The only German suspect I have come across is one Carl Fagenbauhn (apologies for the spelling). He was a German Midshipman who was making frequent trips between Germany, the dutch isles and London. Is he in your highly valued opinion a credible suspect. If not why not?
I'm not sure, whether you were adressing me or Phil H. I've only seen a documentary about Feigenbaumon TV and the explanation seemed plausible. But I guess they show only the facts that let you come to this conclusion. Actually I don't have any major suspect. In the german forums Kosminski ist mentioned very often. But there are always many pros and cons. I'm not sure if he was indeed one of the popular suspects.
I have to say that the little knowledge I got of the Ripper comes from the book by Philip Sudgen and the german Ripper forum.
The only German suspect I have come across is one Carl Fagenbauhn
I found these names and description in the german forum (where I first mentioned the topic):
Charles Ludwig, a german barber
Jacob Isenschmid, a swiss butcher
Aaron Kosminski (November 17th 1893 in Colney Hatch “Only speaks German (?Yiddish)
David Cohen (December 28th 1888 in Colney Hatch “Chiefly speaks in German”)
I know that some of them were from Poland but in those times people actually spoke German in some parts of Poland.
Why would he have moved on from him? If he has moved on I would like to bring up Walter Sickert (I read somewhere he was German in heritage) am I wrong? Anyway what do you think of Sickert as a suspect?
I have followed the Sickert debate since the 1970s when Knight's book came out. (The discussion, of course, goes back much further than that to Sitwell and Pash.)
Cornwell, for all her huge expenditure, could do no more than demonstrate that Walter might have written some hoax letters - which would have been in line with his sense of humour, as I see it, but does not make him JtR.
Indeed, the information I have suggests he may have been out of the country for at least some of the relevant dates.
I attended the major exhibition of his work at the Royal Academy in 1992, specifically to see his pictures for myself and make a judgement on their alleged Ripper content. (I still have the cataolgue. I could see nothing that would make me believe that any Ripper associations are in the minds of those who see them.
That is NOT to say that Sickert was not fascinated by murder and the Ripper case in particular. He was, as reminiscences by those he knew indicate. Again that does not make him "Jack".
In short, the whole Sickert angle is a farrago - a tissue of half-truths and allegations with no solid foundation.
Given your in-deth knowledge of the case, though, Mr Holmes, I'm probably telling you nothing new.
I have no idea, Mr Holmes. I simply presented a statement I had read on this site. I have no information on Mr Marriott's thought processes.
It could be that trevor's researches into the "Secret Ledgers" has convinced him that an alternative solution is more likely or better supported. But he may also never have been THAT convinced of the case against Feigenbaum anyway - who knows.
By the way, on a separate topic, I think you will find Sickert was of Danish descent, not German. Or was that a trick question?
Sickert as a young man worked for Henry Irving's company at the Lyceum. He would have learned make-up techniques, but don't forget in 1888, stage lighting was by limelight or gas, and greasepaint was used for make-up.
The stage conditions would have meant that by today's film standards, the make-up would have been heavy and - to an observer back-stage highly unnatural in colour and artificiality. Footlights (as I well know from personal experience) required a different technique to modern spotlights and floods etc. In particular the eyes and so on need bringing out, and lines to denote age/wrinkles etc would have been painted on (not done with latex or prosthetics as now) and would have been highly obvious.
So I do not think that Sickert would have been able to change his appearance to walk the streets as "someone else" without raising some eyebrows.
I think he may have acquired one "fetish" at the Lyceum. Irving's head scenery painter wore a red bandana when "preparing for close action" (i.e. especially hard at work) and Sickert might have picked up the same habit.
On voice - the large theatres of Victorian London did not possess any amplification so actors were trained to throw or project their voices so that audiences right at the back could hear. The inflections and style would have seemed "booming" mannered and strange to us.
On character, 1888 theatre was still very much melodrama, and acting relied on gesture and "line" to reveal character - line is how the body is positioned, a raised hand (above the shoulder-line) would indicate power and dominance, for instance; a hand lower that the shoulder would show submission.
Please don't think acting then was like film acting (or even stage acting) today, subtle and "realistic". In 1888, it was artificial, more like ballet or opera is still performed sometimes. I don't think an actor's talents would have helped "Jack" for a moment.