Rating The Suspects.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lewis C
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I remember it being discussed on here but I don’t recall the details tbh Lewis. I’d certainly love to see the case for Chapman not being a ripper victim but I guess that pretty much everything has been suggested at some point.
    I know that some have suggested that there was no Ripper, meaning that every Whitechapel murder was committed by a different killer. Of those that think that there was a killer with multiple victims, I don't remember anyone saying that Chapman wasn't one of those victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

    It looks to me that we do know that Sickert was in France before and after the Chapman murder, but I suppose that if we only have to account for one murder, there's an outside chance he could have gone to England and then back to France without us knowing it. And maybe someone would argue that maybe Chapman wasn't a Ripper murder, though that someone wouldn't be me.
    I remember it being discussed on here but I don’t recall the details tbh Lewis. I’d certainly love to see the case for Chapman not being a ripper victim but I guess that pretty much everything has been suggested at some point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Yes and we know for a fact that Sickert did return to England but it looks like we just can’t pin down exactly when. The best that can be said about Feigenbaum is that it’s not physically impossible that he could have come to England but this is the same approach that Dale Larner takes with Van Gogh.
    It looks to me that we do know that Sickert was in France before and after the Chapman murder, but I suppose that if we only have to account for one murder, there's an outside chance he could have gone to England and then back to France without us knowing it. And maybe someone would argue that maybe Chapman wasn't a Ripper murder, though that someone wouldn't be me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

    I guess the counter-argument would be that Sickert was in France, but Feigenbaum was in the US, which is much further?
    Yes and we know for a fact that Sickert did return to England but it looks like we just can’t pin down exactly when. The best that can be said about Feigenbaum is that it’s not physically impossible that he could have come to England but this is the same approach that Dale Larner takes with Van Gogh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I’m the same with Sickert though to a much lesser extent Lewis.
    I guess the counter-argument would be that Sickert was in France, but Feigenbaum was in the US, which is much further?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
    I could even accept something less than complete certainty that he was in England at the time if that's clearly the most likely scenario. However, if someone lived in the US but could have been in England because he was a seaman, that's not good enough for me. But again, I have just as much of a problem with Sickert, who we know was in France on 3 or 4 days during the period of the 1st 4 C5 murders, and I believe no evidence that he ever left France during that period.
    I’m the same with Sickert though to a much lesser extent Lewis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    I could even accept something less than complete certainty that he was in England at the time if that's clearly the most likely scenario. However, if someone lived in the US but could have been in England because he was a seaman, that's not good enough for me. But again, I have just as much of a problem with Sickert, who we know was in France on 3 or 4 days during the period of the 1st 4 C5 murders, and I believe no evidence that he ever left France during that period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    I think the following article from 1896, and the fact it mentions Jack the Ripper, should be enough to confirm an authentic association/connection with Jack the Ripper and Feigenbaum...


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Worcestershire_Chronicle_02_May_1896_0003_Clip.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	69.2 KB
ID:	861118

    The sheer mention of Feigenbaum in this context should allow him to be permitted into/remain on, the list of suspects on this thread.


    Just my opinion of course.
    Then should we should call Ameer Ben Ali a ‘ripper suspect’ because he was actually convicted and sentenced for the murder of Carrie Brown, Chris?

    If you read CJ Morley’s suspect book he has over 500 names most of whom are just men who claimed to have been the ripper or who accused by someone of being the ripper. I’m not going to remove Feigenbaum from the list because I’ll just get post after post accusing me of doing it just because it’s Trevor’s suspect but I’ll say this….we apply various criteria to suspects and the absolute ‘should go without saying one’ would have to be ‘proven to have been in the same country at the same time that the murders occurred.’ We can’t say this for Feigenbaum.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    I think the following article from 1896, and the fact it mentions Jack the Ripper, should be enough to confirm an authentic association/connection with Jack the Ripper and Feigenbaum...


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Worcestershire_Chronicle_02_May_1896_0003_Clip.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	69.2 KB
ID:	861118

    The sheer mention of Feigenbaum in this context should allow him to be permitted into/remain on, the list of suspects on this thread.


    Just my opinion of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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?!?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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 !!!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X