What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[Harry D]

There is no prima facie case against Lechmere. Nothing that incriminates him. There might be cause for further investigation to clarify the conflicting evidence between himself and PC Mizen, but that's not gonna take him to trial.

Scobie is but one expert. Since the evidence presented to him was almost certainly slanted against Lechmere, I think that Fisherman is remiss to lean too heavily on this particular crutch.

[Sam Flynn]

Lechmere found a body...

It's even milder than that. Cross only saw what might have been a body on the pavement as he passed down Bucks Row, and it was only confirmed to be a body after he and Robert Paul had - jointly - walked over to it and examined it. That's the official sequence of events, at any rate, albeit one that's corroborated by both witnesses. To put Cross - on his own - in any closer proximity to what transpired to be the body of Polly Nichols isn't supported by the evidence, and is pure conjecture.

[Fisherman]

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.

No. But it is a view that is often led on.

Others say that the name issue is all there is.

That is the nature of the beast - to deny the evidence.

If the finding of the body is all there is, then what is Scobie speaking about when he says "when the coincidences mount up, and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many"? It is abundantly clear that Scobie speaks of a case built on many parameters. He refers to the time factors and the geographical factors, and he says that Lechmere is someone who acts in a way that is suspicious.

The wrong name.

The claiming of a phantom PC in Bucks Row.

The refusal to prop Nichols up.

The fact that he was with Nichols while she bled.

The fact that he says he only heard Paul as he was almost upon him.

The fact that he can be geographically linked to the murder area, both in Spitalfields and in St Georges/the City.

The fact that he would have passed the Spitalfields spots at the roughy relevant hours.

The fact that the two murders that were NOT on his route to work had other timings.

ALL of these things would have been what Scobie weighed in, and they would have been too many to allow the scales of guilt and innocence to remain evenly balanced.

Scobie would never have said that there was a case to answer on account of the finding of the body only. No barrister would. It is not enough by far. But once the supporting evidence is added, the case becomes a very good one: "You add all those points together, piece it all together, and the prosecution has the most probative, powerful material for the court to use".

All of it, Herlock. Not one tiny, chosen bit of it, because all of those bots can in isolation be refuted and alternative innocent explanations can be offered. But no man can have as MANY points speaking of guilt if there is no guilt behind it. "It becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie would know that. Most people do.

[Fisherman]

You have to question Scobie's competence.

If you have comparable experience in the field, go ahead. Otherwise, we need to question you instead.

[Fisherman]

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.

No. But it does to James Scobie. And it becomes a layman's view against a legal experts, Herlock. And yes, in that context, you view IS very inferior.

And so what we get, is you suddenly starting to loosen up what you earlier said: that you don't believe any foul play was involved. And you now "start to question" what evidence Scobie was presented with.

Welcome to the bog, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

There is no prima facie case against Lechmere. Nothing that incriminates him. There might be cause for further investigation to clarify the conflicting evidence between himself and PC Mizen, but that's not gonna take him to trial.

Scobie is but one expert. Since the evidence presented to him was almost certainly slanted against Lechmere, I think that Fisherman is remiss to lean too heavily on this particular crutch.

Since the evidence presented to and evaluated by James Scobie was enough to warrant a trial that suggests that Lechmere was the killer, I´d say that "crutch" is more like a steel pillar. Whereas you have nothing to stand on at all, other than your conviction that you are a better judge of legal matters than a QC.

I don´t find that too worrying. If somebody is at a loss to understand how circumstantial evidence can be incriminating enough to put you on the scaffold, then that is that somebody's problem.

It´s just another example of the useless naysaying that has been going on for years out here.

[Fisherman]

It's even milder than that. Cross only saw what might have been a body on the pavement as he passed down Bucks Row, and it was only confirmed to be a body after he and Robert Paul had - jointly - walked over to it and examined it. That's the official sequence of events, at any rate, albeit one that's corroborated by both witnesses. To put Cross - on his own - in any closer proximity to what transpired to be the body of Polly Nichols isn't supported by the evidence, and is pure conjecture.

And to fail to recognize his status as the prime suspect is pure folly. The kind of folly barristers do not engage in.

[John Wheat]

If you have comparable experience in the field, go ahead. Otherwise, we need to question you instead.

No we don't. There is nothing remotely that suggests Lechmere was the Ripper. I do however suspect someone fed Scobie a pack of lies. Only a lunatic could be convinced Lechmere was the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

No we don't. There is nothing remotely that suggests Lechmere was the Ripper. I do however suspect someone fed Scobie a pack of lies. Only a lunatic could be convinced Lechmere was the Ripper.

There's actually a whole pack of lunatics holding that belief, John. They chose to put their trust in a well reputed QC and barrister instead of in bitter posters with zero legal experience and insights, trying to squeeze as many insults and derogatory statements as possible into their statements.

In the end, such is always an easy choice.

We all have the opportunity to make easy choices every now and then. Like choosing who to debate with and who to simply correct and then leave sinking.

I am grateful for that, although I loathe the spat out bubbling and drowning sounds of "Idiot! Lunatic! Lies!" as the journey to the bottom of the sea commences. Once that is over and done with, I will be an even happier man.

Bye now.

[Harry D]

Since the evidence presented to and evaluated by James Scobie was enough to warrant a trial that suggests that Lechmere was the killer, I´d say that "crutch" is more like a steel pillar. Whereas you have nothing to stand on at all, other than your conviction that you are a better judge of legal matters than a QC.

Experts have been backing up all kinds of Ripper theorists. You put stock in Scobie's words because he reinforces your own opinion. You're only human.

Let's not be naive. The producers had an agenda. They weren't interested in giving Charles Lechmere a fair shake. They had to cast him in a guilty light for the purposes of the show. Therefore, the information given to Scobie would have almost certainly been skewed against him, and therefore Scobie was not in a position to make an informed judgement.

[John Wheat]

Experts have been backing up all kinds of Ripper theorists. You put stock in Scobie's words because he reinforces your own opinion. You're only human.

Let's not be naive. The producers had an agenda. They weren't interested in giving Charles Lechmere a fair shake. They had to cast him in a guilty light for the purposes of the show. Therefore, the information given to Scobie would have almost certainly been skewed against him, and therefore Scobie was not in a position to make an informed judgement.

I have to agree with what your saying Harry.

[Fisherman]

Experts have been backing up all kinds of Ripper theorists. You put stock in Scobie's words because he reinforces your own opinion. You're only human.

No legal expert has ever assessed the evidence against a Ripper suspect and decided that it is enough to warrant a trial. I put stock in his words because he is legally versed and knows what he is talking about. If every other barrister in the world said that he is wrong, I would put stock in them instead. So bring it, Harry, by all means!

I am very used to people arguing "You only say that because you think Lechmere was the killer". Actually, the thought processes involved in what I say are a tad more complicated than that. The thought process behind saying that I only say what I say because I champion Lechmere as the Ripper seems to be very knee-jerk, however...

Let's not be naive. The producers had an agenda. They weren't interested in giving Charles Lechmere a fair shake. They had to cast him in a guilty light for the purposes of the show. Therefore, the information given to Scobie would have almost certainly been skewed against him, and therefore Scobie was not in a position to make an informed judgement.

I am anything but naive, Harry. If you think I am, YOU are the naive one. I am quite well acquainted with the fact that any film team making an accusatory docu about a suspect in a murder case has the aim to present as good a case as possible (a slightly less salubrious wording than the "agenda" ditto). Surprise, surprise!

And indeed, they should have that aim!

However, the idea that the information against Lechmere was in any way "skewed" when given to Scobie is something you need to prove. Before you can do that, its mouth washing time again.

As I have said many times now (listening is SUCH a rare gift!), I don't know whether there were alternative innocent explanations in the material given to Scobie. What was given to him was the case against Lechmere, and that is very clearly laid out in the narrative too: Scobe was asked to review the case AGAINST the carman. Is that what you call skewed, or do you think he was lied to?

If so, would Blink Films, a highly regarded film company with numerous prices under their belt for their documentaries, risk to have James Scobie coming forth and saying "Hey, I was lied to by Blink Films."?

Can you understand the implications of such a thing? I can.

No, Harry, much as Scobie was probably given the case against Lechmere only, that does not amount to any foul play or any unsavoury skewing. The unsavoury accusations are all served up right here, on these very boards.

As I say, you need to come to terms with how Scobie found the points against Lechmere warranted a court case. It is always wise to trust those in the know when we are anything but ourselves. Have a good cry, by all means, but don't start hurling accusations for which you can provide no basis. It´s VERY bad form.

[John Wheat]

I am anything but naive, Harry. If you think I am, YOU are the naive one. I am quite well acquainted with the fact that any film team making an accusatory docu about a suspect in a murder case has the aim to present as good a case as possible (a slightly less salubrious wording than the "agenda" ditto). Surprise, surprise!

And indeed, they should have that aim!

However, the idea that the information against Lechmere was in any way "skewed" when given to Scobie is something you need to prove, Before you can do that, its mouth washing time again.

As I have said many times now (listening is SUCH a rare gift!), I don't know whether there were alternative innocent explanations in the material given to Scobie. What was given to him was the case against Lechmere, and that is very clearly laid out in the narrative too: Scobe was asked to review the case AGAINST the carman. Is that what you call skewed, or do you think he was lied to?

If so, would Blink Films, a highly regarded film company with numerous prices under their belt for their documentaries, risk to have James Scobie coming forth and saying "Hey, I was lied to by Blink Films."?

Can you understand the implications of such a thing? I can.

No, Harry, much as Scobie was probably given the case against Lechmere only, that does not amount to any foul play or any unsavoury for skewing. The unsavoury accusations are all served up right here, on these very boards.

As I say, you need to come to terms with how Scobie found the points against Lechmere warranted a court case. It is always wise to trust those in the know when we are anything but ourselves. Have a good cry, by all means, but don't start hurling accusations for which you can provide no basis. It´s VERY bad form.

More bullshit and lies. If the case against Lechmere wasn't skewed Scobie would have to be an idiot to be convinced of Lechmere's guilt. Do you think Scobie an idiot?

[Fisherman]

More bullshit and lies. If the case against Lechmere wasn't skewed Scobie would have to be an idiot to be convinced of Lechmere's guilt. Do you think Scobie an idiot?

Well, John, then you need to prove to me what lies it is you identify. Unless you would prefer to prove it to the administrators of the boards.

And once again, Scobie is much less likely to be an idiot on matters legal than any of us out here.

[Fisherman]

Noting that John Wheat suddenly lost the will to debate, I put the errand on hold until further notice.