What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Fisherman]

Scobie QC was paid to give an opinion in a documentary which set out to name Cross as the murderer.

Bottom line. Make of that what you wish.

Monty

The very clear implication here is that Scobies verdict would have been governed by money and not by his professional experience and judgment.

This post of Montys sits well alongside the one some years back where he publicly accused me and Edward of having made money from the event in St Johns where the Lechmere theory was originally presented.

He was of course completely wrong that time - we did not make a penny from it, it all went to the Stairway of Heaven foundation and I even paid the flight to London myself to be able to participate. Monty later claimed to have apologized for having made this accusation, but there was never any such apology offered on his behalf.

That is another "bottom" line that becomes interesting to look at when it comes to weighing up the value of Montys current post.

It probably applies that James Scobie was paid for his participation (once again, I do not know, so I am not able to say with certainty, but it is a fair guess). Most experts arguably are, when they are asked by film companies to go public with their expertise.

The question is, would Scobie - or any other expert - be likely to say something they genuinely do not believe themselves and that goes against their professional experience to make a few quid...? Would they sell out totally ethically and professionally like that? Because that is what is seemingly implied by Monty in his post. Please correct me if I am wrong, Monty.

I prefer to think that Scobie was giving his honest opinion, and since there are many examples of trials that have come about on less evidence than what is involved in the Lechmere case, I see no practical possibility to come even anywhere close to proving the suggestion that Scobies verdict was one that he did not stand behind from a professional angle.

The person who has the onus of proof in this case is of course Monty: If he thinks that Scobie would have altered his take on matters of his profession in order to make money from it, then the sensible thing to do is to provide proof for it.

If that cannot be done, then I am of the meaning that the kind of "debate" Monty offers has nothing to do on these boards.

Finally, if Monty is NOT implying that Scobie adjusted his verdict to fit the Lechmere theory for money, then there is no problem - then we agree, he reasonably never did. Maybe Monty is just irritated by how the film crew used material that serves the purpose of underlining how it seems Lechmere could well have been the killer? If so, welcome to the real world!

If really hope this covers it all, because this kind of debate is something I would very much prefer not to have to engage in any further.

[Monty]

Scobie QC was paid to give an opinion in a documentary which set out to name Cross as the murderer.

Bottom line. Make of that what you wish.

I’d be interested in Eddy Butler’s views on Cross’’s alleged use of an alternate name. Misleading ‘evidence’ always buffs up a failing theory. However it does make one wonder huh?

Meanwhile, in Harrow...

Rap star jailed after music video bragging about drug dealing

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/must-reads/broken-britain/rap-star-jailed-after-music-video-bragging-about-drug-dealing/04/03/

Monty

[Monty]

Sooner or later, it gets VERY tedious to "debate" with people who are unable to see both sides of a coin - the kind of people who claim that Lechmere did not find the dead body of Nichols, the ones who say that any suspect could warrant a trial if only a barrister is ready to lie about it, the ones who claim that a barristers assertion that there is enough in the evidence relating to Lechmere to warrant a trial is "worthless", or the ones who are satisfied blurting out "bullshit" as a knee-jerk reaction to any point that involves looking at Lechmere from a guilty point of view.

There can never be any real debate with such people. There can be correcting them only and then leaving them to their sordid little fiesta of naysaying.

Like now.

Post of the year

Monty

[John Wheat]

The sensible position is still that Lechmere was a witness and nothing more.

[John Wheat]

Before I leave, one last effort to make Gareth see sense:

When Columbus arrived to the island of Anguilla, he had found the Caribbean islands, but he did not know that - he thought he had found the sea route to India.

So what was it he found:

1: India

X: The Caribbean islands

2: Nothing at all

The answer should be revealing, I dare say.

What are you on about? What relevance has this got to the thread?

[Fisherman]

Before I leave, one last effort to make Gareth see sense:

When Columbus arrived to the island of Anguilla, he had found the Caribbean islands, but he did not know that - he thought he had found the sea route to India.

So what was it he found:

1: India

X: The Caribbean islands

2: Nothing at all

The answer should be revealing, I dare say.

[Fisherman]

Sooner or later, it gets VERY tedious to "debate" with people who are unable to see both sides of a coin - the kind of people who claim that Lechmere did not find the dead body of Nichols, the ones who say that any suspect could warrant a trial if only a barrister is ready to lie about it, the ones who claim that a barristers assertion that there is enough in the evidence relating to Lechmere to warrant a trial is "worthless", or the ones who are satisfied blurting out "bullshit" as a knee-jerk reaction to any point that involves looking at Lechmere from a guilty point of view.

There can never be any real debate with such people. There can be correcting them only and then leaving them to their sordid little fiesta of naysaying.

Like now.

[Fisherman]

I don’t find the fact that someone didn’t want to handle a dead body suspicious.

But he already HAD handled the body, and called Paul to his assistance. And then it becomes decidedly suspicious that he did not want to help prop her up. Of course, our insight that she had had her neck cut to the bone does nothing to dissolve that picture.

The supposed name change afforded him no advantage and so isn’t suspicious.

Sorry, the suspiciousness does not hinge only on whether he gained from it or not (which he may well have, contrary to your musings), it also hinges on how he normally presented himself to authorities. And when a name is used only in combination with violent death, the. suspicion must be applied.

He still went to find a Constable when he had every opportunity to flee and avoid the need for a risky scam so I see nothing suspicious there.

Then you chose to disregard every case of guilty men who have conned or tried to con the police. But relax, I KNOW that you are unable to admit these things. I'm quite happy that those legally versed are able to put you right on the score, though. "He acted in a way that seems suspicious" - James Scobie.

Lechmere is a construct.

Any suspect who cannot be decidedly proven to be the culprit is a construct. It bothers me not, nor should it bother anybody else. But it bothers you.

That really tells the whole story.

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't be as extreme as that. It's enough to say that Cross and Paul jointly found the body, because at least they thought that she might be dead after they'd walked over and examined her. She could have been unconscious and/or drunk up until that point.

No, it is WRONG to say that Lechmere and Paul jointly found the body - Lechmere was the finder of it and Paul arrived later to find Lechmere and the body.

It matters not whether she was alive or dead, Lechmere nevertheless found her.

The "extreme" suggestions are all yours, since you want to dabble with who found her. Lechmere found Nichols, Neil or Llewellyn found the dead body of Nichols and Spratling found the gut-cut Nichols in your world, which IS indeed an extreme one, out of touch with reality.

Charles Lechmere found the dead body of Polly Nichols, but he may at that stage not have been aware that she WAS dead. We all know that she WAS dead and consequently we know that what Charles Lechmere indeed found was the dead body of Polly Nichols. This, however, all presupposes that Charles Lechmere was not the killer. If he WAS, then he did NOT find the dead body of Polly Nichols, then he killed her and left her lying on the sidewalk, and actually, if this was the case, it can be somewhat illogically be argued that Paul ALONE was the finder of the dead body.

But it can NEVER be argued that if Charles Lechmere was innocent, he did not find the dead body of Polly Nichols alone, before Paul arrived. Not in a zillion years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it is not my opinion, Herlock. It is James Scobies opinion. He didn't think that not helping to prop Nichols up, that changing your name and that disagreeing with a PC in a way that allowed Lechmere to pass the police by was in any way "normal". He thought it must carry suspicion with itself, and I agree.

Putting your head in the sand never solved anything. Ask any ostridge.

I don’t find the fact that someone didn’t want to handle a dead body suspicious.
The supposed name change afforded him no advantage and so isn’t suspicious.
He still went to find a Constable when he had every opportunity to flee and avoid the need for a risky scam so I see nothing suspicious there.

Lechmere is a construct.

[Sam Flynn]

if we use Gareths suggestion, the question "Who found the dead body of Polly Nichols?" must be answered with "John Neil"

I wouldn't be as extreme as that. It's enough to say that Cross and Paul jointly found the body, because at least they thought that she might be dead after they'd walked over and examined her. She could have been unconscious and/or drunk up until that point.

[Fisherman]

It is ver becoming because the documentary was flawed and misleading because had your theory been carefully scrutinised before it went into production and the full facts been presented to those experts it might never have got made

its a bad trait with all ripper doc makers that at the end someone has to say ____was jtr.
That’s the remit of doc makers that’s what they get paid to do

you don’t see any docs on who it wasn’t, I wonder why ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If those who make the dock are on the money, then it cannot be a bad trait to name the killer, Trevor. One always has to allow for that possibility.

I disagree with you on the last point. The docu on Feigenbaum is definitively a docu on who it wasn't.

[Fisherman]

This is your opinion Fish. I, and others, see a man who acted perfectly normally and in keeping with a someone that discovered a dead woman on his way to work.

No, it is not my opinion, Herlock. It is James Scobies opinion. He didn't think that not helping to prop Nichols up, that changing your name and that disagreeing with a PC in a way that allowed Lechmere to pass the police by was in any way "normal". He thought it must carry suspicion with itself, and I agree.

Putting your head in the sand never solved anything. Ask any ostridge.

[Fisherman]

Fish!
it was a joke. I said that because if all you say about lech is true (and it could be IMHO) then didn't really find the body-he killed her!

Nobody, and I men NOBODY, jokes about these matters in my presence, Abby! Shame on you for not knowing that (and on me for not realizing it - sorry!)

[John Wheat]

This is your opinion Fish. I, and others, see a man who acted perfectly normally and in keeping with a someone that discovered a dead woman on his way to work.

It's not just others it's the great majority Herlock. Only a few lunatics think Lechmere anything other than a witness.