What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t think that Lechmere was the ripper. But he’s around 10,000 times more likely to have been than Sir William Gull.

[packers stem]

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.

True
it's the same as the handwriting experts and medical people who have a document or a sample of handwriting thrust before them with little prior knowledge of the case .

"Could that be his writing ?"

"Well , yes it could ... but....."
"No buts, thank you very much for your opinion ..."

we've had handwriting experts confirm the guilt of Sickert , Maybrick and Tumblety , not to mention certain marginalia .
I'm sure we'll have future confirmations

[Fisherman]

It’s like pulling teeth!

I fully agree! And they're yours.

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.

It IS a humongous point for his candidature, so its quite logical. As I say, he is the one and only suspect who in 131 years has been named by a QC and barrister as a man who would warrant a legal case.

Yes Scobie said that he felt that there was a case to answer with Lechmere.

There you go.

But it’s how he came by his opinion that counts.

It is, certainly.

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?

Until I found out that the suspect was in Scotland for three of the murders or until I had any other reason to change my mind, I would not do so. There would be no reason to. And it is not as if Lechmere has been proven to have been in Scotland, is it? Nor has any other thing been proven that nullifies his candidacy. And voíla: I stand by him. Surely you can see the logic built into that?

Yes but you would be wrong. Not deceitful but wrong because you weren’t in full possession of the facts.

Absolutely - if the suspect given had a history that nullified him as a suspect, I would be wrong if I said he was the killer. But once again, there is nothing telling us that Lechmere could not have been the killer. Thee is not even anything telling us that he is an unlikely killer. And again, regardless of how the car against him being the killer looks, that does not take away from the fact that Scobie found the points FOR his candidacy enough to warrant a legal case.
We don´t know whether the material Scobie was given involved points against Lechmeres candidacy. It is only our best guess that what he was given was only the case FOR Lechmere being the killer. No matter what applies in this context, it does not in any way detract from how we now know that a QC and barrister found the points against Scobie enough to warrant a trial.
You make it sound as if our primary aim was to ensure Lechmere a fair trial, but the fat of the matter is that he cannot be tried, since he has been dead for a century. All we can do is to try and get as close to the truth as possible, and trying to sweep the fact that Scobie finds the material enough to warrant a trial that suggests that Lechmere was the killer does not promote the quest for truth. All we can do is to say "Okay, so this QC and barrister finds that the material points to Lechmere having been the Ripper, now let's try and look at all the material that potentially gets him off that hook, and weigh it all together". That is it. Questioning whether Scobie was mislead or lied to by the film team is - in my world - not the correct place to begin. Once again, I am not saying that you suggest this, but I know from bitter experience that some do.

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?

No? You don´t see how it is a point in favour of the prosecution when a man versed in law matters looks at a case and says "Yes, it looks like this is the killer"? That is not something you would regard as a problem for Lechmere? And that is on account of how we may surmise that Scobie reviewed the case against only?
Would you not agree that once Scobie expressed that opinion, the first time ever in the history of Ripperology where we have a barrister saying "yes, this IS a good enough suspect to take to court, based on the existing evidence", then we MUST produce clear evidence that Lechmere could not have been the killer to nullify Scobies words, just as we must produce a case that taken together weighs heavily against Scobie before we can say that he is likely to be wrong.

Where is that case?

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, of course we could have gotten a case where Lechmere was able to free himself of the charges. But there is no telling whether he would have been able to or not, and consequentially, we cannot use that possibility as some sort of guarantee that the case would not stand.

We are left with the very interesting fact that we now have a suspect against whom a case could be levelled, going on the evidence. Not so for Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Feigenbaum, Carroll, Gull, Kelly....

For all of these guys, once somebody suggest them a suspects and is asked "Can you prove it?", the answer is no. Over and over again.

In Lechmere´s case, Scobies answer is one of "Yes, as long as nothing else comes to light that exonerates him or casts doubt on him being the killer, I entertain hopes to be able to prove it on grounds of circumstantial evidence.

Now, Herlock and a whole lot of people will at this stage say "But there ARE matters that cast doubt about him being guilty!"

Fair enough - there are alternative takes on the evidence surrounding him. But that does not dissolve the heart matter of the exercise I am recommending - to take in that a legal case can be built against a man with the kind of circumstantial evidence attaching to him that is the case with Lechmere! And THAT is a massive point in favour of his candidacy!

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactamundo. And in my world, trying to deny this does not make for trustworthy debating.

It is a different matter to say "Okay, so Scobie says that there is a case to be had, and of course that makes Lechmere the best hands-on candidate there has ever been. But personally, I feel that ..."

Trying to make the facts go away is silly. Arguing other interpretations of them is not necessarily so (it depends on the quality of what is argued). So there IS a choice.

[Fisherman]

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.

How about ON the day she was killed? I would be more interested in that than in any events the day after.

[Fisherman]

True
it's the same as the handwriting experts and medical people who have a document or a sample of handwriting thrust before them with little prior knowledge of the case .

"Could that be his writing ?"

"Well , yes it could ... but....."
"No buts, thank you very much for your opinion ..."

we've had handwriting experts confirm the guilt of Sickert , Maybrick and Tumblety , not to mention certain marginalia .
I'm sure we'll have future confirmations

It is actually not the same thing at all. The two are only reminiscent of each other in the capacity of being two cases where no absolute certainty can be had. After that, you have a document expert hesitating and feeling uncertain that what he has is enough, and who expresses no certainty at all that an accusation on account of the material would be the correct way to go.
Scobie is not hesitant in any way, he says that the material DOES warrant a legal process that suggests that Lechmere was the killer.

So what YOU compare is a hesitant expert asked whether a writing example is enough to pass a verdict of guilty, where I have an unhesitating expert saying that there is material enough to make for a trial.

The comparison is therefore ridiculous and a waste of space. It can only serve to mislead.

Sorry, but we really must be absolutely frank about these things.

[FISHY1118]

Surely the police and Scotland yard would have dragged Lechmere in for questioning after the murder of Chapman,and again after Stride, and again after Eddows, and finally again after Kelly. After all he was at the murder scene of Nichols and if it was suspected he was the killer, they would have had him under watch, and even if he wasnt suspected he was at least know to the police and they surely would want to know if he had an alibi for all the murders. After all its Scotland yard you think they would do some basic police work . So its a no for me for Lechmere as jtr . imo

[Herlock Sholmes]

Me: Yes Scobie said that he felt that there was a case to answer with Lechmere.

Fish: There you go.

In the simplest of terms:

A QC is given the case for a prosecution of a suspect in a serial murder case.

Someone has evidence that completely rebuts 6 out of the 7 points that are potentially in favour of his guilt.

The QC however never sees those six vital points.

The QC goes on to state that the suspect has a case to answer.

Question for Fisherman and all.

Is that QC likely to have come up with a valid judgment?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You make it sound as if our primary aim was to ensure Lechmere a fair trial, but the fat of the matter is that he cannot be tried, since he has been dead for a century.

No, we are deciding what weight can be put behind Scobie’s judgment.

A while ago you questioned my competence to debate a point because of a shortfall in knowledge.

By only hearing one side of the case then Scobie also had a shortfall in knowledge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All we can do is to say "Okay, so this QC and barrister finds that the material points to Lechmere having been the Ripper, now let's try and look at all the material that potentially gets him off that hook, and weigh it all together". That is it. Questioning whether Scobie was mislead or lied to by the film team is - in my world - not the correct place to begin. Once again, I am not saying that you suggest this, but I know from bitter experience that some do.

Sorry Fish but I’d say “this Barrister has received a one-sided version of events which were always likely to lead someone with no previous knowledge of the case toward a guilty Lechmere. Therefore his opinion should be taken with a large pinch of salt.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
No? You don´t see how it is a point in favour of the prosecution when a man versed in law matters looks at a case and says "Yes, it looks like this is the killer"? That is not something you would regard as a problem for Lechmere? And that is on account of how we may surmise that Scobie reviewed the case against only?

I genuinely don’t see how you can continue to defend this point Fish?

Q: Is it a possibility that Scobie might have come to a different judgment if he’d heard the case for Lechmere’s innocence?

A: Of course it’s possible.

Conclusion: We cannot be sure what information Scobie was given but we can be sure that he was given the case for the prosecution and not the defence. His judgment is therefore flawed and worth little.

Would you not agree that once Scobie expressed that opinion, the first time ever in the history of Ripperology where we have a barrister saying "yes, this IS a good enough suspect to take to court, based on the existing evidence", then we MUST produce clear evidence that Lechmere could not have been the killer to nullify Scobies words, just as we must produce a case that taken together weighs heavily against Scobie before we can say that he is likely to be wrong.

The more I think about it, the more I realise the dearth of evidence against Lechmere, the more unbelievable I find it that Scobie would have taken him to court. I just can’t believe it.

[rjpalmer]

We are left with the very interesting fact that we now have a suspect against whom a case could be levelled, going on the evidence. Not so for Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Feigenbaum, Carroll, Gull, Kelly....

Hi Fish. Such comparisons are meaningless; it's like using the rules of cricket to analyze a chess game.

For good or bad, you (and most of the theorists here) are trying to "Hercule Poirot" your way to a case solution. You analyze the so-called "case evidence" (inquest reports, witness descriptions, etc.) and try to find out "whodunnit." Thus, naturally, your suspicions eventually lead you to suspect someone we see in the "case evidence" as sure as in an Agatha Christie novel the killer will be one of the passengers on the train, or one of the weekend guests at the country estate: Barnett, Hardiman, Richardson, Hutchinson, Lechmere, etc. To put it rather crudely, you are looking for your lost car keys under the street lamp, because that is where the lighting is best.

By utter contrast, those who accuse Druitt, Kosminski, Cutbush, etc., are far less impressed by the "case evidence," and are using an entirely different methodology--a more historical approach. For the most part, they don't assume that they will be able to use the "case evidence" to solve the mystery--they assume the suspicions against their suspects were based on information/evidence that we do not know of, and may never know of. They are attempting to "recreate" what the case against their suspect may have been, or in some way attempt to measure its merits.

So your comparison between Lechmere and Kosminski, Druitt, etc., may seem legitimate to you, but from their angle it is about as meaningful as a comparison between an orange and a bicycle. You're bringing the rules of chess to their cricket game, and then scolding them for not playing correctly.

And I should point out that, objectively, there is nothing necessarily wrong with your approach, nor their approach; they are simply too different languages, two different worlds, too different methods... but let's not pretend that there could possibly be a direct comparison.

Thank you for your time.

Now how about returning the title of this thread? Aaron Kosminski. We wouldn't want to think of Charles Lechmere as a mere hitchhiker or hijacker would we, always crashing someone else's party?

[John Wheat]

Yes, of course we could have gotten a case where Lechmere was able to free himself of the charges. But there is no telling whether he would have been able to or not, and consequentially, we cannot use that possibility as some sort of guarantee that the case would not stand.

We are left with the very interesting fact that we now have a suspect against whom a case could be levelled, going on the evidence. Not so for Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Feigenbaum, Carroll, Gull, Kelly....

For all of these guys, once somebody suggest them a suspects and is asked "Can you prove it?", the answer is no. Over and over again.

In Lechmere´s case, Scobies answer is one of "Yes, as long as nothing else comes to light that exonerates him or casts doubt on him being the killer, I entertain hopes to be able to prove it on grounds of circumstantial evidence.

Now, Herlock and a whole lot of people will at this stage say "But there ARE matters that cast doubt about him being guilty!"

Fair enough - there are alternative takes on the evidence surrounding him. But that does not dissolve the heart matter of the exercise I am recommending - to take in that a legal case can be built against a man with the kind of circumstantial evidence attaching to him that is the case with Lechmere! And THAT is a massive point in favour of his candidacy!

Garbage utter garbage and bullshit.

[Patrick S]

Surely the police and Scotland yard would have dragged Lechmere in for questioning after the murder of Chapman,and again after Stride, and again after Eddows, and finally again after Kelly. After all he was at the murder scene of Nichols and if it was suspected he was the killer, they would have had him under watch, and even if he wasnt suspected he was at least know to the police and they surely would want to know if he had an alibi for all the murders. After all its Scotland yard you think they would do some basic police work . So its a no for me for Lechmere as jtr . imo

No. No. You see... even though this was quite a fine mess indeed for our killer, he was CERTAIN he'd emerged from all this completely scot(land yard)-free!

I mean, first Paul shows up as he is mutilating Nichols in Buck's Row and he's forced to "bluff it out".

Then - after having just committed murder mere moments before - he decides to go with Paul to find a PC police officer.

He then lies to the policeman they find, his lies serving to "take him past the police".

BUT THEN! The Lloyd's article! Even though he's not named or described he appears at the inquest... and tells more lies... contradicting the testimony of PC Mizen, the victim of his brilliant, sinister and devious "Mizen Scam".

And even though he's gone through all this, these close calls, "bluffs", "scams", the inquest.... after all this.... he's so unfazed, so unworried, so certain that he's completely fooled the boobs at Scotland Yard, so sure he's come out smelling like a rose.... the he kills Chapman in Hanbury Street... less than mile from where he killed Nichols... only five days after he lied about Mizen at the inquest. Somehow he KNEW he wasn't being watched, wasn't suspected. He was certain Mizen wasn't holding a grudge about him having flat lied on him in court, embarrassing him, even jeopardizing his job, perhaps. He didn't fear retaliation by Mizen, didn't fear he'd follow him, perhaps with the help of some equally irate police buddies. No. Not our Lechmere!