What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Fisherman]

Hi patrick
no-just that he was seen standing there near her at that exact moment. seems a little odd to me. no other murder scene had this oddity with a witness.
hes seen by paul at that exact moment-hesitating near a body. not walking toward it, not walking away, not looking for help. standing near it.

as ive said before-put yourself in pauls shoes. dark road, no one else about, man standing in middle of road near what turns out to be a murdered victim.to me its creepy and yes a tad suspicious. but that's just me.

No, Abby, its NOT just you. The Lechmere case is full of red flags - and useless denials of that fact, peddled by people with much more of an agenda and a bias than I ever had.

[Fisherman]

Oh the irony.

I´ll make it easy for you.

Finding a body does not make you a suspect.

Finding a body at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer will make you a person of intersest unless there are other factors that changes this.

Once you have other material pointing to you being the killer of somebody, having been found alone with the body at a remove in time that is consistent with you being the killer is not something that will help you case - on the contrary. In such a case, this factor will be added to the material that works against you.

This is what I have always said, and the one irony about it is that some people, you being one of them, seem incapacitated to understand that. I hope (which is another thing than believe) this has been remedied now.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree Lechmere found a body. That's all there is.

Even less spookily, Cross and Paul jointly found the body. Before they both examined the bundle, it could have been asleep as far as they were concerned.

[John Wheat]

I´ll make it easy for you.

Finding a body does not make you a suspect.

Finding a body at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer will make you a person of intersest unless there are other factors that changes this.

Once you have other material pointing to you being the killer of somebody, having been found alone with the body at a remove in time that is consistent with you being the killer is not something that will help you case - on the contrary. In such a case, this factor will be added to the material that works against you.

This is what I have always said, and the one irony about it is that some people, you being one of them, seem incapacitated to understand that. I hope (which is another thing than believe) this has been remedied now.

That's garbage and so is the theory that Lechmere was Jack.

[John Wheat]

Even less spookily, Cross and Paul jointly found the body. Before they both examined the bundle, it could have been asleep as far as they were concerned.

Either way Sam Lechmere was not Jack. As I'm sure you'll agree.

[Trevor Marriott]

Either way Sam Lechmere was not Jack. As I'm sure you'll agree.

Is there anyone out there who concurs with Fisherman that Lechemere killed Nichols, and was JTR.

If you do please make yourself known and the reasons why you concur

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's look at two suggested cases where only the accusatory factor is given, Herlock. Maybe that can make you see what I am talking about.

1. A woman has been strangled. We know that a man she knew has said that he'd like to beat her up.

2. A woman has been strangled. A man is found with the dead body at a remove in time that is consistent with her death. He has a length of rope in his pocket. He is known to have threatened to kill her. He has a note in another pocket where it is says "I will strangle the bitch". He has been living with the woman, and last week, he registered a life insurance of a million pounds for her.

A case against somebody always rests upon the number and quality of the accusatory points involved. The more points there are and the more damning they are, the better the case against the accused will be.

Do you follow this reasoning? Good.

In the two cases above, we can be absolutely certain that no barrister would take the man from the first example to court on the existing evidence. We can be absolutely certain that any barrister would take the man from example number two to court on the existing evidence.

Are you with me? Good.

So what does this all tell us? It tells us that BEFORE we look at any other evidence that may or may not be there, these two cases can be qualitatively compared. And we can see that the second case is one that warrants a trial, whereas the first does not.

Is this agreed upon? Good.

Now, you introduced the term "worthless" in a former post of yours - the accusatory material was "worthless" unless it was combined with the defense side, you said. But the above example tells us very clearly that we can make a qualitative analysis based on the accusatory material only! Therefore, it cannot BE worthless.

Ergo, the word you were searching for was not "worthless". It was the word "unfair" you were looking for. We cannot judge people on accusatory evidence only, if there is defense evidence to be had. And lo and behold, nobody has ever - EVER! - suggested that we should do so.

What has been asked for is an understanding of how weighing up the accusatory evidence has an immense value when it comes to understanding what kind of ground a case AGAINST somebody rests on - a loose one (as in my example 1) or a good one (as in my example 2).

I am trying to be as basic and as easy to understand as I possibly can, Herlock, but so far, it has not payed off. I really, really, really hope it does this time over.

Nobody is saying that Lechmere would have been convicted in a trial that allowed for all aspects of the case to be scrutinized.

What I AM saying is that the accusatory material is of a wealth and character that points to a very strong case BEFORE any other evidence is added.

Surely you can see how that works if you really put your mind to it, Herlock?

It’s not the process that’s the issue it's the fact that you keep using Scobie to strengthen the validity of Lechmere as a suspect.

This presupposes in both cases that NO FURTHER EVIDENCE is supplied. No additional damning evidence, and no evidence in defense for either man.

But there could have been interpretations that Scobie hadn’t considered or possibilities that hadn’t been mentioned which might have led him to have looked and found that there wasn’t enough. He might have said - well A appears to have been the case but a defence Barrister would negate that point by simply suggesting explanation B. What if he wasn’t aware of timing issues in that period for example?

Yes you can look at a suspect and conclude that he might appear to have a case to answer but unless you look in detail at the whole picture, considering all the points that a defence Barrister might make, then you don’t have a complete picture and the complete picture might look very different to a partial one.

[Darryl Kenyon]

No, the fact that the police did not suspect Lechmere has nothing to do with how we should not dismiss Kosminski.

It wasn't me who suggested we should drop Kosminski, Fish it was you - I´d say we don't have to hear any defense material before we throw that "case" out (sorry, R J), and the same goes for every other suspect but Lechmere.
I was just making a point that two senior Police officers who were heavily involved in the case both suspected Kosminski and nobody suspected Cross, [not that we know of]. Now, like I said that doesn't mean Anderson and Swanson were right and every other police officer on the met was wrong not to suspect there was more to Cross, but I do think it is relevant even if you do not concur.
Regards Darryl

[Patrick S]

No, Abby, its NOT just you. The Lechmere case is full of red flags - and useless denials of that fact, peddled by people with much more of an agenda and a bias than I ever had.

What's the agenda? To discourage people from buying into a theory that very few people buy into in the first place? You've "peddled" this thing to Youtubers, etc... people unfamiliar with the case AND you're "suspect". And you pat yourself on the back because they leave comments saying they agree. Yet... you STILL cannot gain converts among those who know anything at all about the crimes and among those who've done even cursory research into your "suspect" and you're "theory". I understand that your arrogance requires that you believe the "agenda" is to bring YOU down... as if that's some feat. As you've ascended to a place to be taken down from. It's quite simple: What you propose is absurd and the documentary is, frankly, dishonest. Everyone understands that it is - as you've said - a one-sided representation... but you do not seem to understand that fact as you repeatedly reference it and those involved as some monument to it's veracity. There is ONLY one agenda at work here. YOUR agenda to somehow elevate this foolishness above all the other suspect theories. You can't allow it to simply stand as it is, one of many, better than some, worse than others. This thing you're selling MUST be the only real theory, the best theory. Anything less is intolerable, unacceptable. And this is, of course, ridiculous.

[Abby Normal]

Even less spookily, Cross and Paul jointly found the body. Before they both examined the bundle, it could have been asleep as far as they were concerned.

no sam-lech found the body-they examined together. lech knew it was a woman before they looked at her together.

[Sam Flynn]

no sam-lech found the body-they examined together. lech knew it was a woman before they looked at her together.

Cross saw something on the pavement, which was only confirmed to be a body when he and Paul jointly walked across and examined it.

[Abby Normal]

Is there anyone out there who concurs with Fisherman that Lechemere killed Nichols, and was JTR.

If you do please make yourself known and the reasons why you concur

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't think lech killed Nichols-I think he may have. but that's a big may. Ive got him on my second tier (but near the top)of ripper suspects among the likes of Barnett, Druitt, bowyer, Richardson etc.

but I have seen a handful of posters that don't post very much say they think lech was the ripper. to each his own.

[Abby Normal]

Cross saw something on the pavement, which was only confirmed to be a body when he and Paul jointly walked across and examined it.

wrong.
Robert Paul- "The man, however, came towards me and said, “Come and look at this woman.”’

[Sam Flynn]

wrong.
Robert Paul- "The man, however, came towards me and said, “Come and look at this woman.”’

I'm not saying that Cross didn't think that the bundle on the pavement was a woman, but it was not confirmed to be a woman, and it certainly wasn't confirmed to be a dead one, until Cross and Paul both walked across and examined it. Indeed, they weren't even sure that the woman was dead at that point. It is therefore inaccurate to say that it was Cross who "found the body".

[Fisherman]

That's garbage and so is the theory that Lechmere was Jack.

And there I was thinking that "bullshit" and "lies" made up your entire vocabulary. But you know "garbage" too!