What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[John Wheat]

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.

The lies you clearly told Scobie.

[John Wheat]

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

Ah I see it's all a debate to you. I see your not interested in the truth. You just trot out a bunch of lies that bolster your clearly incorrect theory.

[John G]

Considering the above posts, this is the Crime Prosecution Service's , The Code for Crown Prosecutors, The Evidential Stage:

4.6 The prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospect of a conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

4.7 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which they might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts must themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it sure the defendant is guilty.

Regarding Lechmere. He was never arrested, never given the opportunity to give an account of himself, never given the opportunity to respond to any suspicions against him, or to clear up any anomalies. Therefore how could Scobie have applied the evidential test effectively and objectively? How would he know what his defence might be, or "other information the suspect has put forward", as Lechmere was never arrested, never questioned, never required to present information relevant to the enquiry?

It's all very perplexing!

[Fisherman]

Ah I see it's all a debate to you. I see your not interested in the truth. You just trot out a bunch of lies that bolster your clearly incorrect theory.

Thank you for confirming that you have no proof to bolster your accusations of lies on my behalf, John!

[Harry D]

"What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?"

I wonder if after 20 pages of Lechmere chat, we'll find out?

[Abby Normal]

"What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?"

I wonder if after 20 pages of Lechmere chat, we'll find out?

Well I tried to steer it back with my excellent post #131, but you Lech obsessives just can’t help yourselves! ; )

[Fisherman]

Considering the above posts, this is the Crime Prosecution Service's , The Code for Crown Prosecutors, The Evidential Stage:

4.6 The prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospect of a conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

4.7 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which they might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts must themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it sure the defendant is guilty.

Regarding Lechmere. He was never arrested, never given the opportunity to give an account of himself, never given the opportunity to respond to any suspicions against him, or to clear up any anomalies. Therefore how could Scobie have applied the evidential test effectively and objectively? How would he know what his defence might be, or "other information the suspect has put forward", as Lechmere was never arrested, never questioned, never required to present information relevant to the enquiry?

It's all very perplexing!

Thanks for this, John! Yes, Scobie will have counted on exactly this: that there will have been a realistic chance of the evidence convicting Lechmere. Which is important to know - trials do not come about lightly! Herlock earlier asked me why I thought Scobies words were a point in favour of Lechmere being the culprit, and this is of course the best answer to that question.

You ask how Scobie could have applied the evidential test effectively and objectively, but there was only call for one of those parameters - efficiency. Scobie reviewed the evidence AGAINST Lechmere, and that was the basis for his take on the matter. So the "objectively" demand does not come into play here; Scobie in all probability did not look at what the defense would have had to say, he only looked at the evidence against (as far as we know). And that is the premise of his verdict: If no defense was offered, then the evidence against Lechmere would be enough to take to trial and to probably convict him.

Charles Lechmere is dead, John. We cannot guarantee him a fair and objective trial, since there will BE no trial. All we can do is to look at the evidence and weigh it, and weighing it with the help of legal expertise is always a healthy thing to do. And that expertise says that if we only look at the prosecution side, then that side has the material to bring Lechmere to court and likely convict him of murder. It is not part of a trial, it is a legal experts judgment of the value of the accusatory evidence.

After that, you are part of the defense yourself if you wish to, and you are free to produce as many alternative innocent explanations as you wish to - they can ALWAYS be provided where there is only circumstantial evidence. Keep in mind, though, that the more points we have to explain away, the lesser the chance of innocence becomes. "One coincidence too many", as Scobie put it.

[Fisherman]

"What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?"

I wonder if after 20 pages of Lechmere chat, we'll find out?

Abby has tried, and I have offered to move to any thread of choice you may wish to move the discussion to.

Then again, if we DO that, you won't have the point of a suggested hijacking on my side to show (of course, I was not the one to bring up Lechmere in the first place)

So its a tough choice!

[Harry D]

Well I tried to steer it back with my excellent post #131, but you Lech obsessives just can’t help yourselves! ; )

You did indeed and it was a good post.

I don't subscribe to one school of thought over another. The police weren't infallible, they had prejudices, and lacked the benefit of hindsight that we have, but to dismiss their words completely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "Kosminski" identification has been pooh-poohed as the wishful thinking of two retired old policemen. For one, I don't believe either men were liars or would've mixed it up with the wrong case (they weren't senile). There may have been speculation as regards to the reason the witness refused to testify against the suspect, but otherwise yes I do believe it took place. And the Seaside Home is such an odd little detail that it probably means it was true, if that makes sense.

I don't rule out witnesses either, but I've yet to see one with a convincing case against him. Hutchinson was probably the shiftiest of them all. However, we don't know for a fact that he was actually there on the night of the murder and didn't just invent the whole thing for fun and profit.

I feel that John Cleary required more investigation. Something not quite right there. In fact, there was something strange about the Torso series itself and how several of the dumping sites were predicted beforehand.

[Abby Normal]

You did indeed and it was a good post.

I don't subscribe to one school of thought over another. The police weren't infallible, they had prejudices, and lacked the benefit of hindsight that we have, but to dismiss their words completely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "Kosminski" identification has been pooh-poohed as the wishful thinking of two retired old policemen. For one, I don't believe either men were liars or would've mixed it up with the wrong case (they weren't senile). There may have been speculation as regards to the reason the witness refused to testify against the suspect, but otherwise yes I do believe it took place. And the Seaside Home is such an odd little detail that it probably means it was true, if that makes sense.

I don't rule out witnesses either, but I've yet to see one with a convincing case against him. Hutchinson was probably the shiftiest of them all. However, we don't know for a fact that he was actually there on the night of the murder and didn't just invent the whole thing for fun and profit.

I feel that John Cleary required more investigation. Something not quite right there. In fact, there was something strange about the Torso series itself and how several of the dumping sites were predicted beforehand.

Hi Harry

I don't subscribe to one school of thought over another. The police weren't infallible, they had prejudices, and lacked the benefit of hindsight that we have, but to dismiss their words completely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "Kosminski" identification has been pooh-poohed as the wishful thinking of two retired old policemen. For one, I don't believe either men were liars or would've mixed it up with the wrong case (they weren't senile). There may have been speculation as regards to the reason the witness refused to testify against the suspect, but otherwise yes I do believe it took place. And the Seaside Home is such an odd little detail that it probably means it was true, if that makes sense

.

Bingo. That two police officers remember it and in such detail-with the added "with difficulty" it obviously took place. but the outcome is the part I believe may have been shaded-as in-it probably was not as much as he wouldn't testify because it was a fellow jew, but that he couldn't swear to the ID. and probably sprinkle it with a little wishful thinking as the years went by. My main caveat with Koz, though, is that Im pretty convinced the evidence points to the ripper NOT being a jew. That being said, I cant throw the baby out with the bath water as you say, because hes mentioned by two police officers and he is the only police suspect who possibly can be tied directly to the case (the ID).

I don't rule out witnesses either, but I've yet to see one with a convincing case against him. Hutchinson was probably the shiftiest of them all. However, we don't know for a fact that he was actually there on the night of the murder and didn't just invent the whole thing for fun and profit.

pretty much agree although I would say Hutch was definitely there as corroborated by lewis-its just a question HOW MUCH he was there and for what purpose.

I feel that John Cleary required more investigation. Something not quite right there. In fact, there was something strange about the Torso series itself and how several of the dumping sites were predicted beforehand

Totally agree. something a bit fishy there-if there could be found any connection of any of the suspects with Cleary and or the torsos then it could shed more light. As you know I favor the ripper and torsoman were the same man and instead of shining separate spotlights on either case the truth may emerge if we begin to look at both together. Ive always thought the key to this case would involve Mary Kelly as it seems she knew her killer, and im starting to think more and more that it also might involve the torsos as well.

I had high hopes for the latest book(naming Hardiman for both series) but alas not to be.

Hope springs eternal*


*usually followed by disappointment. lol

[Patrick S]

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

Others say that the name issue is all there is.

I was one who said that. But, no longer. I don't think there was even a "name issue". It's been proven that he used the name Cross more than on this one occasion, as Christer once espoused on these pages. We know that he was listed as "Cross" on a census record while living with his mother and his step father, Thomas Cross. And...we now know that he used the name Cross when his cart struck and killed a child while working for Pickford's. Thus, it's clear this was a name he was known by, a name he used. It seems clear that he signed official documents "Lechmere". But, for whatever reason he went by and was known as "Cross". Of course, this was not unusual. We see examples of this throughout the witness roles, with some of the victims, etc. Further, your suspect appears to have used this "false name" to no affect. He gave his real employer, his real address. Therefore, he did - for all practical purposes - identify himself. He could be easily found by the police should they have sought him out after he voluntarily testified at the inquest.

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

There IS NO evidence, obviously. All the "evidence" you've presented requires "scams" and "dupes", opposite thinking, and looking at things "with the assumption" that Cross/Lechmere killed Nichols... which is very clearly absurd and no way to approach such things. There's no "blood evidence", only what's in newspapers, second hand information, at best, and never intended as "evidence". Of course, one must very selective in your timings: believe this one because it helps, discard that one because it doesn't. Paul, for instance, is rock solid when he says it was EXACTLY 3:45 when he walked up Buck's Row because he must be. Yet, he's a big-upping liar and your killer's dupe, his fool in all other things.... because he must be. There's no evidence. John Wheat has thrown out a term on this thread, giving a name to it. It's not evidence, though.

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.

Let's use your own words to address Scobie's statements and his involvement. You accused me and others of being naive, foolish... to have an expectation that your "internationally sent" documentary was anything other than a program DESIGNED TO PRESENT LECHMERE AS JACK THE RIPPER. We're simpletons to expect an opposing view to be presented therein, you said. Yet, you continue citing Scobie as if he WERE presented with an opposing view, with information to weigh against the biased, massaged, one-sided "evidence" you presented the man. This is called having it both ways. It's much like how we're asked to view your theory as whole: pick and choose. This person is honest here, lying there. Choose this account because it helps, attack another as absurd because it doesn't. It's called "having it both ways", and it's become your hallmark, hasn't it?

The wrong name.

But... it wasn't a wrong name, was it? He'd used it before, as we know. But... okay... let's stipulate this: he gave a "wrong name". AND... he gave his actual employer. And his home address. Thus... what was his goal? THIS was your genius psychopath's master plan to hide his identity? To escape justice? If you had not been peddling this foolishness for years I'd say you haven't fully thought this through.

The claiming of a phantom PC in Bucks Row.

Ah. But he denies he said this. And Paul - who is only reliable when he give a time you like - says nothing of him saying anything about a PC. So then you make up secret conversations, you paint Paul as an unwitting dupe, a fool... albeit.. one with a keen sense of time, the ONLY one of the lot who can be trusted on that front. Absurd.

The refusal to prop Nichols up.

And? He refused the opportunity to explain any blood on his person. You say he didn't want her injuries revealed... yet he flagged down Paul and enlisted him to have a look at her. Strange for man desperate to conceal the his victims wounds? Asking a passerby to have a look? He then told Mizen he thought her dead. So much for wishing to disguise her wounds. So much for his fear of discovery. He encountered two people in the moments after you have him killing and mutilating Nichols. The first he literally stopped as he tried to walk past and asked that he come have a look at his victim. The second, a policeman, he told that he - for HIS part - thought she was dead. Brilliant stuff.

The fact that he was with Nichols while she bled.

Ah, yes. She was "freshly killed". The fact of the matter is that Cross was where he was supposed to be WHEN he was supposed to have been there. He was on his way to work. The body was on his path to work. This is not Druitt of Blackheath being found with a body. Your absurd mental gymnastics are required to make anything at all of this.

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

I'm not even sure where you are with this now. Last I can recall you had Cross hearing Paul as he entered Buck's Row forty yards off. The documentary has Buck's Row as an echo chamber and because Paul was clacking around like a Clydesdale in his hard soled shoes, Cross heard him, covered her abdominal wounds, and stood a few yards away to await Paul. We know he could have simply walked away in the dark, unseen. He had more than one option to do so. Perhaps you've invented a new aspect to all this? One less foolish but still completely fabricated by you to fit your conclusion.

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's geographically linked to murder area is the REASON he FOUND Nichols. The murders are all within a very small area. Close to one means close to all. This means nothing.

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

Here again you choose times that fit your conclusion, not the most credible. Tell us, do you still think he parked his cart at the market and killed Chapman while he was working? Or do you think he killed her on his way to work?

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

Of course, Stride and Eddowes don't fit so you have visiting his mother on that night, ignoring the fact that he'd be known in the area and that no one said they saw him there.

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.

But... you yourself has said we're all idiots to think it was evenly balanced? He was THERE to support a viewpoint. YOUR viewpoint. I'm sure he was honest in his assessment, while careful not to be given too much information that may interfere with the job he was paid to perform in service of the program's objective. Now, you can play the moral indignation card and pretend that we're all somehow impugning Scobie's integrity and intelligence. Like so much of what we see from you, this is a child's reaction. So... let's skip that.

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".

He's right. ADD up all the points.. PROVIDED BY YOU. And SUBTRACT nothing. As you say, one sided. Completely. All addition... NO subtraction. Clearly he heard NONE of the things we all know that would likely have changed, or at least softened, the view he stated for the purposes of the program.

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.

Yet... most people (aside from your beloved Youtube posters who know next to nothing about Jack the Ripper except what they learned from your documentary) DO NOT AGREE with you. Aside from you and Ed "Stowe".. who's on board? A few relatives, fishing buddies?

You never disappoint! GREAT STUFF, Christer. My thoughts above bold.

[Patrick S]

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

I've no thoughts on Scobie's competence. I think he did a job and focused ONLY on the information that pointed him the direction the documentary wanted him go. But, I'll quote Vincent Bugliosi here: "Incompetence is pervasive in all walks of life." Thus, I never assume competence. Not in things legal, medical, construction, food service, or trash collection.

[Patrick S]

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

Unless said barrister disagrees with you... then all we have is folly, right? You'll tell us how old so-and-so is a liar, stupid, a dupe, how he was "scammed". And on it goes for all to see. Hilarious.. were not no so absurd and at this point, frankly, pitiful.

[Fisherman]

You did indeed and it was a good post.

I don't subscribe to one school of thought over another. The police weren't infallible, they had prejudices, and lacked the benefit of hindsight that we have, but to dismiss their words completely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "Kosminski" identification has been pooh-poohed as the wishful thinking of two retired old policemen. For one, I don't believe either men were liars or would've mixed it up with the wrong case (they weren't senile). There may have been speculation as regards to the reason the witness refused to testify against the suspect, but otherwise yes I do believe it took place. And the Seaside Home is such an odd little detail that it probably means it was true, if that makes sense.

I don't rule out witnesses either, but I've yet to see one with a convincing case against him. Hutchinson was probably the shiftiest of them all. However, we don't know for a fact that he was actually there on the night of the murder and didn't just invent the whole thing for fun and profit.

I feel that John Cleary required more investigation. Something not quite right there. In fact, there was something strange about the Torso series itself and how several of the dumping sites were predicted beforehand.

For the record, I don't think either Anderson or Swanson were liars (I dislike stating such things with no proof to back it up) or senile. Then again, I don't think MacNaghten was either. And they cannot be right about both Kosminski and Druitt, which means that regardless of their status, we can clearly see that such a status does not mean that you must be right abut a suspect of your choosing.

I do think that the flimsy evidence about the so called identification and the fact that Swanson didn't know when Kosminski died tells us that the observations made by the two gentlemen were not as sharp and accurate as one would wish. And I don't think we can rule out ambition on behalf of Anderson in speaking of how there can be no doubt that the culprit was apprehended.

Evidencewise, to me Kosminski is excluded from being the combined Ripper and Torso killer, as is Druitt (and a whole host of other suspects).

If you are not convinced when Scobie is (that there is a case to be made), then I have been dealt the hand I would have wished for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?"

I wonder if after 20 pages of Lechmere chat, we'll find out?