Plausibility of Kosminski

[Jonathan H]

To Garry Wroe

Well you do have a 'Druitt theory' -- you just put it.

A theory is not different from a belief, although you can entertain, and express a theory, or point of view, which you do not necessarily, personally, agree with, eg a lawyer, debating, the company line, Cabinet solidarity, and so on.

So, as I wrote before, we disagree.

Do you mind, though, as this this a 'Kosminski' thread if we could get back on topic?

[Wickerman]

...In Le Grand we have a man with an excellent knowledge of the East End, evidence of potential murder, proof of attempted murder, proof of woman-hating, ...

Tom, do you have any evidence or indication LeGrand used a knife in threatening behavior?
Do you know if he used any means of subduing a person, as with a garrott?
Do you have any samples of his handwriting?

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick, I'm not putting you off, but I don't want to disrupt the 'Plauz of Koz' thread with Le Grand talk. My question to Phil was more to try to understand where HE was coming from. You're welcome to PM me though.

Phil,

I suppose I don't understand why someone has to have been proved to have been a woman murderer to count as a suspect. In the case of Le Grand, he hit prison within months of the Kelly murder and when he got out in 1891, he was dogged by police for the 5 months he was free, and then tossed away again until well into the 20th century. When during this time was he supposed to have brutally murdered women, and surely if he'd been caught butchering women PRIOR to the Ripper slayings, he wouldn't have been a free man? In short, Jack the Ripper was good at what he did, which is why he wasn't caught. And he most certainly resembled Pipeman.

As for the lack of discussion about him in the press and the Memoranda, the press had their hands tied, and I'm sure you'd agree that Mac would have been insane to have attempted to divert attention away from a suspect allegedly (but wrongly) stated to have been related to a Supe of police, by pointing them in the direction of a suspect who had been on the police payroll, investigated beside them in the WVC, was employed by the Times newspaper, and possibly had connections to royal persons or government figures.

But I digress. This certainly isn't the place for a Le Grand discussion. I just wanted to square up on where you stand with the suspects as a whole.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

I personally discredit Le Grande because he too was not known to have actually killed anyone,...

....his violence is more thug-like behaviour than that of a multi-murdering woman slasher. He hasn't as far as I am aware, attacked and cut up any woman with a knife, ...

To be fair, everyone who was known to have cut someone up with a knife is already in the nick..., or in the ground.

he does not match any witness sighting as a suspect at any of the C5 murder scenes as given to us in witness statements,

Equally, to be fair, no two witness descriptions seem to be alike.

So the obvious question, if one is to believe the word of MM.. is why he (Le Grande) wasn't listed at all?

The East End was a hotbed of thugery, LeGrand might seem out of the ordinary to us in our more controlled society but he may have been quite at home and blend into the masses of the late 19th century East End.
Besides, I think these latter compiled police suspicions were barking up the wrong tree.

Regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

Actually, Stewart, no 3 on your list (or, rather, the application of rigour) should eliminate or reduce the risks of no 1 so that even the author of a suspect book can - and should - be unbiased in their assessment of their material. If that assessment leads them to a conclusion then it is legitimate, up to a point, to interpret and argue in the context of that conclusion. It's been a while since I read The Lodger, but I seem to recall that this is what you did with the information available to you, most of which was emerging as you wrote and did not afforded you the time for the sot of considered analysis people can indulge in today.

Thanks for that Paul. Yes, even with a suspect-based book an author should be objective in his assessment of the source material and, of course, adhere to the known facts (so far as they go).

When Paul and I wrote that book back in 1994 we were mere tyros, and it shows. Prior to and during the writing of the book we received valuable help and advice from Phil Sugden. It was greatly appreciated. However, as I have stated before, on more than one occasion, I would rather not have been writing as suspect-based book as my first effort. It goes without saying, I think, that the only reason that we were so quickly accepted for publication by a major publisher (Century, Random House, and at the time of acceptance we hadn't written a single word of the manuscript) was the fact that we had a genuine contemporary suspect who had never been found before. It was pure serendipity that I had bought the Littlechild letter and it was based on no great research by myself nor on any quality of my writing or renown in the field.

It was difficult. Research methods were primitive compared to now and neither of us was on the Internet which was also primitive research-wise then, anyway. In my favour was the fact that I had been reading and researching the subject (in a desultory manner) for over thirty years already and I knew such knowledgeable folk as Phil, Don, Robin, Richard, Martin, Keith and your good self.

The most difficult thing in writing the book was maintaining objectivity whilst trying to present a plausible hypothetical case for the subject being the Ripper. Which was what the publishers obviously wanted to see. Selectivity in using press reports was unavoidable, to a degree, as you obviously have to use ones that, on information available, you see as being possibly relevant to your suspect. Invention we avoided like the plague but, obviously, a lot of personal interpretation is involved, which is shown as such. I have learnt a lot since then!

[PaulB]

I notice that you havent chosen to comment on Insp Moores statement I referred to in an earlier post. This is very important because he was in charge of the investigation on the ground after Swanson had returned back to his office in Scotland yard...

Returned to his office at Scotland Yard?

and anything of importance or new devleopments would have come his way first as it would have been his responsibilty to bring any new developments to the notice of Swanson. Yet there is no mention of any major or significant breakthroughs in line with any of the three new suspects. Clearly he had no agenda.

You may have noticed, Trevor, that in the files as we have them there is no mention of many suspects at all, so either there never were any suspects, which we know wasn't the case, or the files on those suspects are missing. In your experience as a policeman would you say that information pertaining to particular suspects would have gone from Moore via Swanson and whoever into a file? And would you also agree that if said file no longer exists that this cannot be taken as indicating that Moore didn't bring any new developments to anybody's attention? And that that embraces Feigenbaum, who isn't even hinted at in the extant documentation, as well as anyone else?

Look at it another way if all we had was this from Moore and nothing else everyone over the years would have been running around like headless chickems trying to put a name to a mad sailor. Would you have stil been saying wel he was one of Scotland Yards finest so he must be correct of course you would.

Of course people would have been trying to put a name to the mad sailor. Moore is an important source, respected by his contemporaries and informed about the investigation. As for whether or not one would be saying "he must be correct", that's a different matter as it depends on what you mean: yes, I would have no doubt that Moore genuinely thought the mad sailor theory a plausible explanation for the murders; no, I wouldn't say Moore was right and the mad sailor was Jack the Ripper, but then again I don't say that about any source; and I think it highly probable that Moore was referring to the E.K. Larkins' theory, which had gathered some support among the likes of Montagu Williams and others.

So let me turn it around for you. Lets say Moore was correct because I am sure he just didnt come out with that remark off the top of his head they must have had some suspicion, and we explore the possibiltes and who do we come up with Feigenabum. I dont want to turn this therad into another feigenbaum dispute but to make a point in relation to the thread in question being discussed,

What is there which might connect Feigenbaum.
1. he was a known killer
2. the way he killed was consistent with the way some of the women were
murdered here in London
2. he carried a long bladed knife.
3. he was a merchant seaman
4. He was known to work for a merchant line which sailed boats between
Germany and The UK at the time of the murders
4. He was mad.
5. he was suspected by his lawyer following conversations with him and enquiries
he had caried out himself and is alleged to have admitted to being in
Whitechapel on rthe dates of the murders.

All of those put together are pretty good reasons for placing him high on the prime suspect list as being concerned in one, some or all of the murders. Although I do not subscribe to the theory that all of these murders were the work of the same person.

Yes, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Feigenbaum was suspected of being Jack the Ripper by anyone other than his lawyer, or that he was responsible for any murder apart from Hofmann's, nothing of Feigenbaum's alleged murderous insanity was made at his trial or afterwards when his lawyer was seeking a stay of execution, and there is nothing to back up any of the claims against him, such as clear evidence that he was in the East End where the murders were committed, and so on and so on. Does that make Feigenbaum a "prime suspect"? Nope. I'm afraid it doesn't. But I'm happy to let others decide. And, of course, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Feigenbaum was the mad sailor referred to by Moore, a more likely candidate, as said, being E.K. Larkins' man.

So really as far as your Kosminski Druit and Ostrog and Cutbush are concerned I think that they are burnt toast now in the bin

I'm sure you do think they are burnt toast and in the bin, but then unfortunately all four were suspected by the police of being Jack the Ripper, whereas Feigenbaum was not, or, indeed, as far as we know suspected by anyone other than his lawyer, so it is necessary for you to rid the field of other contenders in order for Feigenbaum to take a shot at the title. Hence you shout loudly about them being toast, but as yet have produced nothing of substance in support.

[PaulB]

You are ducking and diving now firmly on the back foot

Not at all, Trevor. I was just trying to be helpful.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not at all, Trevor. I was just trying to be helpful.

Of course you were Paul in your own inimitable and unbiased way

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspects

...
You may have noticed, Trevor, that in the files as we have them there is no mention of many suspects at all, so either there never were any suspects, which we know wasn't the case, or the files on those suspects are missing. In your experience as a policeman would you say that information pertaining to particular suspects would have gone from Moore via Swanson and whoever into a file? And would you also agree that if said file no longer exists that this cannot be taken as indicating that Moore didn't bring any new developments to anybody's attention? And that that embraces Feigenbaum, who isn't even hinted at in the extant documentation, as well as anyone else?
...

Swanson's report of 19th October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C f158, states that about 80 persons had been detained at various police stations and that the movements of upwards of 300 others had been investigated in the period from 30th September to 19th October alone. That means over 380 suspected persons and how many can we name? A mere 14 or so. So we still have around 366 to discover. That is the extent of our lack of knowledge of suspects for that period alone.

[Stewart P Evans]

Irony

Of course you were Paul in your own inimitable and unbiased way

The delicious irony of this, of course, is that Paul was trying to be helpful.

[Trevor Marriott]

Returned to his office at Scotland Yard?



You may have noticed, Trevor, that in the files as we have them there is no mention of many suspects at all, so either there never were any suspects, which we know wasn't the case, or the files on those suspects are missing. In your experience as a policeman would you say that information pertaining to particular suspects would have gone from Moore via Swanson and whoever into a file? And would you also agree that if said file no longer exists that this cannot be taken as indicating that Moore didn't bring any new developments to anybody's attention? And that that embraces Feigenbaum, who isn't even hinted at in the extant documentation, as well as anyone else?

Just because a modern day suspect isnt mentioned in a file doesnt mean he was not resposible. You only have to look at cold case file investigations suspects come to light via many different sources most of which never came to notice at the time of the original offence.

You keep sidestepping the obvious and that is if there ever was a file as you refer to and it contained important information why would Moore make the statement that he did suggesting they suspected a mad sailor and mention no one else. As I said he is as important to negating the Kosminkis saga as you suggest swanson and Anderson are to keeping it going. So now at this point the scales are evenly balanced. The we have all the other Merry men in their memoirs also stating they did not have a clue as to the identity. I emphasise identity, to me that would mean we didnt even know a name and whatever you think and belive that is fact they did not have aby idea and i would go sia far as to say even reasonable suspicion had they any then that might have prompted an expansion on the suspect issue.

Of course people would have been trying to put a name to the mad sailor. Moore is an important source, respected by his contemporaries and informed about the investigation. As for whether or not one would be saying "he must be correct", that's a different matter as it depends on what you mean: yes, I would have no doubt that Moore genuinely thought the mad sailor theory a plausible explanation for the murders; no, I wouldn't say Moore was right and the mad sailor was Jack the Ripper, but then again I don't say that about any source; and I think it highly probable that Moore was referring to the E.K. Larkins' theory, which had gathered some support among the likes of Montagu Williams and others.

But who are you to question whether he was right or wrong clearly he made the statement so why should he be wrong it was no a stab in the dark sorry for the pun. or if it was it was said in the absence of anyhtong concrete about anyone else

Yes, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Feigenbaum was suspected of being Jack the Ripper by anyone other than his lawyer, or that he was responsible for any murder apart from Hofmann's, nothing of Feigenbaum's alleged murderous insanity was made at his trial or afterwards when his lawyer was seeking a stay of execution, and there is nothing to back up any of the claims against him, such as clear evidence that he was in the East End where the murders were committed, and so on and so on. Does that make Feigenbaum a "prime suspect"? Nope. I'm afraid it doesn't. But I'm happy to let others decide. And, of course, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Feigenbaum was the mad sailor referred to by Moore, a more likely candidate, as said, being E.K. Larkins' man.

I am the first to accept that there was no evidence at the time regarding Feigenbaum but it is clear that if he was the killer given his circumastances as a sailor returning to his ship what suspicion would have been cast on him at the time.

As to his insanity the mad issue was not just raised as defence at his trial in fact it never was rasied at his trial. However following the Hoffman murder when sent on remand to prison his prison entry form has an entry which decsribes him as being mad.

As to Larkins his initial theory could have been correct but not with cattle boats. Sadly the police again were blinkered in this line of enquiry. Had they gone down the same line of investiagtion as I did then they would have had been able to expand this theory in much more detail.

I'm sure you do think they are burnt toast and in the bin, but then unfortunately all four were suspected by the police of being Jack the Ripper, whereas Feigenbaum was not, or, indeed, as far as we know suspected by anyone other than his lawyer, so it is necessary for you to rid the field of other contenders in order for Feigenbaum to take a shot at the title. Hence you shout loudly about them being toast, but as yet have produced nothing of substance in support.

I think the field of other contenders has been got rid of now

[mariab]

post contains a very brief mention of Le Grand

Hi Phil. {...} To discredit Le Grand, you say ‘Well, he’s not in the Memoranda’, but it’s clear that if he WERE one of the Macnaghten 3, you’d somehow see that as proof that he wasn’t a good suspect. I hope you can understand why this might cause confusion.

Or better yet Phil, you know about my suspicions pertaining to Ostrog being in the MM in a possible “connection“ to Le Grand, and I'm researching this currently.

I also have a problem with anyone locked up at the time he was, yet the "Ripper" investigation carried on afterwards, and comments on the supposed killer for 20 years afterwards from many major players in the police either do not mention him, or say they had no idea who the killer was anyway.

Phil, these points have been addressed by several posters already. Even with an alleged suspect “safely locked away“, due to lacking evidence, the impossibility to go to trial, and the Coles' murder, the Whitechapel murders investigation was still going on. It would have been negligent for the police to have stopped. Police secrecy pertaining to suspects when lacking evidence is not hard to understand either.

given Le Grande's criminal record.. he would, and should, be head and shoulders above those three as a suspect. You don't have to be a policeman to work that one out. So the obvious question, if one is to believe the word of MM is why he (Le Grande) wasn't listed at all? As I see it, either the conclusion was that Le Grande was not the type of criminal MM thought of as a possibility, or, equally likely, MM was basing his evaluation on unrealistic suspects, for reasons nobody knows and we can only try to guess at. Whatever the answer, it doesn't do the Memoranda any favours does it?

Working on this, via Ostrog. I have a few ideas, but it's too early to say.

Yes, even with a suspect-based book an author should be objective in his assessment of the source material and, of course, adhere to the known facts (so far as they go). {...} The most difficult thing in writing the book was maintaining objectivity whilst trying to present a plausible hypothetical case for the subject being the Ripper. Which was what the publishers obviously wanted to see. Selectivity in using press reports was unavoidable, to a degree, as you obviously have to use ones that, on information available, you see as being possibly relevant to your suspect. Invention we avoided like the plague but, obviously, a lot of personal interpretation is involved, which is shown as such.

This is precisely what should be considered as the right approach for a suspect book.

Swanson's report of 19th October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C f158, states that about 80 persons had been detained at various police stations and that the movements of upwards of 300 others had been investigated in the period from 30th September to 19th October alone. That means over 380 suspected persons and how many can we name? A mere 14 or so. So we still have around 366 to discover. That is the extent of our lack of knowledge of suspects for that period alone.

Fascinating. This puts it all in perspective, doesn't it?

[Stephen Thomas]

Only Kosminski is known to have been local.. but his only known crime is for walking a dog without a leash!

Hi Phil

A slight correction here. He was arrested for walking an unmuzzled dog.

There was a rabies scare at the time.

The judge was the magnificently named Alderman Sir Polydore De Keyser.

Kozza was fined 10 bob.

[PaulB]

Which is why we cannot count any of these three as a potential killer. And if one argues one cannot discount them either.. then on that basis you, me and Fred Bloggs are potential killers. How many parents have said they would rip a person to pieces if a pedophile touched one of their kids?.. Most parents have, or thought it. So we are all potentially murderers. But evidence that we DID kill someone.. that's a different matter.. and we ARE talking about three historical figures. They didn't kill anyone, and there is no tangible evidence to show they ever did.

You can and must count all three as potential killers. The difference between you, me, and Fred Bloggs is that nobody has suspected us of being a murderer or elevated us to the position of actually being a murderer. The Macnaghten 3 have been, and by an informed senior policeman who publicly conjectured that one of them actually was Jack the Ripper.

When you say there is no "tangible evidence", what you mean is that we don't know why Macnaghten suspected Druitt. Well, of course we don't, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any, but, of course, your argument is that Macnaghten was a total noodlebrain who threw out wild and baseless accusations without cause or reason.

This is opinion. You yourself have said, opinion is worth diddly squat. I can think that Theakstons Old Peculier is the greatest beer ever produced. But that is opinion also. It means nothing.

I haven't said that opinion is worth diddly squat. On the contrary, I have said that informed opinion is extremely valuable and must be given serious consideration.

Yes. I am suggesting we dump Druitt in the waste bin. Likewise Kosminski. Likewise Ostrog.

Fine, then you are accepting the corollary that Macnaghten, Anderson et al were indeed total noodlebrains who threw out wild and baseless accusations without cause or reason. When people come asking for the proof you have for this serious accusation, I hope it doesn't prove to be wild and baseless!

The burden of proof is on those proving he had something to do with the East End, and the murders. People are presumed innocent until such burden of proof is shown. No evidence of being a potential murderer, no evidence of attempted murder. No evidence of woman-hating. No tangible evidence against any of the MM3. Ergo no proof. Waste bin.

Well, apart from this being history and not a court of law and the rules being a little different, the burden of proof does rest with the person making the accusation, and in this particular instance the person making the accusation is you; you are therefore the person who must supply the proof. Let's make this clear, you are saying that Macnaghten and Anderson and so on were so dim from the neck up that they would randomly plucke any old name out of the ether and for no reason at all declare he was Jack the Ripper. That claim needs a lot of supportive evidence. Where is it?

This is based on assumption that Macnaghten had a reason.

Yes it does, and frankly I think it is a far more probable assumption than your claim that Macnaghten was a thicko who accused people of being the Ripper without any reason for doing so.

As we cannot establish this as fact. it becomes speculation.

Yep. Except, of course, Macnaghten actually says that his conclusion was based on information privately received, so if we are to say that Macnaghten had no reason for suspecting Druitt then we'd be calling Macnaghten a liar as well as a thicko who threw out baseless accusations.

You want to present factual historical accuracy. That cannot be done using presumption and speculation based on unknown factors. Historians base their assessments on substantiated happenings. Macnaghten's comments are not substantiated by any known fact on any of these three people. It is his opinion...and that is not historically evidential fact. Ergo, it is, as opinion, as you said earlier, worthless. Waste bin.

Actually, historians do not always "base their assessments on substantiated happenings". In fact, quite often they do not, but that is by-the-by. What we have is an intelligent and informed source, contemporary with the events he describes, who was well able to evaluate material received. His conclusions are therefore an important and valuable source, albeit that we don't know the evidence upon which they were based.

Of course, you claim that Macnaghten threw out baseless accusations, that there was no evidence or reason for the conclusions he reached, and that therefore as a source we should bin him.

What I am saying Paul, is that these men were all without any known evidence, and their comments, and to use your words again here.."makes the most sense" in relation to covering their backsides about NOT catching the murderer(s) of these poor women that is probably still the greatest unsolved killing spree known to the police. THAT makes most sense to me. Its a covering excercise to show the police in a good light, and in Anderson and Swanson's case, their reputations. To me, and others, it is the most logical reasoning. Had they produced one iota of evidence against any of these men actually BEING a killer.. I, and others, would view it differently.

Well, of course, if these men threw out baseless accusations about men whose names they plucked out of the ether then you'd be right, and why they said what they said would be largely academic. However, if they did have reasons for the conclusions they reached, whether they were expressing those conclusions to cover their backsides or not doesn't impinge on the validity of the conclusion itself. And, of course, it still has to be demonstrated that either man felt he had to cover his backside. Anderson, despite the list of quotes kindly provided by Stewart a few posts back, specifically denied that he did.

So therefore evidencially, being unable to assess and evaluate the comments themselves makes them unworthy of consideration. Ergo.. this is NOT evidence. It is uncorroberated opinion, and should be treated as such. As you said. Opinion matters not, historically speaking.

As said, I haven't said "opinion matters not". Informed opinion from people who were there and were in a position to know is valuable and important. The fact that we can't assess and evaluate the reasons on which they based their opinion does not make it unworthy of consideration.

Stewart has in part answered this already regarding the evaluation of the sources. I can only add that the feeling I have is that because the sources provide no evidence of any person actually having killed anyone, we cannot call the sources factually reliable based on un-corroberated opinions.

Well, this is just a repetition of what you have already said.

The point here is that as an historian, and as a respected author, your views and interpretations regarding Anderson in particular, have not been left open. You have previously championed Anderson's words vehemently.

These views have been challenged, by others. Leaving the door open, regarding Macnaughten, avoids the fact that AT PRESENT, there is no basis of proof in what he says to name any of his three as a killer. So what are you leaving the door open for? That's all well and good if you know of other pieces of evidence yet to come into the public eye from this man. But at present? Waste bin, I personally surmise.

Good logical reasoning says that without any further additions from the source, based upon what he has given us, it is opinion only. That is how I approach this so-called "evidence".

Yes Paul. And it is here that I use some types of education as a barrier to expanded thought. I attended school in the 1960's and 1970's. In doing mathematical algebra, we were TOLD that one had a 5 line process to work out an equation. Some of us presented our work as a three line process. We were TOLD, by the maths "master", that was NOT how it was done, even though the result and answer was correct. We were TOLD that it had been done for centuries in this way.. and that was that. "Shut up and do as I say. I know best. How dare you question the methodology that has been used for many many years!!!"

To my complete astonishment, and just by chance, two years ago, the mathematical bods at Oxbridge had "decided" that the three line approach to solving such problems within algebra was now being "accepted". 40 years after we were told that if one used the approach, even though the answer was correct, we would receive no mark, it is now deemed "acceptable". The powers that be decided it. All hail the powers that be. Good for future pupils I say, poor sods.

Do forgive this little wander down memory lane. It tries to show a point. HOW we are taught to accept things, CAN be challenged, and it ISN'T always correct to follow the known accepted methods. In reference to YOUR way of approaching history, and mine, we use differing methodology. That doesn't make me an historian. It doesn't make your "taught" methods the ONLY way to see something either. Logical reasonance is, as I said before, based on two differing concepts.. small differences but important ones.

Positive logicalism and logical positivism. Two differing ways of approach.
The answers may end up different because of the difference in the approach. But here we enter the realms of philosophy.

And all this discussion about the methoidology does in any event, is keep the Merry-Go-Round turning. It gets the Plausibility of Kosminski, Druitt et al nowhere.. because the bottom line is...

After all the facts, sources and opinions are assessed.. there is no evidence against any of these men. Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant, and dumped somewhere.. to be buried forever. NOT repackaged every once in a while. It is not bio-degradable either.

So logically... we move on.

I think the answer to all that has been given. In your world Macnaghten, Anderson et al reached conclusions without any reasons. But that to me is hugely unlikely and would demand such a major re-evaluation of those men as to require a lot of supportive evidence. AS yet, all you seem to be saying and reiterating is that the conclusions reached by Anderson, Macnaghten , or whoever, are uncorroborated. Well, of course they are. That's why we discuss them. Except you have already concluded that they don't have corroboration, that they are to be binned, buried, and left to rot away.

It'll remain to be seen how many will agree with you.

[PaulB]

The delicious irony of this, of course, is that Paul was trying to be helpful.

Thanks, Stewart.

I could have been even more helpful, Stewart, and pointed out that the A To Z authors were in contact with Moore's family as long ago as 1992 and we continue to develop this research for the A To Z.

I could also have pointed out that Moore wrote:"One of these days, now I have more leisure, I may go to work and before I die I might have the luck to see 'Jack the Ripper' standing in the dock of the Old Bailey." This was just three years after Feigenbaum had been executed and obviously casts doubt on the suggestion that Feigebaum was the mad sailor Moore had in mind.

I could have been even more helpful and pointed Trevor in the direction of a report in the Daily Telegraph, but as Moore is so pivotal in Trevor's thinking, he will certainly already have it.