Rating The Suspects.

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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 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]

And even if Feigenbaum was in London in 1891, Coles probably wasn't a Ripper murder. I'd be more interested in evidence that he was in London in August - November of 1888.

What i find curious is that Trevor hasn’t responded to my request. Maybe he’s looking for the relevant piece of information? Or has he simply made an assumption - Feigenbaum was still on the books of that shipping company, that company had a ship in London at that time in 1891, so he has assumed that Feigenbaum’s was on it. I’m not saying that this is the case; Trevor may indeed have proof of Feigenbaum’s presence in London but it’s a little strange that six hours after I asked he still hasn’t provided it.

[Lewis C]

And even if Feigenbaum was in London in 1891, Coles probably wasn't a Ripper murder. I'd be more interested in evidence that he was in London in August - November of 1888.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Feigenbaum worked mainly for The Nordeuctcher Line, which operated several vessels between German seaports and London at the time of the murders. It is known that he used different aliases. His brother told the press that he gave up the sea in 1892 and moved to The US, which would coincide with the cessation of the Whitechapel murders and other murders in The US commenced. I am aware of other merchant lines he also worked for but I am not able to elaborate as this information came via his brother, who was a resident in The US at the time of his trial there.

Here are further quotes from his lawyer and the district attorney who prosecuted him

Lawton then stated, “I later questioned him closely and found that he could converse with intelligence on surgery and dissection. When I asked if he knew anything about these subjects he would feign an ignorance that was unnatural. The man was a devil,” concluded Mr. Lawton. “His motive for crime was his frightful desire for mutilation. I will stake my professional reputation that if the police will trace this man's movements carefully for the last few years their investigations will lead them to London and to Whitechapel. He had been all over Europe and much of this country. He seemed on first acquaintance to be simple-minded, almost imbecile, yet the man was crafty beyond measure. He had means of his own, as was proved by a will he made before his death, yet he always professed extreme poverty.”

Assistant District Attorney Vernon M. Davis, who prosecuted Feigenbaum, said: “If it were proved that Feigenbaum was 'Jack the Ripper' it would not greatly surprise me, because I always considered him a cunning fellow, surrounded by a great deal of mystery, and his life history was never found out. The case was an odd one, and the People had to furnish a motive for the murder. This was the money which was kept in Mrs. Hoffman's closet or trunk.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

What about this question that I asked in the last post?

“Obviously it’s not proof that he was in London just because he worked for a shipping company that had ships in London at the time but you say that you can prove that he was in London in 1891. You say in your book that you had seen a list: “which showed a Carl Feigenbaum was still employed by this merchant line, and he was in London on one of their ships in 1891” Why didn’t you show the list proving that he was in London in 1891?“

You can probably guess what I’m wondering Trevor. Did you see an actual list for a specific trip from the USA to London with Feigenbaum’s name on it? (I have to ask why you didn’t photograph it?) Or did you find that Feigenbaum was still on the shipping company’s books as an employee and then subsequently you found that the company had a ship docking in London at that time?

Feigenbaum worked mainly for The Nordeuctcher Line, which operated several vessels between German seaports and London at the time of the murders. It is known that he used different aliases. His brother told the press that he gave up the sea in 1892 and moved to The US, which would coincide with the cessation of the Whitechapel murders and other murders in The US commenced. I am aware of other merchant lines he also worked for but I am not able to elaborate as this information came via his brother, who was a resident in The US at the time of his trial there.

Here are further quotes from his lawyer and the district attorney who prosecuted him

Lawton then stated, “I later questioned him closely and found that he could converse with intelligence on surgery and dissection. When I asked if he knew anything about these subjects he would feign an ignorance that was unnatural. The man was a devil,” concluded Mr. Lawton. “His motive for crime was his frightful desire for mutilation. I will stake my professional reputation that if the police will trace this man's movements carefully for the last few years their investigations will lead them to London and to Whitechapel. He had been all over Europe and much of this country. He seemed on first acquaintance to be simple-minded, almost imbecile, yet the man was crafty beyond measure. He had means of his own, as was proved by a will he made before his death, yet he always professed extreme poverty.”

Assistant District Attorney Vernon M. Davis, who prosecuted Feigenbaum, said: “If it were proved that Feigenbaum was 'Jack the Ripper' it would not greatly surprise me, because I always considered him a cunning fellow, surrounded by a great deal of mystery, and his life history was never found out. The case was an odd one, and the People had to furnish a motive for the murder. This was the money which was kept in Mrs. Hoffman's closet or trunk.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Feigenbaum never confessed to being JTR. He confessed to having the urge to kill and mutilate women and that is a fact by reason of the murder he committed and was subsequently executed for.
The link to him being JTR came from enqs carried out by his lawyer who clearly suspected him of previous murders in the US and then linked him to JTR.
On another note Feigenbaum had served in the Prussian Army and would have no doubt learnt how to cut someone's throat silently !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What about this question that I asked in the last post?

“Obviously it’s not proof that he was in London just because he worked for a shipping company that had ships in London at the time but you say that you can prove that he was in London in 1891. You say in your book that you had seen a list: “which showed a Carl Feigenbaum was still employed by this merchant line, and he was in London on one of their ships in 1891” Why didn’t you show the list proving that he was in London in 1891?“

You can probably guess what I’m wondering Trevor. Did you see an actual list for a specific trip from the USA to London with Feigenbaum’s name on it? (I have to ask why you didn’t photograph it?) Or did you find that Feigenbaum was still on the shipping company’s books as an employee and then subsequently you found that the company had a ship docking in London at that time?

[Trevor Marriott]

CJ Morley’s book is full of people that confessed to being the ripper Trevor.

But Feigenbaum never confessed to being JTR. He confessed to having the urge to kill and mutilate women and that is a fact by reason of the murder he committed and was subsequently executed for.
The link to him being JTR came from enqs carried out by his lawyer who clearly suspected him of previous murders in the US and then linked him to JTR.
On another note Feigenbaum had served in the Prussian Army and would have no doubt learnt how to cut someone's throat silently !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk