What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Harry D]

No, "we" don't. "We" are suggesting all sorts of foul play, but "we" have had nothing to show for it so far. Unless you are referring to how Scobie was not handed all the titles ever produced about the Ripper case, all the articles and all the verbal info?
"We" may need to shape up, methinks.

Are you asserting that Mr Orsam was incorrect when he made this post?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don't believe that Koz is the Ripper. I would say he was more of a scape goat. Yes, lets blame Koz- no-one knows him, he's Jewish and we don't have any one else to fit up. Druitt and even Lech are better suspects. If he is found to be the Ripper I'll be like

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, "we" don't. "We" are suggesting all sorts of foul play, but "we" have had nothing to show for it so far. Unless you are referring to how Scobie was not handed all the titles ever produced about the Ripper case, all the articles and all the verbal info?
"We" may need to shape up, methinks.

The point that has been made numerous times by Patrick S, Elamarna and myself (and others) is a very simple one as you well know Fish. Scobie formed his opinion on the information that he received. He didn’t take a month off from his work to study the case for example. And, as far as I know, he had no previous interest in the case. We haven’t said that Scobie was fed false information or questioned his expertise or his integrity. But I think that the point that we raised is an entirely reasonable one in that Scobie was presented with the case for the prosecution. Why you, Ed Stow (and anyone else that might have been involved) felt that Lechmere was a good suspect. Scobie made a judgment based on that. Now, anyone seeking to arrive at a fair judgment (a judge for example) would insist on not only hearing the case for the prosecution but also the case for the defence.

Now if Scobie had been given a large dossier written by say Patrick S, Elamarna and David Orsam for example it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that he might have said that there wasn’t a case to answer with Lechmere. In fairness of course he might still have favoured the prosecutions case. But the fact of the matter is, without calling anyone dishonest, you simply cannot arrive at a fair and balanced view (especially on a subject on which you have no previous knowledge) without hearing both sides of the debate.

[Fisherman]

Are you asserting that Mr Orsam was incorrect when he made this post?

Ha! Well, to begin with, I can say that Orsam certainly did NOT see anything but a shortish passage of the papers Scobie had, and so he cannot tell whether there was information added elsewhere about Lechmere´s wording.

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.

Lastly, the ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser has Lechmere quoted: "On Friday morning I left home at half past three." No "about" there!

We do not have Lechmere on tape, all we have are paper reports - and they differ.

Wouldn't it be better if you tried less hard to incriminate the film team and their docu and more hard to debate decently? Otherwise, you may find yourself taken apart like this and exhibited as a very unsavoury poster.

Its your choice.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ha! Well, to begin with, I can say that Orsam certainly did NOT see anything but a shortish passage of the papers Scobie had, and so he cannot tell whether there was information added elsewhere about Lechmere´s wording.

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.

Lastly, the ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser has Lechmere quoted: "On Friday morning I left home at half past three." No "about" there!

We do not have Lechmere on tape, all we have are paper reports - and they differ.

Wouldn't it be better if you tried less hard to incriminate the film team and their docu and more hard to debate decently? Otherwise, you may find yourself taken apart like this and exhibited as a very unsavoury poster.

Its your choice.

But someone was responsible for the failure to provide Scobie with all the relevant facts on this murder, so who was that ? Perm anyone from three ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The point that has been made numerous times by Patrick S, Elamarna and myself (and others) is a very simple one as you well know Fish. Scobie formed his opinion on the information that he received. He didn’t take a month off from his work to study the case for example. And, as far as I know, he had no previous interest in the case. We haven’t said that Scobie was fed false information or questioned his expertise or his integrity. But I think that the point that we raised is an entirely reasonable one in that Scobie was presented with the case for the prosecution. Why you, Ed Stow (and anyone else that might have been involved) felt that Lechmere was a good suspect. Scobie made a judgment based on that. Now, anyone seeking to arrive at a fair judgment (a judge for example) would insist on not only hearing the case for the prosecution but also the case for the defence.

Now if Scobie had been given a large dossier written by say Patrick S, Elamarna and David Orsam for example it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that he might have said that there wasn’t a case to answer with Lechmere. In fairness of course he might still have favoured the prosecutions case. But the fact of the matter is, without calling anyone dishonest, you simply cannot arrive at a fair and balanced view (especially on a subject on which you have no previous knowledge) without hearing both sides of the debate.

You are welcome to read my answer to Harry D, Herlock and Trevor. But I agree that there are characters around on these boards who would be very likely to present a picture of the case that made Scobie - or anybody else - doubt that Lechmere could have been the killer. You are certainly correct on that score, and I think you would fit into that crew nicely yourself.

The one person who has put the matter most succinctly would be Paul Begg who told Trevor Marriott that it was never a question of providing Scobie with all the material that speaks for other suspects and thus against Lechmeres candidacy. Begg pointed out that what Scobie was asked to do was only to look at the material pointing in Lechmeres direction and decide whether he felt that it would warrant a legal case, and he said "Yes, it does".

And we both know, you and I, that there is not a scintilla of evidence that can dissolve the points against the carman. There are a zillion suggestions of alternative innocent explanations, but Scobie would have been aware that such matters can always be thought up. Regardless of that, he concluded that the points of accusation were quite enough to warrant a case "that suggested that he (Lechmere) was the killer".

I don´t think a more bitter pill has ever been served on these boards, and I fully understand how it calls for outraged cries of fouls play, dishonesty, misinformation and all that - after all, we cannot have a legal expert supporting the idea that Charles Lechmere (or anybody else, disregarding the outraged ones personal favorite suspects) was in all likelihood Jack the Ripper!

Maybe we drugged Scobie? Or maybe he was locked in a cupboard and the guy in the docu is an imposter, payed by us? Maybe it is me, considering how any expert would always mirror my exact ideas anyway?

I am all for a civil debate, and I would love to see a friendlier tone out here. But on this matter, I can only say that those who imply foul play regarding Scobies participation are complete and unforgivable jerks. There is really no other term for it.
Say that you disagree with Scobie, by all means, but DON´T say that that he was lied to or fed totally skewed and misleading material. If that had been the case, Blink Films would have risked getting sued by a Queens counsellor, and there would have been an obvious risk that Scobie would have gone public to condemn the docu - in which case the Lechmere cause would have been severely damaged.

Do the right thing, it allows learoom enough to even call Scobie a complete idiot if you wish to. But it can never be the right thing to resort to unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty and foul play on behalf of the film team if you cannot substantiate it. That is just not fair.

Make yourselves proud instead of making yourselves a measly pack of loosers, that's my advice to those who accuse Blink Films of wrongdoing.

[Fisherman]

But someone was responsible for the failure to provide Scobie with all the relevant facts on this murder, so who was that ? Perm anyone from three ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Scobie got all the relevant facts pointing to him being the killer, and just like Paul Begg told you before, that was all he was supposed to and needed to get to assess the case against Lechmere.
And there is not a single fact that could exonerate the carman anyway.
You are welcome to exemplify what you think he should have been handed. Information about how there are other possible suspects? Or what? Pray tell us.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are welcome to read my answer to Harry D, Herlock and Trevor. But I agree that there are characters around on these boards who would be very likely to present a picture of the case that made Scobie - or anybody else - doubt that Lechmere could have been the killer. You are certainly correct on that score, and I think you would fit into that crew nicely yourself.

The one person who has put the matter most succinctly would be Paul Begg who told Trevor Marriott that it was never a question of providing Scobie with all the material that speaks for other suspects and thus against Lechmeres candidacy. Begg pointed out that what Scobie was asked to do was only to look at the material pointing in Lechmeres direction and decide whether he felt that it would warrant a legal case, and he said "Yes, it does".

And we both know, you and I, that there is not a scintilla of evidence that can dissolve the points against the carman. There are a zillion suggestions of alternative innocent explanations, but Scobie would have been aware that such matters can always be thought up. Regardless of that, he concluded that the points of accusation were quite enough to warrant a case "that suggested that he (Lechmere) was the killer".

I don´t think a more bitter pill has ever been served on these boards, and I fully understand how it calls for outraged cries of fouls play, dishonesty, misinformation and all that - after all, we cannot have a legal expert supporting the idea that Charles Lechmere (or anybody else, disregarding the outraged ones personal favorite suspects) was in all likelihood Jack the Ripper!

Maybe we drugged Scobie? Or maybe he was locked in a cupboard and the guy in the docu is an imposter, payed by us? Maybe it is me, considering how any expert would always mirror my exact ideas anyway?

I am all for a civil debate, and I would love to see a friendlier tone out here. But on this matter, I can only say that those who imply foul play regarding Scobies participation are complete and unforgivable jerks. There is really no other term for it.
Say that you disagree with Scobie, by all means, but DON´T say that that he was lied to or fed totally skewed and misleading material. If that had been the case, Blink Films would have risked getting sued by a Queens counsellor, and there would have been an obvious risk that Scobie would have gone public to condemn the docu - in which case the Lechmere cause would have been severely damaged.

Do the right thing, it allows learoom enough to even call Scobie a complete idiot if you wish to. But it can never be the right thing to resort to unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty and foul play on behalf of the film team if you cannot substantiate it. That is just not fair.

Make yourselves proud instead of making yourselves a measly pack of loosers, that's my advice to those who accuse Blink Films of wrongdoing.

You mention my name in this post, but it is I that personally spoke to Scobie after the program aired, and having then presented him with the "full" facts about the murder and Lechmere, he stated that on that basis by today's standards the Crown prosecution service would not have proceeded to court. It was clear in my talk with him that he had not been presented with the full facts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Scobie got all the relevant facts pointing to him being the killer, and just like Paul Begg told you before, that was all he was supposed to and needed to get to assess the case against Lechmere.
And there is not a single fact that could exonerate the carman anyway.
You are welcome to exemplify what you think he should have been handed. Information about how there are other possible suspects? Or what? Pray tell us.

That is wrong, in fairness he should have been presented with the full facts not what either, you or Edward Stow, or Blink films gave him because clearly what he was given was not the full facts.

www.trevormarriott.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are welcome to read my answer to Harry D, Herlock and Trevor. But I agree that there are characters around on these boards who would be very likely to present a picture of the case that made Scobie - or anybody else - doubt that Lechmere could have been the killer. You are certainly correct on that score, and I think you would fit into that crew nicely yourself.

The one person who has put the matter most succinctly would be Paul Begg who told Trevor Marriott that it was never a question of providing Scobie with all the material that speaks for other suspects and thus against Lechmeres candidacy. Begg pointed out that what Scobie was asked to do was only to look at the material pointing in Lechmeres direction and decide whether he felt that it would warrant a legal case, and he said "Yes, it does".

And we both know, you and I, that there is not a scintilla of evidence that can dissolve the points against the carman. There are a zillion suggestions of alternative innocent explanations, but Scobie would have been aware that such matters can always be thought up. Regardless of that, he concluded that the points of accusation were quite enough to warrant a case "that suggested that he (Lechmere) was the killer".

I don´t think a more bitter pill has ever been served on these boards, and I fully understand how it calls for outraged cries of fouls play, dishonesty, misinformation and all that - after all, we cannot have a legal expert supporting the idea that Charles Lechmere (or anybody else, disregarding the outraged ones personal favorite suspects) was in all likelihood Jack the Ripper!

Maybe we drugged Scobie? Or maybe he was locked in a cupboard and the guy in the docu is an imposter, payed by us? Maybe it is me, considering how any expert would always mirror my exact ideas anyway?

I am all for a civil debate, and I would love to see a friendlier tone out here. But on this matter, I can only say that those who imply foul play regarding Scobies participation are complete and unforgivable jerks. There is really no other term for it.
Say that you disagree with Scobie, by all means, but DON´T say that that he was lied to or fed totally skewed and misleading material. If that had been the case, Blink Films would have risked getting sued by a Queens counsellor, and there would have been an obvious risk that Scobie would have gone public to condemn the docu - in which case the Lechmere cause would have been severely damaged.

Do the right thing, it allows learoom enough to even call Scobie a complete idiot if you wish to. But it can never be the right thing to resort to unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty and foul play on behalf of the film team if you cannot substantiate it. That is just not fair.

Make yourselves proud instead of making yourselves a measly pack of loosers, that's my advice to those who accuse Blink Films of wrongdoing.

I’m sorry Fish but this post is pathetic. I very specifically said that there was no foul play as can be seen in the 5th sentence of my post but, as usual, you cry victim whenever you hear something that you don’t like.

Was Scobie presented with anyone’s researched and considered case on why Lechmere wasn’t guilty? No

Might that case, if presented have changed Scobie’s mind? Possible

Can you make a reasoned judgment of anything by only seeing one side of the debate/argument? I’d think it unlikely

So is it reasonable to question a conclusion formed in that way? I’d say yes it is


I haven’t accused anyone of wrongdoing. I’ve said that they made an error in my opinion.

An opinion that, the last time that I looked, I’m allowed to make.

[Fisherman]

I’m sorry Fish but this post is pathetic. I very specifically said that there was no foul play as can be seen in the 5th sentence of my post but, as usual, you cry victim whenever you hear something that you don’t like.

Was Scobie presented with anyone’s researched and considered case on why Lechmere wasn’t guilty? No

Might that case, if presented have changed Scobie’s mind? Possible

Can you make a reasoned judgment of anything by only seeing one side of the debate/argument? I’d think it unlikely

So is it reasonable to question a conclusion formed in that way? I’d say yes it is


I haven’t accused anyone of wrongdoing. I’ve said that they made an error in my opinion.

An opinion that, the last time that I looked, I’m allowed to make.

You may be aware that regardless of how I quoted you, the post as such was a general one, aimed at a number of posters out here. You should therefore not take it personally. If you say that you are of the mindset that no foul play was involved, then that honors you and I am the first to say it.

Actually, since I never saw the material Scobie got, I cannot say whether he was given any researched case by anybody claiming that Lechmere was not guilty. But regardless of that, just as I have said VERY clearly, that is not something that Scobie needed to asses the case against Lechmere, and that was all he was asked to do as far as I understand. The docu was - believe it or not - never about presenting as many views as possible from those who do not like Lechmere as a suspect. It was about looking at how a case against him can be best presented.
Once again, Paul Begg said it best: no responsibility lies on the filmmakers to make a case AGAINST Lechmere, and in accordance with that, what Scobie was asked to do was to assess the points of accusation against him and check if they were enough to warrant a legal case.

And they were, as you know.

It is not and was never about whether a "reasoned judgment" can be reached without allowing all of the material to be presented. It is about whether the points of accusation, taken in isolation, are enough to warrant a legal case. If you think that is uninteresting, then you may need to think again.

One of the more important things that we may learn from Scobies assessment is that REGARDLESS if there was exonerating evidence - and we both know that there is not! - it nevertheless applies that going on the points of accusation only, we get a good enough case to take to court. Ask yourself whether that would have applied to Druitt, Kosminski, Bury, Levy et al. Not in a million years. None of them are nowhere near a legal case.

Lechmere is. And that is why he is by far and away the prime suspect in the Ripper case.

[Fisherman]

You mention my name in this post, but it is I that personally spoke to Scobie after the program aired, and having then presented him with the "full" facts about the murder and Lechmere, he stated that on that basis by today's standards the Crown prosecution service would not have proceeded to court. It was clear in my talk with him that he had not been presented with the full facts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First and foremost: he was NOT supposed to be furnished with all the material involved and the differing views surrounding the case. He was to be given the points of accusation and to assess them in isolation and establish whether they would warrant a legal case or not. So yes, if there is evidence that can exonerate him, then the exercise as such would have been useless.

Now, Trevor, IS there any such evidence - or are there only deviating interpretations of the evidence? Alternative innocent explanations, as it were?
I think we both know the answer to that one!

Lastly, as I said before, you cannot have a hope in hell to first claim that the film team lied and misled Scobie and then expect me to take your unconfirmed musings about your alleged telephone conversation with Scobie seriously. It does not work that way, as you need to understand. Why should I accept that you gave him relevant and fair material when you will not accept that the film crew did?

Any ideas?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why should I accept that you gave him relevant and fair material when you will not accept that the film crew did?

Any ideas?

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

[John Wheat]

You may be aware that regardless of how I quoted you, the post as such was a general one, aimed at a number of posters out here. You should therefore not take it personally. If you say that you are of the mindset that no foul play was involved, then that honors you and I am the first to say it.

Actually, since I never saw the material Scobie got, I cannot say whether he was given any researched case by anybody claiming that Lechmere was not guilty. But regardless of that, just as I have said VERY clearly, that is not something that Scobie needed to asses the case against Lechmere, and that was all he was asked to do as far as I understand. The docu was - believe it or not - never about presenting as many views as possible from those who do not like Lechmere as a suspect. It was about looking at how a case against him can be best presented.
Once again, Paul Begg said it best: no responsibility lies on the filmmakers to make a case AGAINST Lechmere, and in accordance with that, what Scobie was asked to do was to assess the points of accusation against him and check if they were enough to warrant a legal case.

And they were, as you know.

It is not and was never about whether a "reasoned judgment" can be reached without allowing all of the material to be presented. It is about whether the points of accusation, taken in isolation, are enough to warrant a legal case. If you think that is uninteresting, then you may need to think again.

One of the more important things that we may learn from Scobies assessment is that REGARDLESS if there was exonerating evidence - and we both know that there is not! - it nevertheless applies that going on the points of accusation only, we get a good enough case to take to court. Ask yourself whether that would have applied to Druitt, Kosminski, Bury, Levy et al. Not in a million years. None of them are nowhere near a legal case.

Lechmere is. And that is why he is by far and away the prime suspect in the Ripper case.

A legal case for Lechmere what a load of cobblers.

[Sam Flynn]

A legal case for Lechmere what a load of cobblers.

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