Most ridiculous suspect

[Trevor Marriott]

A point that I’ve made many times Jeff. If we are going to apply ‘rules’ in our assessment of any suspect we have to apply them consistently, fairly and across the board. As an example, another poster on here makes much of the fact that MacNaughten wasn’t a career Police Officer (which of course he wasn’t) which they say casts a real doubt over his competence. That particular poster favours Kosminski (fair enough) but he was proposed by Anderson who also wasn’t a career Police Officer so why is that particular criticism only levelled at MacNaughten but not at Anderson?

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, as you've pointed out, while the police have said they patrolled their beats regularly and on time, well, they can say anything they want while we must view that as unsafe unless it can be corroborated. So, unless there is independent evidence that shows Feigenbaum was in Whitechapel, all we have is someone claiming that Feigenbaum said he was in Whitechapel - it's hearsay at best. In fact, nobody can even confirm that Feigenbaum even said that to his lawyer, let alone the next step of confirming the information is actually true. It's just a memorandum by another name.

- Jeff

A point that I’ve made many times Jeff. If we are going to apply ‘rules’ in our assessment of any suspect we have to apply them consistently, fairly and across the board. As an example, another poster on here makes much of the fact that MacNaughten wasn’t a career Police Officer (which of course he wasn’t) which they say casts a real doubt over his competence. That particular poster favours Kosminski (fair enough) but he was proposed by Anderson who also wasn’t a career Police Officer so why is that particular criticism only levelled at MacNaughten but not at Anderson?

[JeffHamm]

Well the same could be said for the MM private information which some seek to heavily rely on

and what evidence is there to show the likes of Sickert,Druitt,Tumblety and many of the other persons of interest were in Whitechapel at the time of the canonical murders, especially if the killer came to Whitechapel to kill and then left the area afterwards.

The dates of the murders and the gaps between them are consitent with that of an itinerant

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok, so as you say, there is no evidence he was in Whitechapel at the time of any of the C5, only that a ship owned by a company he sometimes worked for was in London. There is evidence he was in London when Cole was murdered, but where in London is an open question.

St Katherines dock a stones throw from Whitechapel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moreover, there is no coroboration that he actually told his lawyer anything at all like what the lawyer claims.

Well the same could be said for the MM private information which some seek to heavily rely on

and what evidence is there to show the likes of Sickert,Druitt,Tumblety and many of the other persons of interest were in Whitechapel at the time of the canonical murders, especially if the killer came to Whitechapel to kill and then left the area afterwards.

The dates of the murders and the gaps between them are consitent with that of an itinerant

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

But there is corroboration maritime records show that Feigenbaum worked for many years as a merchant seaman for the Nordeutche Line. Records also show that a vessel from that same line was berthed in St katharines dock on all the murder dates except Sept 30th when another vessel from the same line was berthed here due to the original vessel being in for repairs.

The crew lists for the canonical dates are missing from the Bremen Archives but the crew lists for that original ship which were found show that Feigenbaum was here on a ship on the date Alice Mckenzie was murdered so we are entitled to draw a proper inference that if he was on that ship in 1889 then there is a likelihood that he was on that same boat 12 months before. Feigenbaum brother also confirms that he worked as a merchant seaman.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok, so as you say, there is no evidence he was in Whitechapel at the time of any of the C5, only that a ship owned by a company he sometimes worked for was in London. There is evidence he was in London when Cole was murdered, but where in London is an open question.

Moreover, there is no coroboration that he actually told his lawyer anything at all like what the lawyer claims.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, as you've pointed out, while the police have said they patrolled their beats regularly and on time, well, they can say anything they want while we must view that as unsafe unless it can be corroborated. So, unless there is independent evidence that shows Feigenbaum was in Whitechapel, all we have is someone claiming that Feigenbaum said he was in Whitechapel - it's hearsay at best. In fact, nobody can even confirm that Feigenbaum even said that to his lawyer, let alone the next step of confirming the information is actually true. It's just a memorandum by another name.

- Jeff

But there is corroboration maritime records show that Feigenbaum worked for many years as a merchant seaman for the Nordeutche Line. Records also show that a vessel from that same line was berthed in St katharines dock on all the murder dates except Sept 30th when another vessel from the same line was berthed here due to the original vessel being in for repairs.

The crew lists for the canonical dates are missing from the Bremen Archives but the crew lists for that original ship which were found show that Feigenbaum was here on a ship on the date Alice Mckenzie was murdered so we are entitled to draw a proper inference that if he was on that ship in 1889 then there is a likelihood that he was on that same boat 12 months before. Feigenbaum brother also confirms that he worked as a merchant seaman.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Um, do you mean "Kosminski" (MacNaughton's suspect) or "Klosowski" (aka George Chapman)?

Kosminski, darn auto correct, needed three goes this time.

[Abby Normal]

Well, as you've pointed out, while the police have said they patrolled their beats regularly and on time, well, they can say anything they want while we must view that as unsafe unless it can be corroborated. So, unless there is independent evidence that shows Feigenbaum was in Whitechapel, all we have is someone claiming that Feigenbaum said he was in Whitechapel - it's hearsay at best. In fact, nobody can even confirm that Feigenbaum even said that to his lawyer, let alone the next step of confirming the information is actually true. It's just a memorandum by another name.

- Jeff

bingo jeff. well said. it dosnt get anymore more unsafe than that, to use trevors word, whos always saying witness, police, press etc. accounts are unsafe.

[JeffHamm]

But he can be placed in London at the time of the murders the following is an extract from his lawyers statement

,"when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, as you've pointed out, while the police have said they patrolled their beats regularly and on time, well, they can say anything they want while we must view that as unsafe unless it can be corroborated. So, unless there is independent evidence that shows Feigenbaum was in Whitechapel, all we have is someone claiming that Feigenbaum said he was in Whitechapel - it's hearsay at best. In fact, nobody can even confirm that Feigenbaum even said that to his lawyer, let alone the next step of confirming the information is actually true. It's just a memorandum by another name.

- Jeff

[C. F. Leon]

I have long believed that suspect based ripperology needs to clear those named by contemporary police before looking at witnesses, celebrities etc. After all those officers had material available to them that we know nothing of, as it is lost to us.

To date no one can eliminate
Tumblety
Druitt
Koslowski
with any certainty, all sorts arguments against them, but not eliminated.

Um, do you mean "Kosminski" (MacNaughton's suspect) or "Klosowski" (aka George Chapman)?

[GUT]

I have long believed that suspect based ripperology needs to clear those named by contemporary police before looking at witnesses, celebrities etc. After all those officers had material available to them that we know nothing of, as it is lost to us.

To date no one can eliminate
Tumblety
Druitt
Koslowski
with any certainty, all sorts arguments against them, but not eliminated.

[jmenges]

Wasn’t there also a pamphlet on Thompson Gary or am I confusing this with another suspect?

Thompson was first named a suspect in a 1988 article by Dr. Joseph Rupp in The Criminologist.

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

cheer diddy!
Issenschmidt was incarcerated after chapman, and feigenbaum cant even be placed in the country at the time so they are both most definitely ridiculous suspects. Feigenbut wasnt ever suspected or person of interest by the police, has no ties whatsoever to the case or even England for that matter, was an after the fact "suspect", mentioned by his lawyer lol.Im sorry hes out. but hey if it makes you feel better, at least they are both not on my Most ridiculous tier : )

But he can be placed in London at the time of the murders the following is an extract from his lawyers statement

,"when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that was probably Richard Patterson. I have his Thompson book and I was intrigued enough by Thompson as a suspect that I bought his complete works and a couple of biographies of the man. There is little or nothing of any substance that points to Thompson as a suspect and Patterson over eggs what little there is. The scalpel thing is a case in point. As I say, Thompson once mentioned that he had used a scalpel to shave with, he didn’t say when. Based on that Patterson gives the impression that Thompson was wandering around Whitechapel in 1888 with a scalpel in his pocket.

Wasn’t there also a pamphlet on Thompson Gary or am I confusing this with another suspect?

[FISHY1118]

Just to make it clear to one and all my stance on Feigenbaum is that he could have been responsible for one,some or all of the murders. and if Fishy had bothered to read my book he would have seen thats what i have postulated and appears at the end of the chapter on Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

^{Why read a book thats titled'' The Final Truth'' if you postulate about its contents ? is not the truth anything that is factual ?}