Most ridiculous suspect

[Herlock Sholmes]

. >>who lived in London

His schedule very much rules him out

100% untrue.

The kind of desperate invention that some posters sadly have to resort to on this subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no corroboration for Anderson mcnaghten no corroboration for the mythical ID parade Swanson describes yet researchers readily accept what they said as if it were gospel

Feigenbaum was a thief and a killer and by his antecedents remains a suspect to be considered above all the others (in your opinion)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And Lawton’s statement about him was uncorroborated.

[Trevor Marriott]

exactly herlock, its rather ironic that trevor calls basically everything unsafe to rely on, and yet has latched on to probably the flimsiest unsafe evidence to put forth a "suspect". one that cant even be placed in the freaking country during the crimes.

Can you prove he wasn’t?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;n783672]


>>absolute balderdash!

Wrong, its called logical reasoning


>>a person who

Wrong, he is a convicted woman murderer with a knife.


>>cant even be placed in england during autumn of terror

Wrong, his ship was there, and it may still possible to track him down


>>accused by his lawyer lol

This is a strong evidence against him so your lol is Wrong.


>>vs a contemporary police suspect

Wrong, Druitts name as a suspect came later


>>who had info of his quilt

Wrong , he doesnt have information of his guilt, all he had is what a fourth person (at least) told him about a possible doubt of his family


>>by family members

Wrong it was at least a fourth person, Macnaghten didn't took his information direct from the family.


>>whom we know he had ties to

Wrong, we don't know who the informer was, and he was not a close friend of the family


>>who lived in London

His schedule very much rules him out


>>and whos death coincides with the end of the c5.

The c5 is a term created by Macnaghten himself to support his theory, Mckenzie murder rules Druitt out, so Wrong again.


>>yeah theyre a million miles apart thats for sure, but the other way around.

Wrong again, its the same way.


if you want to defend someone then do better, try to lessen the errors in those arguments as a first step.




The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, whatever Lawton said was uncorroborated. No one else heard it. That’s the definition of uncorroborated. For all that we know he might have simply made this up. I’m not saying that he did, but he might have done and let’s face it, he went to the papers rather than the police which might imply a desire for publicity over justice. You might say “why would he?” So I’ll ask “why would Mac have lied?” “Why pick an apparently non-violent, non-criminal, non-women hating, non-Whitechapel resident if he was simply making stuff up?” None of us know.

There is no corroboration for Anderson mcnaghten no corroboration for the mythical ID parade Swanson describes yet researchers readily accept what they said as if it were gospel

Feigenbaum was a thief and a killer and by his antecedents remains a suspect to be considered above all the others

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Trevor, whatever Lawton said was uncorroborated. No one else heard it. That’s the definition of uncorroborated. For all that we know he might have simply made this up. I’m not saying that he did, but he might have done and let’s face it, he went to the papers rather than the police which might imply a desire for publicity over justice. You might say “why would he?” So I’ll ask “why would Mac have lied?” “Why pick an apparently non-violent, non-criminal, non-women hating, non-Whitechapel resident if he was simply making stuff up?” None of us know.

exactly herlock, its rather ironic that trevor calls basically everything unsafe to rely on, and yet has latched on to probably the flimsiest unsafe evidence to put forth a "suspect". one that cant even be placed in the freaking country during the crimes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor, whatever Lawton said was uncorroborated. No one else heard it. That’s the definition of uncorroborated. For all that we know he might have simply made this up. I’m not saying that he did, but he might have done and let’s face it, he went to the papers rather than the police which might imply a desire for publicity over justice. You might say “why would he?” So I’ll ask “why would Mac have lied?” “Why pick an apparently non-violent, non-criminal, non-women hating, non-Whitechapel resident if he was simply making stuff up?” None of us know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

See post #385

Why would Mac lie?

[Trevor Marriott]

absolute balderdash! a person who cant even be placed in england during autumn of terror, accused by his lawyer lol vs a contemporary police suspect who had info of his quilt by family members whom we know he had ties to, who lived in London and whos death coincides with the end of the c5. yeah theyre a million miles apart thats for sure, but the other way around.

if you cant even place a suspect in the area at the time they are for all intents and purposes a pretty ridiculous suspect.
and anyway we all know your just doing your usual bizarre stalking of herlock to wind him up. we all see it and its rather sad. you really need to stop this nonsense.

You need to read post#381

[Trevor Marriott]

And Lawton?

See post #385

[Abby Normal]

Of course Feigenbaum is a better suspect than Druitt.

First the evidence against Feigenbaum is direct forward:

Suspect to Lawyer,

but in the case of Druitt, it is based on this long serie:

Suspect to Family member to third person who was close to and knew the Family to fourth person who didn't know the family well to Macnaghten.

This fourth person doesn't know the family well, he doesn't know Druitt's age or occupation, so there must have beem a third person in the above serie who knew the family well.

Second, Druitt was not a proven killer, he was a teacher and a lawyer who kept defending his clients to the last month of his life, but Feigenbaum is a proven and convicted woman murderer.

Third, the Lawyer knew Feigenbaum and studied him since he was his client, but in the case of Druitt, Macnaghten, the tea merchant, didn't do any sort of investigations.


Fourth, Feigenbaum as we told, admitted of his deep desire to cut and mutilate women, and he proved it by killing one, but what we only have from Druitt is that he was afraid of being like his ill mother and committed suicide.

Anyone can see the million light years difference between the two of them.



The Baron

absolute balderdash! a person who cant even be placed in england during autumn of terror, accused by his lawyer lol vs a contemporary police suspect who had info of his quilt by family members whom we know he had ties to, who lived in London and whos death coincides with the end of the c5. yeah theyre a million miles apart thats for sure, but the other way around.

if you cant even place a suspect in the area at the time they are for all intents and purposes a pretty ridiculous suspect.
and anyway we all know your just doing your usual bizarre stalking of herlock to wind him up. we all see it and its rather sad. you really need to stop this nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Too much emphasis is placed on these uncorroboarated off the cuff statements made by the likes of Anderson and Macnaghten

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And Lawton?

[The Baron]

Of course Feigenbaum is a better suspect than Druitt.

First the evidence against Feigenbaum is direct forward:

Suspect to Lawyer,

but in the case of Druitt, it is based on this long serie:

Suspect to Family member to third person who was close to and knew the Family to fourth person who didn't know the family well to Macnaghten.

This fourth person doesn't know the family well, he doesn't know Druitt's age or occupation, so there must have beem a third person in the above serie who knew the family well.

Second, Druitt was not a proven killer, he was a teacher and a lawyer who kept defending his clients to the last month of his life, but Feigenbaum is a proven and convicted woman murderer.

Third, the Lawyer knew Feigenbaum and studied him since he was his client, but in the case of Druitt, Macnaghten, the tea merchant, didn't do any sort of investigations.


Fourth, Feigenbaum as we told, admitted of his deep desire to cut and mutilate women, and he proved it by killing one, but what we only have from Druitt is that he was afraid of being like his ill mother and committed suicide.

Anyone can see the million light years difference between the two of them.



The Baron

[GBinOz]

Too much emphasis is placed on these uncorroboarated off the cuff statements made by the likes of Anderson and Macnaghten

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor. One can only wonder if his "private information" was any more accurate than his memorandum, which was full of errors.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

The same is said about the MM, by yourself and others. It is a claim by someone who had more information than we do, but we do not know what that information was and so we cannot assess if that opinion was well founded or not We onlu know that MM held that opinion, which is hardly enough to say it is definitive. Same with a statement by a lawyer which is not confirmed as actually having been said, etc The gaps between the murders are also consistent with a local and many other configurations. That's the thing with this case, the information we have is so incomplete it appears consistent with most suspects provided one squints properly to bring the chosen suspect into focus. In my opinion, that means we do not really have support for any of the suspects. None of it really ties anyone to the murders, rather what we have are murders, and suspects for whom we, at best can say were in London, but often can only say they haven't been shown not to be in London For some, even if they can be shown to be away from London as long as there is a train or boat or carriage that could have got them there that is turned into evidence they were there, which it is not of course. With Prince Eddy, even placing him elsewhere isn't sufficient as the coverup card gets played.

All we ever have for any suspect is evidence at the perifery of the case, nothing that actually brings them closer to the actual events of importance. The MM is the closest we have to that because it directly names 3 people as actual suspects, but even then with the qualification that they are simply better examples than Cutbush. That suggests that there wasn't any real "smoking gun" for any of them and one comes away with the impression that 3 other people could have just as easily been listed had he written his first draft on a different day.

My personal opinion is that time is better spent on working out what the eveidence actually is; so what happened, when did it happen, where were people, at what time, and so forth. Not because it will lead to a name, and not with the aim of working out how Mr. X can be made to fit, but simply because understanding the crime itself is always important to an investigation. We might not be able to reach the desired end, but we can at least try to get the beginning right.

-Jeff

Getting back to Feigenbaums Lawyers statement to the press which you pour cold water on. I have to ask why would he lie about what was said to him, and what he did because he was in that position where he could have been asked by the press to elaborate and disclose what enquiries he himself had conducted to show Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders? If he was in fact lying he was playing a dangerous game, and there are other parts of his statement which have been corroborated.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk