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 ...?

[Fisherman]

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

Oh yes, I know the demands for a trial very well. That is why I say that Scobies verdict is of vital importance. And there is a whole lot of evidence against Lechmere, although it is of a circumstantial character. However, people get convicted on circumstantial grounds all the time, provided that the evidence is rich enough. And guess what? If it was not, then Scobie would not have said that there is a prima faciae case to answer in Lechmere´s case, that suggests that he was the killer.

If you want to keep going around in circles, that is where you will shipwreck every time.

[Fisherman]

I'm off for now.

Lechmere isn´t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 ...?

It’s like pulling teeth!

Its not the documentary that I’m commenting about it’s the fact that you regularly cite Scobie as a plus point for Lechmere’s candidature. Yes Scobie said that he felt that there was a case to answer with Lechmere. But it’s how he came by his opinion that counts. If I gave you evidence for a new suspect and you felt that it was the strongest evidence yet but I neglected to tell you that the suspect was in Scotland for three of the murders would you still be trumpeting the case against? Yes but you would be wrong. Not deceitful but wrong because you weren’t in full possession of the facts.

I know and understand that this wasn’t the point or the duty of the documentary Fish. I get it. But it still doesn’t change the fact that because Scobie only received the case for the prosecution and not one for the defence (which might conceivable have altered his opinion) then I don’t see how you can keep citing him as a bolster for the case against Lechmere?

[Abby Normal]

It’s like pulling teeth!

Its not the documentary that I’m commenting about it’s the fact that you regularly cite Scobie as a plus point for Lechmere’s candidature. Yes Scobie said that he felt that there was a case to answer with Lechmere. But it’s how he came by his opinion that counts. If I gave you evidence for a new suspect and you felt that it was the strongest evidence yet but I neglected to tell you that the suspect was in Scotland for three of the murders would you still be trumpeting the case against? Yes but you would be wrong. Not deceitful but wrong because you weren’t in full possession of the facts.

I know and understand that this wasn’t the point or the duty of the documentary Fish. I get it. But it still doesn’t change the fact that because Scobie only received the case for the prosecution and not one for the defence (which might conceivable have altered his opinion) then I don’t see how you can keep citing him as a bolster for the case against Lechmere?

Hi HS
because with the apparently culpable facts and evidence he concluded a case can be made for lechs prosecution.
He could have just as easily concluded their wasn't. but didn't-he thought there was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS
because with the apparently culpable facts and evidence he concluded a case can be made for lechs prosecution.
He could have just as easily concluded their wasn't. but didn't-he thought there was.

Hi Abby,

My point though is would he have come to the same judgment if he’d heard someone argue the case against Lechmere? He might have....he might not have. So it’s difficult to see how a point has been proven. Putting it simply, if i put forward a suggestive case for the guilt of x to a Barrister and he said that there was a case to answer how much merit can we give that judgment if you have evidence/information that refutes most of my points?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi HS
because with the apparently culpable facts and evidence he concluded a case can be made for lechs prosecution.
He could have just as easily concluded their wasn't. but didn't-he thought there was.

So based on what Scobie said they should have charged him, and when he went to court, he gave his account, and then there would have been no case to answer, and off he would have gone suing them for wrongful arrest as did Pizer.

To believe Lechmere was the killer of Nicholls is in the realms of fantasy.

[John Wheat]

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

Absolutely Sam. Lechmere is a terrible Ripper suspect pushed by crackpots

[Patrick S]

Hi HS
because with the apparently culpable facts and evidence he concluded a case can be made for lechs prosecution.
He could have just as easily concluded their wasn't. but didn't-he thought there was.

There's an obvious point to be made here: If Scobie had NOT concluded a case against Lechmere could be made he wouldn't have appeared in the documentary. He'd either have been left on the cutting room floor or left out altogether had he voiced an opposing view before filming. As Christer himself has stated more than once, the documentary isn't intended as a two-sided argument. It's intent is to present Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. Thus, those appearing therein cannot be expected to voice their opposition to the Lechmere as Nichols' killer, etc. This is why I find it puzzling and amusing that Christer continues trumpeting Scobie, Griffiths, Payne-James... while simultaneously telling everyone how foolish they are to suppose the documentary was intended as a fair and balanced debate.

[Abby Normal]

HI HS and Patrick
docus like this is somewhat analogous to a prosecutor putting forth his one sided case for guilt. The prosecutor thinks hes guilty so tries to prove it. Scobie and the others were apparently convinced too so they gave there opinions as such in the docu. I have no problem with it, but im also smart enough to realize its just a one sided argument and not balanced by exculpatory evidence. big whup. this is just the way the world works on many levels.

but ill say this-out of all the suspects lech is closest to being able to physically be the killer of a victim. he wins that contest hands down. and the fact that hes seen before trying to raise any alarm would if not make him a strong enough suspect to charge, it would make him strong enough in todays cop world to be looked at extremely long and hard, and unless exhonerated, which he cant be, be suspect or person of interest numero uno for the murder of Polly Nichols.

[John Wheat]

So based on what Scobie said they should have charged him, and when he went to court, he gave his account, and then there would have been no case to answer, and off he would have gone suing them for wrongful arrest as did Pizer.

To believe Lechmere was the killer of Nicholls is in the realms of fantasy.

I have to agree Trevor. Lechmere found a body. Lechmere theorists go on like he was caught with a knife over Nichols.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's an obvious point to be made here: If Scobie had NOT concluded a case against Lechmere could be made he wouldn't have appeared in the documentary. He'd either have been left on the cutting room floor or left out altogether had he voiced an opposing view before filming. As Christer himself has stated more than once, the documentary isn't intended as a two-sided argument. It's intent is to present Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. Thus, those appearing therein cannot be expected to voice their opposition to the Lechmere as Nichols' killer, etc. This is why I find it puzzling and amusing that Christer continues trumpeting Scobie, Griffiths, Payne-James... while simultaneously telling everyone how foolish they are to suppose the documentary was intended as a fair and balanced debate.

This is the point that I don’t get Pat. Fish admits that Scobie only heard the case for the prosecution (plus we have the fact that he appeared to have no prior knowledge of the case.) Therefore what Scobie was in effect saying was - ok Mr Holmgren/Stow/ Mr Whoever from what you’re telling me I’d say that there was a case to answer for Lechmere. But, and this is a huge but, he didn’t hear the case against Lechmere as the ripper which might have altered his judgment.

So the question for Fish is - why do you keep citing Scobie as bolstering the case for Lechmere? A judge wouldn’t make a judgment after not bothering to listen to the case for the defence. I’m not blaming Scobie. I’m not even blaming the documentary makers. What I am saying though is that Fish is elevating the importance of Scobie’s judgment. For me it means zero. It cannot carry weight. If he’d heard both sides then come down the same way then we would have to give it as a point in favour of Lech. Until that happens we can’t.

[Patrick S]

HI HS and Patrick
docus like this is somewhat analogous to a prosecutor putting forth his one sided case for guilt. The prosecutor thinks hes guilty so tries to prove it. Scobie and the others were apparently convinced too so they gave there opinions as such in the docu. I have no problem with it, but im also smart enough to realize its just a one sided argument and not balanced by exculpatory evidence. big whup. this is just the way the world works on many levels.

Big whup, indeed. I'm certainly smart enough to understand this, as well. But, apparently you don't realize that it seems we're saying the same thing: That this was a one-sided argument, presented as entertainment, with the obvious goal of convincing the viewer - at least for the duration of the program - that Charles Lechmere may have been Jack the Ripper. With this in mind, it's certainly not apparent that Scobie et al were "convinced too". The "experts" contributions to the program were based entirely on the information they were given to play their roles IN IT. I certainly have no issue with that, as I've stated more than once. My issue - AGAIN as I've stated time and again - is the Christer is intent upon having it both ways: he touts Scobie, Payne-James, and Griffiths as having endorsed his theory, while deflecting criticism of the documentary by reminding us that OF COURSE it was one-sided, OF COURSE only a fool would expect an opposing view to be presented therein, etc. As well, he interprets as a grievous insult of the highest order any suggestion that those involved were either given only information that might - if interpreted in just the right way - allow for the idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper or that they understood the program's goal and presented their views accordingly... while essentially acknowledging that very thing elsewhere.

Above bold.

[Patrick S]

This is the point that I don’t get Pat. Fish admits that Scobie only heard the case for the prosecution (plus we have the fact that he appeared to have no prior knowledge of the case.) Therefore what Scobie was in effect saying was - ok Mr Holmgren/Stow/ Mr Whoever from what you’re telling me I’d say that there was a case to answer for Lechmere. But, and this is a huge but, he didn’t hear the case against Lechmere as the ripper which might have altered his judgment.

So the question for Fish is - why do you keep citing Scobie as bolstering the case for Lechmere? A judge wouldn’t make a judgment after not bothering to listen to the case for the defence. I’m not blaming Scobie. I’m not even blaming the documentary makers. What I am saying though is that Fish is elevating the importance of Scobie’s judgment. For me it means zero. It cannot carry weight. If he’d heard both sides then come down the same way then we would have to give it as a point in favour of Lech. Until that happens we can’t.

We're of one mind on this, Herlock.

[FISHY1118]

The day after Chapman was killed ,Lechmere was no longer jack the ripper, [as if he ever was ] and if you have to ask why then your lost.