Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J6123
    replied
    He appears to have been strongly suspected by two high ranking police officials, and he also appears to fit many aspects of the profile: right age, lived nearby, knew the area, loner, single, paranoid, mentally disturbed, absent father, troubled background, persecution, instability of residence, masturbation, for instance)

    An extremely viable suspect, then.
    Last edited by J6123; 08-22-2019, 01:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >> The thread set up by Dr Strange was an unnecessary one (although claiming that I have ignored it is not true...<<

    I have replied in the appropriate thread.

    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...vant-is-scobie

    Now anyone want to talk about Kosminski?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Is Lechmere destined to be the only bookless suspect?
    There are other bookless suspects, Herlock, so he would not be the only one. At any rate, there will be a book, by Edward Stow. This has been said before, and I don't think it has changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    If you haven't ignored the other thread why are you still posting on this thread? How can the other thread be unnecessary when the whole purpose was to take the Lechmere gubbins onto another thread?
    The pertinent question is why OTHER people post on this thread although I have offered to move. Once they do, I answer out here. If they have the flexibility of mind to post on other threads, then I will answer on those other threads.

    That takes care of your first question.

    Why is the other thread unnecessary? Because there is already a thread about the documentary, and it would be beneficial if all things docs-related could be compiled there, so an easier overview can be offered.

    That takes care of you second question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Is Lechmere destined to be the only bookless suspect?

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    "Debating" about Scobie is to take the focus away from the real issues. And to baselessly imply that he was paid to lie has very little to do with any debating at all. I am perfectly ready to discuss legitimate matters like how experts are chosen for a reason and how those arguing for a suspect are likely to choose the parts that suit them, but that is not what is happening here. Here, the absolute underbelly of ripperology is rearing its foul head and claiming an abominable thing on behalf of Scobie and/or the film crew.
    Its like if I was to say that your only reason for visiting the Lechmere thread is because your local hot dog man pays you to blurt out uninformed vomit about Lechmere whenever you get the chance.

    Once again, please note how debaters with sense and insight avoid threads like these as if they were passing on lepracy. And for the same reason that I myself take time away from the rot every now and then.
    Of course no one is suggesting Scobie lied or that there's some nefarious motive behind his being paid to participate in a documentary, or even that there's something wrong with it. This is simply more of your feigned outrage and foot-stamping... manufactured to paint those disagreeing as unsavory attackers of the innocent, and you as the victim, some teller-of-truths persecuted for his genius.

    First, one would imagine that Scobie is at least busy enough to have better things to do than appear for free in small-time documentaries highlighting fringe Jack the Ripper theories. Thus, a reasonable person is able to conclude that Scobie was paid, and have no problem with it. Reasonable people also understand that he analyzed your ideas about Cross in a vacuum and gave his assessment without knowledge of anything that might contradict the CONCLUSIONS that YOU presented to HIM. That is to say, his opinions BEGIN AND END within the context of the documentary. He opines on YOUR THEORY only... and your theory MAY NOT be reality in that, as you well know, virtually no one with any knowledge of these crimes considers it much more than an irritating novelty.

    Honestly, Christer... you've become a parody. Personally, I feel this is all an act. Or, perhaps I simply hope it is. In just this post use terms like "underbelly of Ripperology... rearing it's foul head", "abominable things", "uninformed vomit", "passing on leprosy". That must be parody, right? Because if it's not... it's absurd... or sad. Probably both.

    Rather than come here and whine and cry and accuse others of all manner of barbarity in attacking your unique, delicate, noble genius for daring to question your theory and, by extension, this documentary and those involved, why not spend your time writing this book we've been told is coming? Have Scobie write the foreword telling us how he feels your candidate is the best candidate, quote his support and involvement liberally in it's text. Do likewise with Griffiths and Payne-James. Short of that... this is all silly game playing, isn't it?
    Last edited by Patrick S; 07-05-2019, 03:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Of course, the idea that I would have "hi-jacked" the thread is ludicrous. I was not the one who brought Lechmere up on it, and I only respond to Lechmererelated matters brought up by others. I have offered to move to another thread, but people keep posting about Lechmere here anyway, and so I answer out here too.

    I need not hijack any thread at all to discuss Lechmere - thread about him regularly attract lots of attention. Sadly, most of that attention comes from people who would have been better off not posting at all.

    The thread set up by Dr Strange was an unnecessary one (although claiming that I have ignored it is not true, but not keeping to the truth is par for the course), because there is and has always been a thread for the docu per se, and any discussion relevant to it should preferably be had there. But no such luck - people keep on posting on this thread instead.

    To use that as an excuse to attack me and claim that I am the culprit is also par for the course. Itīt right there for anybody to see. It of course has nothing to do wit what the boards are really for, but that doesn't stop people.

    Let's just say that they are not ashamed one bit to hijack threads for such things...

    Thank you.
    If you haven't ignored the other thread why are you still posting on this thread? How can the other thread be unnecessary when the whole purpose was to take the Lechmere gubbins onto another thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Of course, the idea that I would have "hi-jacked" the thread is ludicrous. I was not the one who brought Lechmere up on it, and I only respond to Lechmererelated matters brought up by others. I have offered to move to another thread, but people keep posting about Lechmere here anyway, and so I answer out here too.

    I need not hijack any thread at all to discuss Lechmere - thread about him regularly attract lots of attention. Sadly, most of that attention comes from people who would have been better off not posting at all.

    The thread set up by Dr Strange was an unnecessary one (although claiming that I have ignored it is not true, but not keeping to the truth is par for the course), because there is and has always been a thread for the docu per se, and any discussion relevant to it should preferably be had there. But no such luck - people keep on posting on this thread instead.

    To use that as an excuse to attack me and claim that I am the culprit is also par for the course. Itīt right there for anybody to see. It of course has nothing to do wit what the boards are really for, but that doesn't stop people.

    Let's just say that they are not ashamed one bit to hijack threads for such things...

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 07-05-2019, 06:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >> What are you on about? What relevance has this got to the thread?<<

    I set up a separate thread to keep this thread on topic, sadly Christer has ignored it, preferring instead to hi-jack this one.
    Yes Christer loves to hi-Jack threads. I'm aware of the other thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    "Debating" about Scobie is to take the focus away from the real issues. And to baselessly imply that he was paid to lie has very little to do with any debating at all. I am perfectly ready to discuss legitimate matters like how experts are chosen for a reason and how those arguing for a suspect are likely to choose the parts that suit them, but that is not what is happening here. Here, the absolute underbelly of ripperology is rearing its foul head and claiming an abominable thing on behalf of Scobie and/or the film crew.
    Its like if I was to say that your only reason for visiting the Lechmere thread is because your local hot dog man pays you to blurt out uninformed vomit about Lechmere whenever you get the chance.

    Once again, please note how debaters with sense and insight avoid threads like these as if they were passing on lepracy. And for the same reason that I myself take time away from the rot every now and then.
    The real issue is Lechmere was a witness and is a terrible suspect. Debaters avoid threads like this because of pig headed posters who push there crappy theories. As for you taking time away I'd always presumed you'd gone fishing.
    Last edited by John Wheat; 07-04-2019, 08:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >> What are you on about? What relevance has this got to the thread?<<

    I set up a separate thread to keep this thread on topic, sadly Christer has ignored it, preferring instead to hi-jack this one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    If you don't want to debate about Scobie then stop using Scobie to bolster the rubbish Lechmere theory.
    "Debating" about Scobie is to take the focus away from the real issues. And to baselessly imply that he was paid to lie has very little to do with any debating at all. I am perfectly ready to discuss legitimate matters like how experts are chosen for a reason and how those arguing for a suspect are likely to choose the parts that suit them, but that is not what is happening here. Here, the absolute underbelly of ripperology is rearing its foul head and claiming an abominable thing on behalf of Scobie and/or the film crew.
    Its like if I was to say that your only reason for visiting the Lechmere thread is because your local hot dog man pays you to blurt out uninformed vomit about Lechmere whenever you get the chance.

    Once again, please note how debaters with sense and insight avoid threads like these as if they were passing on lepracy. And for the same reason that I myself take time away from the rot every now and then.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    If you don't want to debate about Scobie then stop using Scobie to bolster the rubbish Lechmere theory.
    It's called having a Fish Cake and eating it

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    The very clear implication here is that Scobies verdict would have been governed by money and not by his professional experience and judgment.

    This post of Montys sits well alongside the one some years back where he publicly accused me and Edward of having made money from the event in St Johns where the Lechmere theory was originally presented.

    He was of course completely wrong that time - we did not make a penny from it, it all went to the Stairway of Heaven foundation and I even paid the flight to London myself to be able to participate. Monty later claimed to have apologized for having made this accusation, but there was never any such apology offered on his behalf.

    That is another "bottom" line that becomes interesting to look at when it comes to weighing up the value of Montys current post.

    It probably applies that James Scobie was paid for his participation (once again, I do not know, so I am not able to say with certainty, but it is a fair guess). Most experts arguably are, when they are asked by film companies to go public with their expertise.

    The question is, would Scobie - or any other expert - be likely to say something they genuinely do not believe themselves and that goes against their professional experience to make a few quid...? Would they sell out totally ethically and professionally like that? Because that is what is seemingly implied by Monty in his post. Please correct me if I am wrong, Monty.

    I prefer to think that Scobie was giving his honest opinion, and since there are many examples of trials that have come about on less evidence than what is involved in the Lechmere case, I see no practical possibility to come even anywhere close to proving the suggestion that Scobies verdict was one that he did not stand behind from a professional angle.

    The person who has the onus of proof in this case is of course Monty: If he thinks that Scobie would have altered his take on matters of his profession in order to make money from it, then the sensible thing to do is to provide proof for it.

    If that cannot be done, then I am of the meaning that the kind of "debate" Monty offers has nothing to do on these boards.

    Finally, if Monty is NOT implying that Scobie adjusted his verdict to fit the Lechmere theory for money, then there is no problem - then we agree, he reasonably never did. Maybe Monty is just irritated by how the film crew used material that serves the purpose of underlining how it seems Lechmere could well have been the killer? If so, welcome to the real world!

    If really hope this covers it all, because this kind of debate is something I would very much prefer not to have to engage in any further.
    If you don't want to debate about Scobie then stop using Scobie to bolster the rubbish Lechmere theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post

    Post of the year

    Monty

    Thanks, Monty. Yes, it needed saying, and I am glad you agree.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X