Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife.

[Richard Patterson]

But your statement was that no other suspects were known to carry knives in the area. If Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders, and committed one, some, or even all of the murders then he would have carried a knife, because a knife was used to murder the victims was it not?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course if he was in London and if he committed one or more murders, but that is not shown to have had a knife, that is speculation.

[Richard Patterson]

Off the top of my head? Ostrog, Sadler, Tumblety, Cutbush, and, arguably, Klosowski and Kosminski. Probably others, though not necessarily "in the area" in all cases.

Michael Ostrog was not shown to have a knife. The only basis is hearsay, written six years after the murders, by Macnaghten, a man not involved in the murder investigation.

Thomas James Sadler. Not shown to have a knife apart from an old blunt one that, when examined, was said to be unusable.

Francis Tumblety. Not shown to have had a knife. (Though you might, from the top of your head, be able to point me in the right direction.)

Thomas Cutbush was not shown to have a knife, apart from the one he purchased, more than two years after the murders.

Klosowski (aka George Chapman) not shown to have a had a knife, unless you count the one under his pillow found in New Jersey 3,400 miles away and 5 years after the murders.

Aaron Kosminski, of the famed Shawl DNA debacle. Not shown to have had a knife, as in carrying one. That he had a knife comes from a claim from either his sister or the sister of a witness. The provenance, like that of the shawl is, at best dubious hearsay.

[Trevor Marriott]

Feigenbaum had a knife, six years after the murders and 3,400 miles away in New York. This hardly shows that he was carrying a knife, in the area, during the time of the murders.

But your statement was that no other suspects were known to carry knives in the area. If Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders, and committed one, some, or even all of the murders then he would have carried a knife, because a knife was used to murder the victims was it not?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Richard Patterson]

Your are wrong, suspect Carl Feigenbaum murdered a woman by cutting her throat using a long bladed knife. The police recovered the knife, and found a sheath which had been used by Feigenbaum to carry the knife about with him, along with a pummel stone he carried for keeping the knife sharp

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Feigenbaum had a knife, six years after the murders and 3,400 miles away in New York. This hardly shows that he was carrying a knife, in the area, during the time of the murders.

[rjpalmer]

Off the top of my head? Ostrog, Sadler, Tumblety, Cutbush, and, arguably, Klosowski and Kosminski. Probably others, though not necessarily "in the area" in all cases.

[Trevor Marriott]

Out of the hundreds of named suspects, only one can be shown to have even carried a knife in the area, during the time period. Can you guess who that was?

Your are wrong, suspect Carl Feigenbaum murdered a woman by cutting her throat using a long bladed knife. The police recovered the knife, and found a sheath which had been used by Feigenbaum to carry the knife about with him, along with a pummel stone he carried for keeping the knife sharp

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Richard Patterson]

Hello Richard.

I am not too familiar with your theory, I did read your posts in the past, was it last year?
So, in reply to your question all I can say is that "being shown" to have carried a knife, and "claiming" to have carried a knife, are not the same thing.
In researching press articles I can verify that 'Gentlemen' were taken in for questioning where they were shown to carry more than one knife, and in a black bag.
To my way of thinking a man carrying a knife does not have the weight that you appear to attribute to it.

Hi. I agree. that claiming and being shown are two different things. To show, to me, needs some sort of evidence, claims can come from nothing. I agree that Gentlemen were taken in for questioning, but since no names are given it's hearsay and a mute point.

To my way of thinking carrying a knife is the most important if not the only perquisite. Beyond these forums of 'seasoned' experts and ripperology in general, people in the outside world think that a man who has a knife a big deal when looking for somebody who has killed with a knife. I think it has something to do with the fact that it is impossible to kill someone with a knife without one. If I remember correctly, this might be why airports screen passengers for them.

[Wickerman]

Hello Richard.

I am not too familiar with your theory, I did read your posts in the past, was it last year?
So, in reply to your question all I can say is that "being shown" to have carried a knife, and "claiming" to have carried a knife, are not the same thing.
In researching press articles I can verify that 'Gentlemen' were taken in for questioning where they were shown to carry more than one knife, and in a black bag.
To my way of thinking a man carrying a knife does not have the weight that you appear to attribute to it.

[Richard Patterson]

Out of the hundreds of named suspects, only one can be shown to have even carried a knife in the area, during the time period. Can you guess who that was?