Most ridiculous suspect

[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

[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.

[GUT]

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

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

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[Trevor Marriott]

And Lawton?

See post #385