Suspect League table

[Trevor Marriott]

Same old line Trevor. Suspect/Person Of Interest.

In terms of the study of this a case if someone proposes a candidate then they become a suspect. Because they are suspected. It's simple.

I assume that you only call Feigenbaum a person of interest then as the British police didn't suspect him?

Same old Herlock arguing for the sake of arguing

The police it seems was never notified as to his suspect viability, which only became public after his execution, so there was not much they could do then was there?

But 133 years later we can do some of the enquiries they might have done had they been made aware, and those enquiries put him firmly in the suspect catergory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Best suspects? Nothing could be easier or more obvious.

1. John Edwin Colocott
2. Sarah Sadler
3. Andrea Scotti Di Carlo
4. William Gladstone
5. All of the above, possibly working together.

[John Wheat]

Bell Smith is an interesting choice and a blast from the past.

Thanks Herlock. Although I do have him in 3rd.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Same old Herlock arguing for the sake of arguing

The police it seems was never notified as to his suspect viability, which only became public after his execution, so there was not much they could do then was there?

So he wasn't a suspect at the time therefore, adopting your criteria, should only be called a Person Of Interest.

But 133 years later we can do some of the enquiries they might have done had they been made aware, and those enquiries put him firmly in the suspect catergory.

Different victim type; completely different circumstances; no mutilations; an uncorroborated 'confession'; and not even proven to have been in England let alone London at the time.

Yup...bang to rights

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I only argue this point because you appear to believe that the various criteria that you continually apply to other 'suspects' don't apply to Feigenbaum.

[Trevor Marriott]

Same old line Trevor. Suspect/Person Of Interest.

That's because there are differences between the two which it seem you don't understand

In terms of the study of this a case if someone proposes a candidate then they become a suspect. Because they are suspected. It's simple.

But anyone can propose a suspect if they have the evidence to show the viability of that suspect. If they dont then that person is a person of interest

I assume that you only call Feigenbaum a person of interest then as the British police didn't suspect him?

No Feigenbaum I class as a very good suspect based on what is known about him, and his movements, and not forgetting the fact that he did murder a woman by cutting her throat with a long-bladed knife. Now how many other suspects fit that criteria?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

There is one suspect thats almost never mentioned, one that had been imprisoned for multiple knife attacks upon street women. He is the very first suspect that appears in books published on the murders...beginning later that Fall, and he was know to have been heading to London in early 1888. His whereabouts after that are unknown.

Nikolay Vasiliev, also called Nicolas Vassili or Wassily.

He is a mysterious figure, a combination of facts and myths, but nonetheless, interesting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Feigenbaum I class as a very good suspect based on what is known about him, and his movements, and not forgetting the fact that he did murder a woman by cutting her throat with a long-bladed knife. Now how many other suspects fit that criteria?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I won't make another comment on this issue on here because I don't wish to sidetrack the thread further.

YOU class him as a very good suspect. So does this mean that you're the arbiter of who should or shouldn't be classed as a suspect. This is bias Trevor. Until you can PROVE that he was in the country at the time then he's not even a suspect. I'm sure that there was a bloke in Nigeria that murdered a woman with a long bladed knife in 1887 but it's irrelevant if he was thousands of miles away. You have to at the very least place him in the same country and you can't.

You continue to be very 'adaptable' when deciding who should or shouldn't be classed as a suspect. I'm afraid that it's not up to you or me. This isn't a police investigation. The same rules do not apply. We are basically playing hunt the ripper 130 years later. No women will die if we get it it wrong. We don't have to consider budgets if we follow an unproductive lead. We aren't at risk of sending an innocent man to the gallows.

If someone is named as a suspect then we call him a suspect whether he's a good one or not. The word isn't important and I can't for the life of me see why you keep insisting on this point

Again, apologies to TRD and all for the tangent

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is one suspect thats almost never mentioned, one that had been imprisoned for multiple knife attacks upon street women. He is the very first suspect that appears in books published on the murders...beginning later that Fall, and he was know to have been heading to London in early 1888. His whereabouts after that are unknown.

Nikolay Vasiliev, also called Nicolas Vassili or Wassily.

He is a mysterious figure, a combination of facts and myths, but nonetheless, interesting.

I'm behind the times Michael. Has there been much modern research on him? How productive was it?

[Trevor Marriott]

I won't make another comment on this issue on here because I don't wish to sidetrack the thread further.

YOU class him as a very good suspect. So does this mean that you're the arbiter of who should or shouldn't be classed as a suspect. This is bias Trevor. Until you can PROVE that he was in the country at the time then he's not even a suspect. I'm sure that there was a bloke in Nigeria that murdered a woman with a long bladed knife in 1887 but it's irrelevant if he was thousands of miles away. You have to at the very least place him in the same country and you can't.

You continue to be very 'adaptable' when deciding who should or shouldn't be classed as a suspect. I'm afraid that it's not up to you or me. This isn't a police investigation. The same rules do not apply. We are basically playing hunt the ripper 130 years later. No women will die if we get it it wrong. We don't have to consider budgets if we follow an unproductive lead. We aren't at risk of sending an innocent man to the gallows.

If someone is named as a suspect then we call him a suspect whether he's a good one or not. The word isn't important and I can't for the life of me see why you keep insisting on this point

Again, apologies to TRD and all for the tangent

I think I am experienced enough to assess and evaluate the facts and evidence relative to the 100 suspects on the list, and give an expert opinion based on that assessment and evaluation at to what category they should be included in. Most on that list are based on nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated theories and should not even be on the list.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

How about a man who is known to have carried out vicious attacks - including the use of a knife - on prostitutes and who may have viewed Mary Kelly as a business asset who walked out in him?

Johannes Morganstern, who had an associate, Stephen Maywood, who was a horse dealer/drover with connections to Romford.

[Svensson]

1. Aaron Kosminski
2. Unknown and so far unmentioned local man
3. Red Handkerchief at Mitre Square
4. Pierre, who is a time-traveller and the actual murderer himself. He's just having a bit of fun with us.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm behind the times Michael. Has there been much modern research on him? How productive was it?

Not a lot Herlock, to my dismay. He was mentioned as a Prime Suspect in a self published book by an author in New York before the end of 1888, and again in another the following year. Take a look at his Suspects file here, that should enlighten you a bit.

A deranged man in London, formerly imprisoned for stabbing street prostitutes, and no-one knows what he was doing or where he specifically was in the city. A self castrated zealot also...which might have created, or been spawned by, a negative view of women.

[caz]

1. Unspecified male from outside Whitechapel
2. Unspecified local male
3. Blotchy
4. Astrakhan Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not a lot Herlock, to my dismay. He was mentioned as a Prime Suspect in a self published book by an author in New York before the end of 1888, and again in another the following year. Take a look at his Suspects file here, that should enlighten you a bit.

A deranged man in London, formerly imprisoned for stabbing street prostitutes, and no-one knows what he was doing or where he specifically was in the city. A self castrated zealot also...which might have created, or been spawned by, a negative view of women.

Cheers Michael

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I am experienced enough to assess and evaluate the facts and evidence relative to the 100 suspects on the list, and give an expert opinion based on that assessment and evaluation at to what category they should be included in. Most on that list are based on nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated theories and should not even be on the list.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If someone 'suspects' them then they are a 'suspect.' How likely or unlikely they are is down to individual judgment.

1st criteria - Must be known to have been on he same continent at the time of the murders.