What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Nor do you do so. There are minor flaws in the docu, but many, many of those who saw it and commented on it were people well versed in ripperology, some of whom had studied the case for decades. They would be just as well equipped to know the case inside out as anybody else, and it is not for you to try and diminish them. Its VERY unbecoming.

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 ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and so we are left with a man who "acts in a way that seems to be suspicious",

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.

[Abby Normal]

Read post 211 above, and you will see that I disappoint you on that score. Plus you will see why it is essential that I do so.

It is correct to say that Lechmere MAY not have known that the woman was dead, but wrong to say that he did not find the body. As I say in my post above, neither Lechmere nor Paul were certain that the woman was dead (dead or drunk was the verdict, even if Lechmere said that he had claimed that he THOUGHT she was more likely dead) and consequentially, if we use Gareths suggestion, the question "Who found the dead body of Polly Nichols?" must be answered with "John Neil". And if HE did not know that she was really dead, then the answer becomes "Rees Ralph Llewellyn".

The finder of the dead body of Polly Nichols was Lechmere, REGARDLESS of whether he knew she was dead or not. This is easy enough to understand and very basic. Why I need to lay it down is something I have hard time comprehending...!

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!

[John Wheat]

Delusional.

You're not the only one who thinks that Patrick.

[Fisherman]

Where does Kosminsky come into all this ?

As a bad comparison to Lechmere in terms of viability. On the whole, he may have come into ripperoplogy way too often.

People comment on the Lechmere errand introduced on this thread by others. I answer them.

There have been suggestions made to move the discussion, by me among others, but most people seem to prefer to keep it here. Even Gareth, who normally always try to steer things up in this department, posts on Lechmere here.

[Sam Flynn]

well fish would agree with you on that! ; )

...but for a very different reason!

[Fisherman]

The finders of the dead bodies of the Ripper´s victims:

Tabram: Dr Kileen - not Saunders Reeves.

Nichols: John Neil or Dr LLewellyn - not Charles Lechmere.

Chapman: Dr Phillips - not John Davis.

Stride: Possibly a medically versed clubman - not Diemschitz, though.

Eddowes: Probably Watkins, if he was knowledgeable enough, or Morris. Otherwise Brown.

Kelly: Realistically Bowyer, although he may not have seen enough to be certain that she was dead. So maybe Phillips found her.

The importance of all of this? Well, it seems that George Baxter Phillips may have found two of the dead bodies of the Ripper´s victims. We may need to take a long hard look at him as a good suspect therefore.

Not.

[packers stem]

Where does Kosminsky come into all this ?

[Fisherman]

well fish would agree with you on that! ; )

Read post 211 above, and you will see that I disappoint you on that score. Plus you will see why it is essential that I do so.

It is correct to say that Lechmere MAY not have known that the woman was dead, but wrong to say that he did not find the body. As I say in my post above, neither Lechmere nor Paul were certain that the woman was dead (dead or drunk was the verdict, even if Lechmere said that he had claimed that he THOUGHT she was more likely dead) and consequentially, if we use Gareths suggestion, the question "Who found the dead body of Polly Nichols?" must be answered with "John Neil". And if HE did not know that she was really dead, then the answer becomes "Rees Ralph Llewellyn".

The finder of the dead body of Polly Nichols was Lechmere, REGARDLESS of whether he knew she was dead or not. This is easy enough to understand and very basic. Why I need to lay it down is something I have hard time comprehending...!

[Fisherman]

But those who have left comments after seeing the documentary do not know they have been misled and have not had the true facts presented to them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nor do you do so. There are minor flaws in the docu, but many, many of those who saw it and commented on it were people well versed in ripperology, some of whom had studied the case for decades. They would be just as well equipped to know the case inside out as anybody else, and it is not for you to try and diminish them. Its VERY unbecoming.

[Abby Normal]

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".

well fish would agree with you on that! ; )

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, and why would I NOT do so? If a barrister and QC tells us that the accusatory material suffices for a trial that suggests that Lechmere was the killer, why would I not acknowledge that as a great counterweight to the sometimes prevailing view out here that there is nothing at all pointing in his direction?

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?

If Lechmere was given obviously wrong information, he could well have reached a wrongful conclusion on account of that. The thing is, though, that we have no indication at all that this happened, we have a BAFTA-award winning film company with a top notch reputation and lying to Scobie or misinforming him would carry huge risks. So the logical thing to assume is that this never happened. And there are other court cases, modern ones even, where people have been taken to court on much lighter circumstantial evidence and convicted. Of murder, even.
The starting point is an obvious one: Scobie was given a correct material and reached his conclusions from that.

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.

Yes. Again How many times have I agreed on that now? Ten? Why do you not accept that I do so? Yes, a man who has ten sinister points speaking of guilt in his case may be able to prove that he was abroad at the time of the crime, and then that will change the picture totally. We KNOW that, Herlock. It´s just that you cannot prove that Lechmere was abroad, can you? Not a lot of evidence has been presented that in any way disenables the Lechmere theory to be true, and that has to be considered too, right?
There IS a legal case to be had. There is NO evidence refuting it.

Of course, this is a very old case, and so we cannot tell if there once WAS such evidence. Surely, there MAY have been. But the fact of the matter is that we cannot present it today, and so we are left with a man who "acts in a way that seems to be suspicious", a man " a jury would not like" and who has enough evidence pointing in his way for a barrister to say that on its own, it is enough to warrant a trial, a prima face case that suggests that he was the killer.

[Patrick S]

There are heaps of them. Read the comments on the documentary. Those who matter on these boards are VERY unwilling to touch a discussion that has been turned into a stinking bog.

Delusional.

[Trevor Marriott]

There are heaps of them. Read the comments on the documentary. Those who matter on these boards are VERY unwilling to touch a discussion that has been turned into a stinking bog.

But those who have left comments after seeing the documentary do not know they have been misled and have not had the true facts presented to them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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

There are heaps of them. Read the comments on the documentary. Those who matter on these boards are VERY unwilling to touch a discussion that has been turned into a stinking bog.