Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to clarify Feigenbaum was not resident in The US at the time of the murders he was employed as a merchant seaman by the Nordetuceher Line who had boats docked in London at the time of the murders.

He then left the sea and took up residence in The US in 1892 and the last alleged Ripper murder was Frances Coles in 1891 and he can be placed on a ship from that line docked in London at that time, and those docks were a stones throw away from Whitechapel, and if it is accepetd that Coles was a ripper victim she was the last and that fact is in line with the cessation of the Ripper murders here in the UK

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you can’t prove that he was on that ship though. We just have to accept your word in a situation where it would be normal practice to provide evidence. I’m looking at the section of your book where you write about Feigenbaum for those on here who don’t have it or haven’t read it Trevor. You say:

“After combing through thousands of maritime records I discovered that a German merchant vessel belonging to the Norddeutsche Line and registered in Bremen named the Reiher was berthed in St Katherine’s Dock on all the murder dates save for September 30th. The reason it was not there on that date was the fact that it had been taken out of service for a time following a collision in the River Thames previously. However, another vessel the Sperber from the same line was there on that date. Furthermore, the Reiher was also there on the date of the Alice McKenzie murder on July 17th 1889. The records also show that two merchant vessels from the same line were also there on the date of the Frances Coles murder 13th February 1891. So now the investigation was moving towards the possibility that the killer could have been a German merchant seaman, but could I identify him?”

So you look for Feigenbaum in the lists but:

”On visiting the state archives in Bremen, Germany I discovered that all the crew lists for the Reiher and its voyages to London on all of the murder dates were all missing.”

You next say this:

”There are entries in the German merchant seaman’s register in the Bremen Archives for a Carl Feigenbaum born 1844. These show that up until 1878 he was employed as a merchant seaman for the Norddeutsche Line when they stopped keeping records. It should also be noted that in 1875, records show he deserted one ship in New York.”

So it can only be shown that Feigenbaum was a registered Merchant Seaman up until 1878. So you have to concede, in your own words Trevor:

”Sadly the entries for this register did not continue after 1878. So we can prove that Feigenbaum had worked as a fireman on German merchant ships owned by the same merchant fleet that operated vessels between Bremen and London at the time of the Whitechapel murders.”

A slightly misleading phrase. To put it more clearly - You have proven that Carl Feigenbaum worked for the Norddeutsche Line at least up until 1878 but you can’t prove that he worked for the company after that. You can’t prove show that this company had ships in London at the time of the murders though, which is hardly a surprise.

It also appears from your book that during his trial Feigenbaum was asked about where he had been and where he had lived leading him to list the places that he had been but with no mention of the UK or London.

You then checked under the name Anton Zahn because a box had been found in a room where he stayed containing papers in the name. Feigenbaum denied that the box although he later admitted that he had used the name and that Zahn was a ship’s Fireman on either the Emms or the Eider. In the crew lists of those two ships you found no mention of an Anton Zahn a Carl Zahn or a Carl Feigenbaum active between 1888 and 1894.

So to sum up Trevor.

Have you shown that Feigenbaum was still employed by the Norddeutsche Line after 1878? No you haven’t.
Have you shown that Feigenbaum was in the UK at the time of the murders (including Coles)? No you haven’t.
Have you shown that he could have come to England us in a Feigenbaum/Zahn alias? No you haven’t.

Basically Trevor, we have no evidence of Feigenbaum being in the UK at the time of the murders. All we have is an alleged, uncorroborated statement, taken by a solicitor (who went straight to the Press instead of the police) from a criminal who you yourself describe thus:

“It is known that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar as was proven at his trial and corroborated by the trial transcript, which I obtained in its entirety.”

It’s difficult to see how your case could be weaker Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

But you can’t prove that he was on that ship though. We just have to accept your word in a situation where it would be normal practice to provide evidence. I’m looking at the section of your book where you write about Feigenbaum for those on here who don’t have it or haven’t read it Trevor. You say:

“After combing through thousands of maritime records I discovered that a German merchant vessel belonging to the Norddeutsche Line and registered in Bremen named the Reiher was berthed in St Katherine’s Dock on all the murder dates save for September 30th. The reason it was not there on that date was the fact that it had been taken out of service for a time following a collision in the River Thames previously. However, another vessel the Sperber from the same line was there on that date. Furthermore, the Reiher was also there on the date of the Alice McKenzie murder on July 17th 1889. The records also show that two merchant vessels from the same line were also there on the date of the Frances Coles murder 13th February 1891. So now the investigation was moving towards the possibility that the killer could have been a German merchant seaman, but could I identify him?”

So you look for Feigenbaum in the lists but:

”On visiting the state archives in Bremen, Germany I discovered that all the crew lists for the Reiher and its voyages to London on all of the murder dates were all missing.”

You next say this:

”There are entries in the German merchant seaman’s register in the Bremen Archives for a Carl Feigenbaum born 1844. These show that up until 1878 he was employed as a merchant seaman for the Norddeutsche Line when they stopped keeping records. It should also be noted that in 1875, records show he deserted one ship in New York.”

So it can only be shown that Feigenbaum was a registered Merchant Seaman up until 1878. So you have to concede, in your own words Trevor:

”Sadly the entries for this register did not continue after 1878. So we can prove that Feigenbaum had worked as a fireman on German merchant ships owned by the same merchant fleet that operated vessels between Bremen and London at the time of the Whitechapel murders.”

A slightly misleading phrase. To put it more clearly - You have proven that Carl Feigenbaum worked for the Norddeutsche Line at least up until 1878 but you can’t prove that he worked for the company after that. You can’t prove show that this company had ships in London at the time of the murders though, which is hardly a surprise.

It also appears from your book that during his trial Feigenbaum was asked about where he had been and where he had lived leading him to list the places that he had been but with no mention of the UK or London.

You then checked under the name Anton Zahn because a box had been found in a room where he stayed containing papers in the name. Feigenbaum denied that the box although he later admitted that he had used the name and that Zahn was a ship’s Fireman on either the Emms or the Eider. In the crew lists of those two ships you found no mention of an Anton Zahn a Carl Zahn or a Carl Feigenbaum active between 1888 and 1894.

So to sum up Trevor.

Have you shown that Feigenbaum was still employed by the Norddeutsche Line after 1878? No you haven’t.
Have you shown that Feigenbaum was in the UK at the time of the murders (including Coles)? No you haven’t.
Have you shown that he could have come to England us in a Feigenbaum/Zahn alias? No you haven’t.

Basically Trevor, we have no evidence of Feigenbaum being in the UK at the time of the murders. All we have is an alleged, uncorroborated statement, taken by a solicitor (who went straight to the Press instead of the police) from a criminal who you yourself describe thus:

“It is known that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar as was proven at his trial and corroborated by the trial transcript, which I obtained in its entirety.”

It’s difficult to see how your case could be weaker Trevor?

Lawton invited the authorities to investigate Feigenbaum it seems that even the US police did not even investigate him for other murders in the US

The lawyer was in a difficult situation while Fegenabum was still alive, due to a client-lawyer confidentiality issue.

Documents I viewed showed that he was still employed by the German shipping line in 1891

Lawton didn't go straight to the press, he gave his interview after the execution

The compulsive liar relates to his movements in The US what reason would he have for lying about his movements prior to this

All in all he remains the No 1 suspect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

But we cannot say for sure, and she had her throat cut, and that doesn't detract from the fact that if she was a Ripper victim, the murders ceased thereafter coincidentally, when Feigenbaum left the sea and moved to the US. Where similar undetected murders occurred, leading to his subsequent arrest for murdering a woman by cutting her throat.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I never said we can't say for sure. However I think it highly unlikely. Therefore it's not much of a plus point for Feigenbaum.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lawton invited the authorities to investigate Feigenbaum it seems that even the US police did not even investigate him for other murders in the US

But he didn’t ’specifically’ contact the police. That’s not the act of a serious person. It’s the act of someone looking to make a few $$$.

The lawyer was in a difficult situation while Fegenabum was still alive, due to a client-lawyer confidentiality issue.

Documents I viewed showed that he was still employed by the German shipping line in 1891

So were thousands of others no doubt Trevor. Just because ships existed and that ships went to London it doesn’t show that Feigenbaum was on them.

Lawton didn't go straight to the press, he gave his interview after the execution

But he didn’t contact Scotland Yard or even the US police.

The compulsive liar relates to his movements in The US what reason would he have for lying about his movements prior to this

So he was only a ‘compulsive liar’ at certain times? The rest of the time he was a paragon of honesty.

All in all he remains the No 1 suspect

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless you can place him in the UK he shouldn’t be considered a suspect. We could find any murderers in any countries and say “well he could have travelled to England.” That’s wish-thinking Trevor. What would have been the response when you were in the job if you’d no item a guy who you couldn’t show was in the country at the time? Would your senior officer have said “no problem Trev, he might have come to England because ships exist…let’s charge him.” Or would have said “are you having a laugh?”

Come on Trevor, let’s not exaggerate Feigenbaum’s claim to being a suspect,

[Trevor Marriott]

Unless you can place him in the UK he shouldn’t be considered a suspect. We could find any murderers in any countries and say “well he could have travelled to England.” That’s wish-thinking Trevor. What would have been the response when you were in the job if you’d no item a guy who you couldn’t show was in the country at the time? Would your senior officer have said “no problem Trev, he might have come to England because ships exist…let’s charge him.” Or would have said “are you having a laugh?”

Come on Trevor, let’s not exaggerate Feigenbaum’s claim to being a suspect,

There is no exaggeration to him being classed as a suspect; he admitted he was here on the dates given to him by his lawyer, which I assume were the dates of the Ripper murders, and I saw and read a document which puts him here as late as 1891, the date of Frances Coles murder.

I know that the evidence I have put forward is only circumstantial, but even that far exceeds that of many of the other 100+ suspects, including your own favoured suspect.

I have to ask how many of the 100+ suspects can be placed in London at the time of the murders?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no exaggeration to him being classed as a suspect; he admitted he was here on the dates given to him by his lawyer, which I assume were the dates of the Ripper murders, and I saw and read a document which puts him here as late as 1891, the date of Frances Coles murder.

You keep changing on this one Trevor. You don’t mention seeing a document with his name on it proving that he was in London in your book Trevor. Only that you have seen evidence that he worked for the Norddeutscher Line and that those records only go as far as 1878. And separately, you have seen documents to suggest that the Norddeutscher Line had ships in London at the times of the murders. This isn’t proof that Feigenbaum was there. Surely you can see this?

I know that the evidence I have put forward is only circumstantial, but even that far exceeds that of many of the other 100+ suspects, including your own favoured suspect.

Any suspect that I might favour would have to be proven to have been in England at the time or I wouldn’t bother favouring him.

I have to ask how many of the 100+ suspects can be placed in London at the time of the murders?

I’m not even suggesting that you prove that he was in London. England would be a start.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can favour who you like of course Trevor but he can’t have killed these women from America.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can favour who you like of course Trevor but he can’t have killed these women from America.

He was not in America at the time of The Whitechapel murders

Feigenbaum’s brother John stated that he knew his brother had been travelling around the Midwest of America and mentioned Wisconsin and Chicago. This in itself now corroborates what Lawton told the press. His brother also confirmed that Feigenbaum had been working as a merchant seaman on a Bremen based ship but stated he then left the sea in 1892 and moved to America

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was not in America at the time of The Whitechapel murders

Feigenbaum’s brother John stated that he knew his brother had been travelling around the Midwest of America and mentioned Wisconsin and Chicago. This in itself now corroborates what Lawton told the press. His brother also confirmed that Feigenbaum had been working as a merchant seaman on a Bremen based ship but stated he then left the sea in 1892 and moved to America

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you keep raising these points which aren’t relevant. You cannot show that Carl Feigenbaum boarded and ship and went to England (something that you earlier claimed to have been able to do) and that he was there when the murders took place and nothing points to the fast that he did. If you can’t show that your suspect was in the same country that the murders took place then he falls at the very first hurdle.

[Lewis C]

I never said we can't say for sure. However I think it highly unlikely. Therefore it's not much of a plus point for Feigenbaum.

Agreed. The point that Trevor was making requires that Coles be a Ripper victim. If she wasn't, then the last Ripper murder was probably either in July 1889 or November 1888, and in either case, there's no argument for a coincidental timing with Feigenbaum leaving the sea in 1892.

[Lewis C]

I have to ask how many of the 100+ suspects can be placed in London at the time of the murders?

Bury, Chapman, Levy, Cohen, Aaron Kosminski, Le Grand, Cutbush, Hutchinson, Hyams, Bachert, and I believe Buckley and Hanslope can be placed in London at the time of the murders.

Deeming, Druitt, and I believe Kelly can be placed in England at the time of the murders.

I don't think much of Tumblety, Barnett, Cross, or Richardson as suspects, but they were in the London area at the time.

Stephenson and Mann were in the London area at the time, but their circumstances make me think it very unlikely that either could have committed the murders.

[GBinOz]

I think in terms of comparing victims, the 2 most similar are Chapman and Eddowes.

The chances of 2 different men being responsible for the murders of Chapman and Eddowes respectively, is as close to zero as you can get.

Hi RD,

I beg to differ.

While the injuries to the two women were superficially similar, the finer detail is distinctly dissimilar.

The throat cut, opening of the abdomen and mobilisation of the intestines is common in both instances. The deviation around the navel was visible in Eddowes case, but that portion of the abdomen was absent in Chapman's case.

The uterus was removed in the Chapman case by a single sweep of the knife without regard to collateral damage. This is typical of a butcher's technique. In the Eddowes case the uterus was surgically removed without damaging the bladder. Prosector made this comment on the method used to gain access to the kidney:

a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if they have to excise the descending colon. Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again but it is not a manoeuvre that would instinctively occur to someone who had not previously observed it I think.

The Eddowes case also exhibited attacks to the face which were not evident in Chapman's case.

Were it not for the mobilising of the small intestine, which he did in both the Chapman and the Eddowes cases using the method that is used by medical students in dissecting the human body and by surgeons and pathologists, namely dividing the root of the mesentery, I might conclude that Chapman's murder may have been by someone LIKE Levy, and Eddowes by someone LIKE Thompson. There in resides the puzzlement.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi RD,

I beg to differ.

While the injuries to the two women were superficially similar, the finer detail is distinctly dissimilar.

The throat cut, opening of the abdomen and mobilisation of the intestines is common in both instances. The deviation around the navel was visible in Eddowes case, but that portion of the abdomen was absent in Chapman's case.

The uterus was removed in the Chapman case by a single sweep of the knife without regard to collateral damage. This is typical of a butcher's technique. In the Eddowes case the uterus was surgically removed without damaging the bladder. Prosector made this comment on the method used to gain access to the kidney:

a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if they have to excise the descending colon. Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again but it is not a manoeuvre that would instinctively occur to someone who had not previously observed it I think.

The Eddowes case also exhibited attacks to the face which were not evident in Chapman's case.

Were it not for the mobilising of the small intestine, which he did in both the Chapman and the Eddowes cases using the method that is used by medical students in dissecting the human body and by surgeons and pathologists, namely dividing the root of the mesentery, I might conclude that Chapman's murder may have been by someone LIKE Levy, and Eddowes by someone LIKE Thompson. There in resides the puzzlement.

Cheers, George

There's a much bigger puzzle if thats the case George, ......TIME.

[paul g]

Was Druit playing cricket somewhere when one of the murders were committed.
If my memory serves me well it was pretty much drawn to a conclusion that If he was at cricket then he couldn’t be Jack.
No one produced conclusive evidence that he was or was not at said cricket match.
So inconclusive evidence to his where abouts for a particular murder but he’s allowed in.
who’s setting the bar here , what are the rules ?

[c.d.]

Hello Paul,

Sugden does a nice job of discussing this very issue in his The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. After a very thorough analysis involving game times, train schedules etc. his conclusion is that Druitt cannot be ruled out based on his cricket match. Memory is fuzzy but there is evidence he did play.

c.d.

[GBinOz]

Hello Paul,

Sugden does a nice job of discussing this very issue in his The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. After a very thorough analysis involving game times, train schedules etc. his conclusion is that Druitt cannot be ruled out based on his cricket match. Memory is fuzzy but there is evidence he did play.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

The "cannot be ruled out" relates to probabilities rather than possibilities, and the possibility of miracles..

Examples:
1. In the Charlie Kirk murder the official story is that he was shot in the neck from 140 yards with a 30-06, and there was no exit wound. This calibre has been used to hunt deer, buffalo, bear and elephant, and there is always a catastrophic exit wound. But the possibility of a steel spinal column or a miracle "cannot be ruled out".

2. I was sitting at a traffic light when a fully loaded Mac 18 wheeler travelling at 60mph had a brake failure and crashed into the back of my Volkswagen Beetle. Miraculously my steel tow bar stopped the truck in its tracks and the only damage was a broken tail light. This has the same credibility of being "unable to be ruled out" as example 1.

The Druitt "cannot be ruled out" fits in the same genre. A desperate attempt to retain a theory that has zero credibility. That said, I find Druitt, and his surrounding circumstances, to be an extremely interesting player in this mystery. I don't think he was JtR, but consider he is "unable to be ruled out" as a player in the jigsaw.

Cheers, George