What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Garbage utter garbage and bullshit.

Get off the fence John

[Fisherman]

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, I don´t think Lechmere was questioned at all after the subsequent murders following the Nichols case. We don´t see any evidence at all about it in the sources, we don't have him mentioned by any of the bigwigs commenting on the case in retrospect (other than Dew, who had forgotten his name), and we do not see his real name revealed as a result of any far-reaching inquiry about him.
I do not think that Scotland Yard - or any other police force at the time, for that matter - had sufficient routines for dealing with serial killers. In fact, such creatures were practically unheard of.
If you want to know how "basic police work" looked back then, you should absorb how the bulk of the Bucks Row residents were not spoken to by the police until after coroner Baxter had told them that they needed to do so!

[Fisherman]

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?

No. And that question has been answered umpteen times by now.

Here´s a question for YOU, Herlock: If a QC and barrister says that the points against a man in a murder case are enough to take that case to court, does that or does that not mean that said barrister and QC is of the meaning that the evidence - if unchallenged - is likely to secure a conviction?

Could you be as kind as to do what I did, answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no"?

You keep on harping about rebuts, as if they were present in the Lechmere case. So here is the next question for you:

DO such rebuts exist in the Lechmere case; rebuts that are "complete" as you put it? Or are they simply suggestions of alternative innocent explanations?

Answers, please!

[Fisherman]

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.

No, Scobie had no shortfall at all in knowledge, Herlock. He would have had if he was asked to review whether ALL the material involved would allow for a legal procedure against Lechmere. But he was never asked to review all the material. He was asked to review the existing evidence that points towards Lechmere being the killer and to say whether he thought it warranted a trial or not. So there was no lack of knowledge at all for the purpose intended.

As I have said a zillion times by now, Scobies verdict was part of an accusation act against Lechmere, a docu where the points for Lechmere being the killer were presented. But that is only one part of the process - the other is the reaction among the viewers. They, and you, are welcome to present the kind of evidence that would dispell Scobies words.

Its just that you don't. You can´t. And so, what remains is that Ripperology now has a candidate for the Rippers role where a QC and barrister tells us that he is the likely killer if we look at the circumstantial points against him. It is no worse than that; its just an expert of legal matters that explain to us that trying to play down his role as a suspect will not do, because going on the evidence, he looks the deal. Nothing more than so.

The remedy is an easy one: present evidence to the contrary.

[Fisherman]

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.”

Yu can't take his opinion with a pinch of salt. It is a professional opinion, based on years of experience of dealing with criminals and legal cases.

If he had said "he would be convicted, regardless of what evidence that can be presented in his favour", then we should not only take that with a pinch of salt, we should roll Scobie in tar and feathers and show him the door.

But he never does that. He says that if we look at the evidence against Lechmere AND NOTHING MORE, then that is enough to warrant a trial, and if no defense was offered, he would likely be convicted of murder.

It is not how people should be tried. But it is a VERY interesting addition to the debate, and as such a VERY clear indicator that the evidence existing is not the kind of blaha-blaha that some will have, but instead potent and good enough to convict on.

[Fisherman]

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.

I do not "defend the point" that Scobie would have called him the likely killer regardless of what evidence was presented. I never have. It is totally possible that he would have reached another conclusion if he sat down with the likes of you and some other people out here. And it is totally possible that he would have been totally unimpressed by you. It must remain an open question.

Maybe you simply do not understand what I am saying? Since I have to repeat it over and over again?


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.

You don´t have to. Its enough that Scobie - who is the better judge of the two of you - tells us that it would suffice. And it is not as if he is hesitant, is it? In fact, he is very certain, and speaks about a very good case.

[FISHY1118]

Inspector John Spratling About six o'clock that day he made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder.
Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last.

I think they had already done some basic police work before baxters advice , unless he gave it before six o clock that day. just sayin.

[Fisherman]

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

For one suspect, there IS fact based evidence linked to a murder, for the others, there is not. So its more like comparing weightlifting to windsurfing.

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.

And for good or bad, you are trying to discourage me. Let's see, does it work...? No.

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.

Isn't it interesting how the historic approach is the one that avoids dealing with historically recorded case facts and opts for guesswork instead? It seems you are of the meaning that I am naive and overenthusiastic (or so you come across), but I would like to point out to you that once the sluggish and full people agree over a brandy after dinner that it is futile to go on searching, the world is full of examples of how cases have been solved long after they occurred. I do a lot of writing about such matters, and I am always amazed about how puzzle pieces found lying around decades after a murder can solve that case.
You are welcome to look every bit of the historically versed connoiseur as long as you allow me to do things my way.

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.

I am bringing the rules of society to the case. They are not my rules, they are the rules used by the legal system for the simple reason that they are deemed the best way to obtain results. If you feel that is robbing you of a good time, then I can only say I'm sorry. But whenever a criminal cold case is assessed, the case facts MUST be given a role to play, regardless if there is not a single case fact to champion the old heroes of the case. I am not a historian, I am a journalist, with a lifelong experience of sifting material to find the relevant parts. In Ripperology, that may perhaps make me somebody who has less of a right to claim a stance.
But it really does not seem as if I cared all that much about that, does it, R J?

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.

That is correct: there can be TWO comparisons, one "historical" and one based on the case evidence. And if I am certain of one thing, then that is that we must compare the suspects. Why it would not be interesting that most suspects lack caserelated evidence in any shape or form pointing in their respective directions, I fail to understand. Silly me.

Thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

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?

Other posters introduced Lechmere, and he is utterly relevant as comparison material to Kosminski. Not least have you proven this in your post. I myself have offered to move the discussion to other threads, but nobody has taken me up on it.
By the way, it is not as if I have to hijack a thread to have people discussing Lechmere. You are welcome to check how much material the threads about him have generated if you doubt me on that score...

[Fisherman]

Inspector John Spratling About six o'clock that day he made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder.
Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last.

I think they had already done some basic police work before baxters advice , unless he gave it before six o clock that day. just sayin.

Sigh.
Of course the police did SOMETHING, but that was not my point. My point was that they missed out on "basic police work" as shown by this snippet, telling us what REALLY happened:

Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's.

So apart from Emma Green and the Essex Wharf dwellers, not a single one of the Bucks Row residents were interviewed before Baxter told Spratling to get it done.

There basic police work for you, Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

Thanks fisherman no worries, sound pretty basic to me too.

Its still a no for lechmere for me tho. cheers

[Abby Normal]

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?

Interesting post RJ
and I am starting to see a the dichotomy of what kind of suspects people prefer-there seems to be two legit types. The "historical" as you call them but they all also seem to be the mentioned by police-so "historical/police suspects" and the other: Ill call 'witness" suspects (or perhaps streetlamp witnesses?lol) witty description BTW.
so who does someone prefer-the police/historical suspects-druitt, koz, chapman, tumblety etc. or witness suspects (who apparently have no police suspicion) like hutch, lech, Barnett etc.?

except the police suspects have no known direct connection to the case and or victims whereas the witness suspects do, but no apparent police suspicion.

So IMHO if any of the police suspects can be found to have direct ties to a victim or vice versus, any of the witness suspects can be found to have any police suspicion then that suspect should IMHO become numero uno since they have both major criteria.

And this brings us back on topic-because the closest of this may be koz, because he obviously was a police/historical suspect, and he MAY have direct physical connection to the case/victim as possible being the man seen with Eddowes by Lawende.

*full disclosure in my top tier of valid suspects I have them from both kinds (although Hutch/blotchy 1 and 1a):

Hutch-streetlamp/witness type
Blotchy-police person of interest
Chapman-police suspect(abberline)
Bury-person of Interest
Koz-Police suspect (Anderson)
Kelly-person of interest

so eventhough I have Hutch favored, the rest are historical type (or more gray area-person of interest).

[John Wheat]

No, Scobie had no shortfall at all in knowledge, Herlock. He would have had if he was asked to review whether ALL the material involved would allow for a legal procedure against Lechmere. But he was never asked to review all the material. He was asked to review the existing evidence that points towards Lechmere being the killer and to say whether he thought it warranted a trial or not. So there was no lack of knowledge at all for the purpose intended.

As I have said a zillion times by now, Scobies verdict was part of an accusation act against Lechmere, a docu where the points for Lechmere being the killer were presented. But that is only one part of the process - the other is the reaction among the viewers. They, and you, are welcome to present the kind of evidence that would dispell Scobies words.

Its just that you don't. You can´t. And so, what remains is that Ripperology now has a candidate for the Rippers role where a QC and barrister tells us that he is the likely killer if we look at the circumstantial points against him. It is no worse than that; its just an expert of legal matters that explain to us that trying to play down his role as a suspect will not do, because going on the evidence, he looks the deal. Nothing more than so.

The remedy is an easy one: present evidence to the contrary.

More bullshit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don´t have to. Its enough that Scobie - who is the better judge of the two of you - tells us that it would suffice. And it is not as if he is hesitant, is it? In fact, he is very certain, and speaks about a very good case.

If Scobie can look at the case against Lechmere and decide that he would have taken him to trial then he must have been reading about some alternative universe Lechmere. How the hell could Lechmere get to court on nothing. He found he body. That really is it.

[John Wheat]

If Scobie can look at the case against Lechmere and decide that he would have taken him to trial then he must have been reading about some alternative universe Lechmere. How the hell could Lechmere get to court on nothing. He found he body. That really is it.

You have to question Scobie's competence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have to question Scobie's competence.

Im actually starting to question it John or the evidence that he was presented with. Now, Fish will say that my opinion is worthless against Scobie’s and on matters of law he’d be correct of course but the evidence against Lechmere is far from strong.

He discovered the body and despite having ample opportunity to scarper to safety he takes the potentially suicidal risk of hanging around for Paul.

We have the alleged Mizen Scam. Something that’s simply a concoction to explain varying statements.

We have the name thing. Made sinister even though we know that Cross was his stepfather’s name and that he also gave his correct forenames and his correct address. He gained no sinister advantage from this. None.

What else have we, oh yes, the so-called fact that he had links to some of the sites and might have had good reason to pass them. Because of course serial killers always kill at spots that have familial links. And as for providing an alibi then how believable would it be to be stopped for questioning at two am on the morning of a murder and to have replied ““I’m just on the way to visit my mum.””

Fish will probably criticise me for using innocent explanations but why isn’t it an issue that he uses sinister explanations.

Lechmere found a body. Stood waiting for someone to arrive even though, in the dark, he couldn’t possibly have been sure that he didn’t have blood on him. Checked over the body. Went to find a Constable, presumably carrying the bloodied knife with him. Turned up at the Inquest when he wasn’t compelled to.

Doesn't scream guilty to me I’m afraid.