Rating The Suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

But Trevor you said that you had information “which showed a Carl Feigenbaum was still employed by this merchant line, and he was in London on one of their ships in 1891”

What is the actual evidence that he was provably in London in 1891?

From memory, it was a crew list for one of the Norduetcher Line merchant ships.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

From memory, it was a crew list for one of the Norduetcher Line merchant ships.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you didn’t photograph it? When you’re looking for evidence that your suspect spent at least some time in London?

[Trevor Marriott]

But you didn’t photograph it? When you’re looking for evidence that your suspect spent at least some time in London?

There is more than enough evidence which shows he was in London at the time of the murders and I have seen the crew list for him being here in 1891.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is more than enough evidence which shows he was in London at the time of the murders and I have seen the crew list for him being here in 1891.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Him telling Lawton isn’t reliable evidence Trevor. I’m struggling to see why you haven’t produced that crew list though Trevor? Surely that would be a basic requirement for evidence of anything? If I said that I’d seen a note in Broadmoor’s record which said “Sir Melville Macnaghten came today to speak to Jack the Ripper but Cutbush wouldn’t talk to him” would you just accept my word or would you expect me to produce a copy of that note?

[The Rookie Detective]

Regards Feigenbaum, I think it's a case of...

it's better to have him and not need him, than to need him and not have him.

He should be included in the list.


If someone can be proven to have NOT been in London, then that's fair enough, but to ask for proof that he was in London is something that applies to most of the other suspects on that list.

If Faignenbaum is omitted, then so should several others; which in turn then makes the list rather redundant on the basis that most of the marginal suspects aren't even on it.

If it's just a case of Faigenbaum being omitted because Trevor favours him, then that would feel unfair to Trevor.

In other words, if Faigenbaum was favoured by half a dozen members on this site then it seems to me that the discussion about whether Faigenbaum should or should not be included, wouldn't be happening anyway.

For the sake of moral fairness, I think that Faigenbaum should be included.

And if he then scores low points and ends up at the bottom of the league, then that will speak for itself anyway and highlight he's very unlikely to have been the Ripper anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

Him telling Lawton isn’t reliable evidence Trevor. I’m struggling to see why you haven’t produced that crew list though Trevor? Surely that would be a basic requirement for evidence of anything? If I said that I’d seen a note in Broadmoor’s record which said “Sir Melville Macnaghten came today to speak to Jack the Ripper but Cutbush wouldn’t talk to him” would you just accept my word or would you expect me to produce a copy of that note?

The simple answer is that I clearly viewed the crew list and have documented what it showed, bearing in mind this all took place many years ago, if I did photograph it then it is not available now lost to the passage of time and new computer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regards Feigenbaum, I think it's a case of...

it's better to have him and not need him, than to need him and not have him.

He should be included in the list.


If someone can be proven to have NOT been in London, then that's fair enough, but to ask for proof that he was in London is something that applies to most of the other suspects on that list.

If Faignenbaum is omitted, then so should several others; which in turn then makes the list rather redundant on the basis that most of the marginal suspects aren't even on it.

If it's just a case of Faigenbaum being omitted because Trevor favours him, then that would feel unfair to Trevor.

In other words, if Faigenbaum was favoured by half a dozen members on this site then it seems to me that the discussion about whether Faigenbaum should or should not be included, wouldn't be happening anyway.

For the sake of moral fairness, I think that Faigenbaum should be included.

And if he then scores low points and ends up at the bottom of the league, then that will speak for itself anyway and highlight he's very unlikely to have been the Ripper anyway.

I wouldn’t omit someone because a certain person favours him Chris and to be honest I’m disappointed that you should imply it.. I haven’t added Van Gogh because we have no evidence that he was in England at the time of the murders. In essence Feigenbaum is the same. Trevor says that he saw evidence that he was in London in 1891 but, a) he remarkably has retained no evidence of this, and b) this is after the murders. What would stop us from selecting any murderer from any country in the world by saying “well, he might have travelled to England.”

[Trevor Marriott]

I wouldn’t omit someone because a certain person favours him Chris and to be honest I’m disappointed that you should imply it.. I haven’t added Van Gogh because we have no evidence that he was in England at the time of the murders. In essence Feigenbaum is the same. Trevor says that he saw evidence that he was in London in 1891 but, a) he remarkably has retained no evidence of this, and b) this is after the murders. What would stop us from selecting any murderer from any country in the world by saying “well, he might have travelled to England.”

Fegienbaum was employed as a merchant seaman, records I viewed confirm that
Vessells from the same merchant shipping line were docked in London at the time of the murders.
He can be placed in London on the date of the Frances Coles murder
He is a convicted killer
He gave up the sea in 1892 and there were no more ripper murders.

Has to be No1 suspect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fegienbaum was employed as a merchant seaman, records I viewed confirm that
Vessells from the same merchant shipping line were docked in London at the time of the murders.
He can be placed in London on the date of the Frances Coles murder
He is a convicted killer
He gave up the sea in 1892 and there were no more ripper murders.

Has to be No1 suspect !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So…as I suspected Trevor…he worked for a company that had a ship in London around 3 years after the time that most believed the murders to have ended. You can’t prove though that he himself was on a specific ship at a specific time that took him to England

If a suspect can’t be proven to have been in the same country that the murders occurred in, at the time that they occurred then they can’t be considered a suspect. You can use all the !!!!!!! that you want to.

[Trevor Marriott]

So…as I suspected Trevor…he worked for a company that had a ship in London around 3 years after the time that most believed the murders to have ended. You can’t prove though that he himself was on a specific ship at a specific time that took him to England

If a suspect can’t be proven to have been in the same country that the murders occurred in, at the time that they occurred then they can’t be considered a suspect. You can use all the !!!!!!! that you want to.

But he did admit to being in London at the time of the murders

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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But he did admit to being in London at the time of the murders

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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But it looks like you have no proof of him being there except for the words of a bit of a looney.

[Trevor Marriott]

But it looks like you have no proof of him being there except for the words of a bit of a looney.

Now Now Herlock calling his lawyer who defended him in a murder trial a bit of looney is out of order even for you !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now Now Herlock calling his lawyer who defended him in a murder trial a bit of looney is out of order even for you !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was talking about Feigenbaum. But come to think of it..didn’t Lawton commit suicide?

[Trevor Marriott]

I was talking about Feigenbaum. But come to think of it..didn’t Lawton commit suicide?

Yes, in 1897 and what is your point of mentioning that 12 months after Feigenbaum was executed?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, in 1897 and what is your point of mentioning that 12 months after Feigenbaum was executed?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It might suggest that he wasn’t in the best of mental health. People don’t usually find themselves totally fine one day and suicidal the next.

So…..we have the word of a known murder told to a potentially mentally unbalanced lawyer whilst in prison. The lawyer takes this semi-confession to the papers rather than contacting Scotland Yard (hardly noble behaviour from a man of the law). Then later, not a single piece of evidence exists to prove that this ‘suspect’ was even in England at the time of the murders. All that you have is evidence that the suspect worked for a certain shipping line and that this shipping line had a ship or ships that went to London three years after most people consider the murders to have ended (but you can’t even prove that the suspect was actually on one of them)

You call this the best suspect?!?!