What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[John Wheat]

Yawn. How predictable. And how wrong.

I really cannot be arsed, Trevor. The quality is way too low.

PS. Finding a body does NOT make you a suspect.

Except when it's Lechmere according to Fisherman.

[John Wheat]

Yawn. How predictable. And how wrong.

I really cannot be arsed, Trevor. The quality is way too low.

PS. Finding a body does NOT make you a suspect.

Oh the irony.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hearsay has it that he was pointed out at an investigation. We don't know when, we don't know by whom and we don't know for what, but it supposedly would tie Kosminski to the case in some way or another.

He is said to have threatened his own sister with a knife.

He is said to have plucked up a chair and threatened to hit a caretaker in an asylum with it.

I´d say we don't have to hear any defense material before we throw that "case" out (sorry, R J), and the same goes for every other suspect but Lechmere.

Sorry Fish but how can we throw the case against Kosminski out without knowing the full facts? You say yourself we don't know when, how, where and why Kosminski came to the attention of the police. All we do know is that two senior detectives who were heavily involved in the investigation both suspected him and correct me if I am wrong, no officer suspected Cross.
Of course this does not mean they were right and you are not, but what it does mean is we cannot easily dismiss Kosminski either without fully knowing the who, why's and where's.
regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, not as if he would take someone to court without hearing the pros and cons. As if he was willing to offer his view on the quality of the accusations in isolation, to give a picture of how strong they are on their own. Both the accusatory AND the defense material CAN be weighed in isolation, and both processes are of interest.

I feel like I’ve wandered unwittingly into a kind of ripperological Twilight Zone (and not for the first time over the last few weeks) Fish, much as I disagree with you on many issues there’s no doubt at all that you are an intelligent man who has a very detailed knowledge of this case and crime in general. These facts are why I’m finding it almost surreal that you can make posts like the one above. What possible weight can be given to accusatory material without defence material being heard? Very little I’d say; if any. Example:

We’re making a crime documentary....

Accusatory material - In the early hours of the morning a man was arrested after being seen walking along a deserted street away from a building where his ex-girlfriend, who he’d argued with earlier in the day, had been strangled.

Sounds like there’s a case to answer here

Defence material - A man in a building opposite saw the accused walk past the building. He didn’t emerge from it. Also, a friend of the deceased heard her talking on the phone to the man after the argument and they appeared to have made up.


Are we therefore justified in assessing the accusatory material in isolation and putting it into our documentary? Not if we’re trying to present a balanced case which allows the viewers to form their own opinions without having to go out and but a few books on the subject. The opinion that the viewers would arrive at would be one of interest but of negligible value.

Of course I accept Fish’s point that there’s no exonerating evidence for Lechmere (like 99+% of suspects) that any of us know of and so it’s all down to the interpretation of facts and events. And so Fish and Ed Stow presented their case and Scobie felt that there was a case to answer. Accusatory and defence material can be weighed in isolation but they should be weighed against each other as one could detract from the other. Balances can shift.

So I still say that an opinion based on one interpretation of events cannot be one that carries any great weight.

[Patrick S]

Kosminski of course can be used as a comparison here. Would a barrister looking at the accusatory material involved in his case say that it warrants a trial?

Hearsay has it that he was pointed out at an investigation. We don't know when, we don't know by whom and we don't know for what, but it supposedly would tie Kosminski to the case in some way or another.

He is said to have threatened his own sister with a knife.

He is said to have plucked up a chair and threatened to hit a caretaker in an asylum with it.

I´d say we don't have to hear any defense material before we throw that "case" out (sorry, R J), and the same goes for every other suspect but Lechmere.

So after 131 years, we now have a suspect who could be taken to trial on the accusatory evidence existing, according to a barrister and QC. But that is "worthless", or so I am told.

Is it any wonder that Ripperology has a bad reputation?

I'm off for now.

The answer is a simple one, obviously. If someone took the time to invent far-fetched interpretations of events around Kosminski, as you have around Cross, and presented them as facts to a barrister, paid for his appearance on a television program which - as you've said - is a one-sided representation intended to present him as Jack the Ripper... then, yeah... he'd say Kosminski warrants a trial. Of course, one would have to be quite certain - as you've been - to present this "accusatory material" as fact, while excluding any and all relevant information that may lead this barrister to doubt your credulity-straining interpretations.

Finally, of course it's no wonder Ripperology has a bad reputation. The Royal Conspiracy. Sickert. Lewis Carroll. Cross. All these foolish theories - and those who continue pushing them even as those with any knowledge of these crimes alternately rail, scratch their collective heads, and - of course - laugh out loud.

[Abby Normal]

Oh the irony.

not really. because the other way to describe lech-objectively, by another witness-is that he was seen near the body before raising any type of alarm.
with lech its a little more complicated than just "finding" the body. there are some other red flags surrounding it.

[John Wheat]

not really. because the other way to describe lech-objectively, by another witness-is that he was seen near the body before raising any type of alarm.
with lech its a little more complicated than just "finding" the body. there are some other red flags surrounding it.

I disagree Lechmere found a body. That's all there is.

[Abby Normal]

I disagree Lechmere found a body. That's all there is.

probably-but perhaps not. no big wup.

[Patrick S]

not really. because the other way to describe lech-objectively, by another witness-is that he was seen near the body before raising any type of alarm.
with lech its a little more complicated than just "finding" the body. there are some other red flags surrounding it.

What type of alarm should he have raised? Should he have begun screaming bloody murder... if he didn't, in fact, know that bloody murder had been committed? He stated he saw something lying on the ground, he couldn't make out the shape at first and thought it may have been a tarpaulin, he realized it was a woman, then heard Paul's approach, told him what he'd found, asked him to have a look with him, and within four minutes he and Paul had told a PC what they'd found. There are no red flags here. We know that Neil couldn't make out Nichols' wounds until he lighted the scene with a lamp. We know that Paul noticed no wounds despite being close enough to touch Nichols. And the expectation is that Cross, upon realizing someone was lying on the ground would begin screaming for help, pounding on doors? I'd suggest - had Cross "raised the alarm" upon simply seeing a woman lying in Buck's Row - we'd be talking about how Cross could have known Nichols had fatal injuries in the dark had he not inflicted them himself. His actions were completely reasonable. There are no red flags.

[Abby Normal]

What type of alarm should he have raised? Should he have begun screaming bloody murder... if he didn't, in fact, know that bloody murder had been committed? He stated he saw something lying on the ground, he couldn't make out the shape at first and thought it may have been a tarpaulin, he realized it was a woman, then heard Paul's approach, told him what he'd found, asked him to have a look with him, and within four minutes he and Paul had told a PC what they'd found. There are no red flags here. We know that Neil couldn't make out Nichols' wounds until he lighted the scene with a lamp. We know that Paul noticed no wounds despite being close enough to touch Nichols. And the expectation is that Cross, upon realizing someone was lying on the ground would begin screaming for help, pounding on doors? I'd suggest - had Cross "raised the alarm" upon simply seeing a woman lying in Buck's Row - we'd be talking about how Cross could have known Nichols had fatal injuries in the dark had he not inflicted them himself. His actions were completely reasonable. There are no red flags.

Hi patrick
no-just that he was seen standing there near her at that exact moment. seems a little odd to me. no other murder scene had this oddity with a witness.
hes seen by paul at that exact moment-hesitating near a body. not walking toward it, not walking away, not looking for help. standing near it.

as ive said before-put yourself in pauls shoes. dark road, no one else about, man standing in middle of road near what turns out to be a murdered victim.to me its creepy and yes a tad suspicious. but that's just me.

[Patrick S]

Hi patrick
no-just that he was seen standing there near her at that exact moment. seems a little odd to me. no other murder scene had this oddity with a witness.
hes seen by paul at that exact moment-hesitating near a body. not walking toward it, not walking away, not looking for help. standing near it.

as ive said before-put yourself in pauls shoes. dark road, no one else about, man standing in middle of road near what turns out to be a murdered victim.to me its creepy and yes a tad suspicious. but that's just me.

Not odd at all to me. In my view, it's not suspicious or odd or the slightest bit out of the ordinary. It was dark. He saw a shape. He eventually discerned it was a woman. That's all he knew. He then heard someone else approach.

You suggest it may have been less odd had he been found walking "toward it" (Nichols). Obviously, one can imagine the conversations would we might have had he walked "toward it", with Paul arriving as he's standing over her body. Certainly Paul finding him upon Nichols' body rather than "near it" would have been far more "creepy", "suspicious", and "odd". One may even fairly assume he DID NOT go to Nichols BECAUSE he was aware of how that might reflect upon him.

As well, you think it would somehow have been better had he been observed "walking away". Of course, he didn't "walk away", even though that clearly would have been an easy thing and he'd not have been seen by Paul and we'd never have known who he was. I fail to see how his walking away would have been somehow less "suspicious" or "odd".... or "creepy". His mind had just made sense of what he was looking at it. If he'd walked away and somehow been observed by Paul and identified by him subsequently, then what? This is somehow NOT "odd", or "creepy", or "suspicious"... but standing near Nichols and awaiting the person you hear approaching from a few dozen yards off is?

Finally you suggest it would have been better had Paul found him "looking for help"... But, isn't that EXACTLY what he did? If he didn't wait for Paul and call his attention to Nichols on the pavement to enlist his help, subsequently going with him for a PC, then for what reason did he stop him?

[Abby Normal]

Not odd at all to me. In my view, it's not suspicious or odd or the slightest bit out of the ordinary. It was dark. He saw a shape. He eventually discerned it was a woman. That's all he knew. He then heard someone else approach.

You suggest it may have been less odd had he been found walking "toward it" (Nichols). Obviously, one can imagine the conversations would we might have had he walked "toward it", with Paul arriving as he's standing over her body. Certainly Paul finding him upon Nichols' body rather than "near it" would have been far more "creepy", "suspicious", and "odd". One may even fairly assume he DID NOT go to Nichols BECAUSE he was aware of how that might reflect upon him.

As well, you think it would somehow have been better had he been observed "walking away". Of course, he didn't "walk away", even though that clearly would have been an easy thing and he'd not have been seen by Paul and we'd never have known who he was. I fail to see how his walking away would have been somehow less "suspicious" or "odd".... or "creepy". His mind had just made sense of what he was looking at it. If he'd walked away and somehow been observed by Paul and identified by him subsequently, then what? This is somehow NOT "odd", or "creepy", or "suspicious"... but standing near Nichols and awaiting the person you hear approaching from a few dozen yards off is?

Finally you suggest it would have been better had Paul found him "looking for help"... But, isn't that EXACTLY what he did? If he didn't wait for Paul and call his attention to Nichols on the pavement to enlist his help, subsequently going with him for a PC, then for what reason did he stop him?

never mind-you don't find it odd I do.

[Fisherman]

Somebody had to find it, if it had been a female would you still be babbling on about her then being a suspect ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If the surrounding evidence was the same, then yes, of course. Aren't you supposed to be an ex-copper...?

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fish but how can we throw the case against Kosminski out without knowing the full facts?

Who said that we should throw the case out? Kosminski was pointed pout by Anderson and so we cannot throw it out. We cannot establish the quality of the case either, but we CAN say that in terms of case related evidence, it does not match Lechmere.

You say yourself we don't know when, how, where and why Kosminski came to the attention of the police. All we do know is that two senior detectives who were heavily involved in the investigation both suspected him and correct me if I am wrong, no officer suspected Cross.

There were periods of time in all serial killers carriers when they were not suspected by the police.

Of course this does not mean they were right and you are not, but what it does mean is we cannot easily dismiss Kosminski either without fully knowing the who, why's and where's.
regards Darryl

No, the fact that the police did not suspect Lechmere has nothing to do with how we should not dismiss Kosminski.

[Fisherman]

I feel like I’ve wandered unwittingly into a kind of ripperological Twilight Zone (and not for the first time over the last few weeks) Fish, much as I disagree with you on many issues there’s no doubt at all that you are an intelligent man who has a very detailed knowledge of this case and crime in general. These facts are why I’m finding it almost surreal that you can make posts like the one above. What possible weight can be given to accusatory material without defence material being heard? Very little I’d say; if any. Example:

We’re making a crime documentary....

Accusatory material - In the early hours of the morning a man was arrested after being seen walking along a deserted street away from a building where his ex-girlfriend, who he’d argued with earlier in the day, had been strangled.

Sounds like there’s a case to answer here

Defence material - A man in a building opposite saw the accused walk past the building. He didn’t emerge from it. Also, a friend of the deceased heard her talking on the phone to the man after the argument and they appeared to have made up.


Are we therefore justified in assessing the accusatory material in isolation and putting it into our documentary? Not if we’re trying to present a balanced case which allows the viewers to form their own opinions without having to go out and but a few books on the subject. The opinion that the viewers would arrive at would be one of interest but of negligible value.

Of course I accept Fish’s point that there’s no exonerating evidence for Lechmere (like 99+% of suspects) that any of us know of and so it’s all down to the interpretation of facts and events. And so Fish and Ed Stow presented their case and Scobie felt that there was a case to answer. Accusatory and defence material can be weighed in isolation but they should be weighed against each other as one could detract from the other. Balances can shift.

So I still say that an opinion based on one interpretation of events cannot be one that carries any great weight.

Let's look at two suggested cases where only the accusatory factor is given, Herlock. Maybe that can make you see what I am talking about.

1. A woman has been strangled. We know that a man she knew has said that he'd like to beat her up.

2. A woman has been strangled. A man is found with the dead body at a remove in time that is consistent with her death. He has a length of rope in his pocket. He is known to have threatened to kill her. He has a note in another pocket where it is says "I will strangle the bitch". He has been living with the woman, and last week, he registered a life insurance of a million pounds for her.

A case against somebody always rests upon the number and quality of the accusatory points involved. The more points there are and the more damning they are, the better the case against the accused will be.

Do you follow this reasoning? Good.

In the two cases above, we can be absolutely certain that no barrister would take the man from the first example to court on the existing evidence. We can be absolutely certain that any barrister would take the man from example number two to court on the existing evidence. This presupposes in both cases that NO FURTHER EVIDENCE is supplied. No additional damning evidence, and no evidence in defense for either man.

Are you with me? Good.

So what does this all tell us? It tells us that BEFORE we look at any other evidence that may or may not be there, these two cases can be qualitatively compared. And we can see that the second case is one that warrants a trial, whereas the first does not.

Is this agreed upon? Good.

Now, you introduced the term "worthless" in a former post of yours - the accusatory material was "worthless" unless it was combined with the defense side, you said. But the above example tells us very clearly that we can make a qualitative analysis based on the accusatory material only! Therefore, it cannot BE worthless.

Ergo, the word you were searching for was not "worthless". It was the word "unfair" you were looking for. We cannot judge people on accusatory evidence only, if there is defense evidence to be had. And lo and behold, nobody has ever - EVER! - suggested that we should do so.

What has been asked for is an understanding of how weighing up the accusatory evidence has an immense value when it comes to understanding what kind of ground a case AGAINST somebody rests on - a loose one (as in my example 1) or a good one (as in my example 2).

I am trying to be as basic and as easy to understand as I possibly can, Herlock, but so far, it has not payed off. I really, really, really hope it does this time over.

Nobody is saying that Lechmere would have been convicted in a trial that allowed for all aspects of the case to be scrutinized.

What I AM saying is that the accusatory material is of a wealth and character that points to a very strong case BEFORE any other evidence is added.

Surely you can see how that works if you really put your mind to it, Herlock?