This is as simple as it could possibly get. You are unlikely in the extreme to arrive at a fair and reasoned judgment without hearing all sides of an argument.

yes, and I have never questioned that. Both sides must be heard, and the accised part must be given ample time and opportunity to defend himself. In a documentary, however, that will not occur. It is the nature of the beast. But there have been years of criticism and suggested alternative innocent explanations after the docu, so all parts are in place.

So what Scobie is, in effect saying, is - from the version of events that I’ve been presented with I think that there is a case to answer against Lechmere.

Exactamundo. That is PRECISELY what he is saying.

You often cite Scobie as a point in favour of Lechmere but how can this be if he didn’t not hear the case against?

Because there is not any case to answer for any other suspect, that is of a quality that could be taken to trial. And because once a QC and barrister like Scobie says that there IS such a case for Lechmere, then that stance is grounded on his assessment of the quality of the incriminating evidence: it is of a nature that suggests that Lechmere did the deed in Scobies eyes. If there was not enough in it to take to court, he would have said so. The fact that he doesn't tells us that unless there are exonerating factors that clearly gets Lechmere off the hook, then we have really good case on our hands.

In your example you mention that the legal system would have made a legal case. But it would have been an incorrect one and a legally and morally incorrect one if they had been aware of the exonerating evidence but ignored it.

There you go - now we are approaching the stance I warned against in post 88. Please read what I say again: nobody is asking for a legally and morally incorrect case. But it IS of massive interest that after 131 years, we finally have a suspect against whom there are points of accusation that per se have a QC telling us that they are enough to take to trial. There has never been such a suspect before in the history of ripperology, and THAT is of massive importance.

Of course exonerating evidence must be awarded space when we assess the case on the whole. But what exonerates Lechmere? Nothing. There may once have been such evidence, but I don't see it presented out here ...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, he would have made that statement regardless of how much information he was fed, and he would be correct about it too: The incriminating evidence as such is enough to warrant a legal case. To fully understand how this works, I warmly recommend you read my answer above to Herlock where I explain how it works.

You clearly dont understand that to be able to put a person before a court charged with any offence, there has to be evidence, evidence which the prosecution believe may be sufficient to secure a conviction. There is no incriminating evidence against Lechemere, he finds a body on his way to work, this is not evidence it is a fact ! That was his account could it be disproved, did the police corroborate it ? There is nothing to suggest based on his account the police suspected him or did not believe him.

You need to accept that Lechmere is not a suspect there is no evidence to make him one, and move on !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is often and will often be questions asked about whether a QC makes a fair call or not, but as you may understand from the above, that is not a question that comes into play here. What Scobie says is not that anybody should be judged unheard. He instead says that there is a need to hear Lechmere explain himself, and that if no explanation is offered at all, then chances are that he would be convicted on the evidence existing.

Its not about a mean and unsensitive QC. Its about how a QC says that if we disregard all other factors and look at the incriminating evidence only, there is a legal case to be had. He does NOT recommend to disregard all other factors, but he DOES say that IF we look at the case in that manner, then there is a legal case that suggests that Charles Lechmere was the killer.

Nobody is robbing Lechmere of his right to a defense. You are part of it on a daily basis.

When you say that Scobie is, in effect, saying is that there is a need to hear Lechmere explain himself the problem is, as Trevor has pointed out, this did not occur in the documentary. For anyone watching, that wasn’t well versed in the case, it was almost presented as a done deal. Lech was guilty.

He (Scobie) only tells us the points of accusation taken in isolation are per se enough to make a legal case.

When I accused you of obfuscating in a previous post this is exactly what I mean Fish. You are seeking to justify a partial and potentially inaccurate view of the case against Lechmere.

This is as simple as it could possibly get. You are unlikely in the extreme to arrive at a fair and reasoned judgment without hearing all sides of an argument. So what Scobie is, in effect saying, is - from the version of events that I’ve been presented with I think that there is a case to answer against Lechmere.

You often cite Scobie as a point in favour of Lechmere but how can this be if he didn’t not hear the case against?

In your example you mention that the legal system would have made a legal case. But it would have been an incorrect one and a legally and morally incorrect one if they had been aware of the exonerating evidence but ignored it.

[Fisherman]

I´ll take the opportunity to be proactive: My guess is that it won't be long before somebody writes that I want to condemn people without giving them the chance of clearing themselves and that I recommend hearing only the sinister side before deciding about a trial.

That would be perfectly in line with how far too many people out here argue.

We shall see. Maybe this is the moment when such antics are forever abandoned?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!!!

[Fisherman]

Sadly the public believe what they see and hear, and in this case they would have believed what Scobie had said, but had Scobie been presented with the full facts, he would not have made that statement, and then the public would not have been misled into thinking that there was a prima facie case against Lechmere to be able to put him before a court charged with murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, he would have made that statement regardless of how much information he was fed, and he would be correct about it too: The incriminating evidence as such is enough to warrant a legal case. To fully understand how this works, I warmly recommend you read my answer above to Herlock where I explain it. Good luck, Trevor!

[Fisherman]

There is not enough evidence against any suspect to be able to put that suspect before a court that is a fact !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not according to the legal expertise.

You don´t like it.

THAT is a fact.

[Fisherman]

Yes it would, because he was given the impression that Lechmere was being evasive about the time he left for work. e.g. Lechmere did not "initially" say that he left around 3:20.

We don´t know what he said, actually. And no, the case would not crumble on account of it anyway. Regardless of it, he may well have had the time needed. Plus, of course, he may have left BEFORE he said he did.

Get real, please. It helps.

[Fisherman]

I find this quite staggering.

The go ahead and be as staggered as you like.

Firstly, I agree with Paul’s point about the responsibility of the film maker to present the opposing side.

But that was not the point Paul made. The point he made was that the filmmakers had NO responsibility to present the opposing side when it came to Scobies verdict. He said that it was the quality as such of the evidence pointing against Lechmere Scobie had been asked to assess, and that this was perfectly kosher.

How can you say that - the points of accusation, taken in isolation are.....?

Its very easy. Try it yourself, and you will see. Let's, for example, take a case where we KNOW the exact parameters involved, a case where a man shoots a woman, grabs another man and places him by the murder site and puts the gun in his hand and then flees.
In this case, we KNOW that the man with the gun in hand, standing by the victim is innocent.

Can we in such a case ask whether it would warrant a legal case against the man with the gun if we look at the incriminating points only? Yes, we can, and the answer would be a "yes". it WOULD warrant a legal case.

The obvious problem is that the man is innocent and that a legal case condemning him would be a miscarriage of justice. But that does not take away from how the legal system would have made a perfectly rational judgment of the case. And THAT is what Scobie did - he basically says that all other parameters unconsidered (because he reasonably did not get all other parameters), yes, they are enough to make a legal case.

After that, we may whine and cry and shake our fists to the sky as much as we like to, and some may say "it is almost certain that he was innocent", some will say "he may well have been guilty, there is no exonerating evidence" and we can go on for years on end to debate that. But it would be an utter waste of time, because Scobie does not touch on the issue of possible innocence. He only tells us that the points of accusation, taken in isolation are per se enough to make a legal case.

Does that help? I mean, it will probably not help to make you feel better, but maybe it helps you to understand the issue a tad better? If you feel like saying "but that is unfair!", then say so, by all means. I would easily agree that any man should have both sides presented before being judged! But I would also remind you that we are all free to try and present points that can exonerate the carman - but that does not alter that there is evidence enough against him to make a legal case, all other points unconsidered, and so he has a need to clear himself, a need no other suspect has, based on the case evidence only.

I can also reiterate what I have said before: I would personally not convict him on the evidence existing. I think it is insufficient for a conviction. But I would certainly feel that I let a guilty man walk. I think that Scobie will have been very aware too that IF there was a case, then Lechmere may have had answers to the questions put to him that exonerated him. Then again, he may not have. And that is why we have trials, to find out. In his case, we won't, but there IS a case to be had, and that is what is Ripperologically interesting.

Hypothetically then. If I put my case for the prosecution of suspect X, in an historical case, in front of a respected QC that had no previous knowledge of the case but you Fish had an even more plausible case for the defence. Your case includes showing that the suspect was unlikely in the extreme to have been at one of the crime scenes. It includes previously unknown evidence that the suspect had a serious injury at the time that would have made it almost impossible for him to have committed the murders. And you’ve also dug up a witness who swore that he knew who perpetrated one of the murders.

The QC sees my case but not yours and comes to the conclusion that suspect X has a case to answer.

Without any accusation of impropriety and without impugning the QC’s reputation we would have to ask a very simple question - Has that QC come to a sound, we’ll rounded, fully fact based judgment? Of course he might have maintained his opinion even if he’d heard the case for the defence but there has to be a chance that he might have altered his judgment.

Therefore very little weight can be given to a judgment that’s based solely on the points against the suspect.

There is often and will often be questions asked about whether a QC makes a fair call or not, but as you may understand from the above, that is not a question that comes into play here. What Scobie says is not that anybody should be judged unheard. He instead says that there is a need to hear Lechmere explain himself, and that if no explanation is offered at all, then chances are that he would be convicted on the evidence existing.

Its not about a mean and unsensitive QC. Its about how a QC says that if we disregard all other factors and look at the incriminating evidence only, there is a legal case to be had. He does NOT recommend to disregard all other factors, but he DOES say that IF we look at the case in that manner, then there is a legal case that suggests that Charles Lechmere was the killer.

Nobody is robbing Lechmere of his right to a defense. You are part of it on a daily basis.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then perhaps you can tell us what other suspect could be taken to court on basis of case related facts, Gareth? Kosminski? (Your honor! This man is mentally challenged and there are rumors that a police chief may have considered him guilty on account of an identification. Made by whom? I dunno. What was identified? No idea.)

There is not enough evidence against any suspect to be able to put that suspect before a court that is a fact !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Explaining this is not misleading the public. It is telling them that there is circumstantial evidence enough to allow for a legal case. It is therefore informing the public about a very weighty matter.

Sadly the public believe what they see and hear, and in this case they would have believed what Scobie had said, but had Scobie been presented with the full facts, he would not have made that statement, and then the public would not have been misled into thinking that there was a prima facie case against Lechmere to be able to put him before a court charged with murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

...and "by far and away the prime suspect in the Ripper case" is even more absurd.

Then perhaps you can tell us what other suspect could be taken to court on basis of case related facts, Gareth? Kosminski? (Your honor! This man is mentally challenged and there are rumors that a police chief may have considered him guilty on account of an identification. Made by whom? I dunno. What was identified? No idea.)

Who's absurd now?

You dislike it, and you are entitled to dislike it. But that does not alter the fact that no other suspect comes anywhere near warranting a legal case. And Lechmere does. Ergo, no other suspect can match him. Boo-hoo, but there you are.

It would be a great deal better if you considered these facts instead of producing unfactual vomit. This is supposed to be a fact based discussion, not a voodoo session.

[Fisherman]

Well did the production team give him the material based on their own research,or was what he was given a combination of their research and yours and Edwards, or simply your and Edwards, either way it does not matter because he wasn't given the full facts.

I have no hidden agenda for not disclosing the full facts to him. If he had been given the full facts then, and as he stated to me he would not have made the statement that he made, which went out to the world, thereby misleading the public

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He misled no public, Trevor. He said that based on the evidence pointing in Lechmeres direction, a case could be built. It would not matter if we knew that he was in Kuala Lumpur on the Chapman murder day, because he was not supposed to look at the possible exonerating factors. He was to assess whether the incriminating factors were enough in quality and numbers to make for a legal case, and he came to the conclusion that they were. And let's be frank: there IS no exonerating evidence, all there is is a plethora of more or less desperate attempts to sweep Lechmere under the carpet.
How hard can that be to understand?

Explaining this is not misleading the public. It is telling them that there is circumstantial evidence enough to allow for a legal case. It is therefore informing the public about a very weighty matter.

[Busy Beaver]

If they wanted to fit a crazed Jew up for the murders then why not David Cohen? Sent to an asylum in the spring of 89, violent, no known relatives and died shortly afterwards. Sounds like a perfect fit for a scapegoat
Regards Darryl

The police didn't really know much about David Cohen, aka Nathan Kaminsky, who may or may not were supposed to be the same man and also Leather Apron. Aarron Koz also got caught up with these people/ this person so the police quite possible lumped them all together and hoped for the best. Their thinking, was that they will eventually get some one and then have a name. That's what it looks like. Did Koz not come to the attention of the police after he chased his sister with a bread knife?

[Harry D]

Moreover, even if Lechmere DID say "about" 3.30 and not "3.30", that would not amount to Scobie having been so mislead as to start believing a legal case was at hand on account of that point only.

Yes it would, because he was given the impression that Lechmere was being evasive about the time he left for work. e.g. Lechmere did not "initially" say that he left around 3:20.

[Camus]

I never realised Lechmere was a Polish Jew who went by the alias Kosminski......