Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Wickerman]

...
Wickerman,
The only comment i can find on Mac's reporting of the three named persons,in any source.is that they came under police suspicion.Now that suspicion,and whether it amounted to suspect evaluation,is not given,and it clearly alludes to a time when Druitt was alive. 'Mac's suspects',as the three are sometimes referred to,never were suspects,either of the police or Mac.'Came under police suspicion',tells us nothing.That is my reading of the information.
It's not often i'm wrong,but I am right this time.

I'm not challenging whether you are right or wrong, I just told you where Mac. used the word "suspect" in his Memorandum. He also wrote a memoir and devoted one chapter to the Jack the Ripper enquiry - Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper.
Nowhere in that chapter does he use the word "suspect".

Addition:
Perhaps this is what you recall reading from Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper.

"Many residents in the East End (and some in the West!) came under suspicion of police, but though several persons were detained, no one was ever charged with these offenses."

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick, Does that not go against what Anderson said - that certain Polish/low class Jews would not give up one of their own for justice.
Regards Darryl

Correct Darryl, but don't forget Macnaghten was writing an official document in 1894 while he was still on the force. In my opinion he clearly dismisses any notion of an I.D. concluding in anyone's guilt.
Whereas Anderson was writing memoirs in 1910 long after he had retired. From his writings I see a man who has a chip on his shoulders against Jews.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The difference Herlock,is that by accepting more and more persons as suspects we are expanding the list,when the intention should be the opposite.
The problem,as has been pointed out before,is that very few posters know the proper definition of suspect,and yes there is one,so a multitude of so called'Suspects' has clogged the boards.If posters accept that as a desirable objective,so be it,but an expanded list will only make a harder task of identifying a possible offender.

But Harry do we really think that by changing a persons statues from ‘suspect’ to ‘person of interest’ poster will discuss them any less on the boards? It would certainly be desirable for us to be able to whittle down the list but how could we possibly do that when posters have such divergent opinions as to who is or isn’t a worthy suspect? A perfect example is Lechmere who certainly divides opinion. It isn’t just a case of Fish promoting him as a suspect but many posters , even if they don’t suspect him with the same level of confidence as Fish, consider him a valid suspect. Ask one poster if he is worthy of being labelled a suspect and they will say no. Whilst some will say yes. So who makes that final decision?

[harry]

The difference Herlock,is that by accepting more and more persons as suspects we are expanding the list,when the intention should be the opposite.
The problem,as has been pointed out before,is that very few posters know the proper definition of suspect,and yes there is one,so a multitude of so called'Suspects' has clogged the boards.If posters accept that as a desirable objective,so be it,but an expanded list will only make a harder task of identifying a possible offender.
Wickerman,
The only comment i can find on Mac's reporting of the three named persons,in any source.is that they came under police suspicion.Now that suspicion,and whether it amounted to suspect evaluation,is not given,and it clearly alludes to a time when Druitt was alive. 'Mac's suspects',as the three are sometimes referred to,never were suspects,either of the police or Mac.'Came under police suspicion',tells us nothing.That is my reading of the information.
It's not often i'm wrong,but I am right this time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Feigenbaum was a merchant seaman he can be placed in London on a Nordetuchers vessel as late as 1891 sadly the crew lists for the ships from the same line are missing from the archives for 1888. But we can prove he was working for this same line for many years we can draw an inference that he was here on other dates prior to then

You see the dates between the murders are consistent with an itinerant travelling back and forth


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do we have the double standards?

How is saying ‘he could have travelled to England’ ok but when it can’t be proved that Druitt visited the streets that it would have taken minutes to have walked to it becomes a huge issue?

Why is it a huge issue that no other person can corroborate the MM and yet it’s not important when no one can corroborate hearing Feigenbaum’s ‘confession?’

Why do you stress the differences with the Stride murder to suggest that it wasn’t by the same man and yet you ignore the fact that the murder committed by Feigenbaum was nothing like the murder of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly?

Why did no in the States look into Feigenbaum’s claim in detail?

Why did no one take the simple expedient of sending a telegram to the Met about Feigenbaum?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Herlock,
In reply to your post 1004.
We could start with dropping the description 'Suspect'.That in no way would prevent discussion of any individual,and their involvement in the Ripper killings.For instance,a discussion of George Hutchinson could very well proceed without him being thought of as suspect.

Hello Harry,

But what purpose would that serve? I can’t see any difference to anything if we stopped using the word ‘suspect?’ As long as everyone involved in the subject understands what ‘suspect’ means in this context then we have no issue and everyone does know this because we all use the word ‘suspect’ simply to mean ‘someone who has been suspected’ at some point.

[Trevor Marriott]

The lawyer who went straight to The Press you mean? Obviously an attention-seeker and self-publicist.

Further proof that you don’t read posts is that I’ve told you before….I have your book. That’s why I know that you call Feigenbaum a “compulsive liar.” And yet you believe him. I’ll ask you again…. on what day of the week was his day off from being a compulsive liar?

What would Feigenabum gain by admitting he had an illness which every so often manifested itself and made him want to kill women? and re,member Lawton looked into other murders where he knew Feigenbaum had been

Your accusations against MacNaghten are empty, baseless and self-serving. You have a suspect to promote, books to sell etc.

You are right and in that book I publish the results of my long and protracted cold case review which cover all aspects of these murders and is noty just about Feigenbaum

Druitt was in London and we have not a scintilla of evidence that Feigenbaum was and so, until you can provide evidence that he was in London (or even in England) he cannot be considered a suspect under any circumstances. Let’s face it Trevor if you keep promoting the silly idea of rigidly segregating ‘suspects’ into suspect, prime suspect and person of interest because that’s how the police would do it then we have to ask how your superiors would have regarded your approaching them with “look, I’ve got this potential suspect but we can’t prove that he was in the country at the time?” I doubt that the words “book him Danno,” would be forthcoming do you?

Feigenbaum was a merchant seaman he can be placed in London on a Nordetuchers vessel as late as 1891 sadly the crew lists for the ships from the same line are missing from the archives for 1888. But we can prove he was working for this same line for many years we can draw an inference that he was here on other dates prior to then

You see the dates between the murders are consistent with an itinerant travelling back and forth


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yet, he claimed with Druitt he believed his own family suspected he was the murderer.
Kozminski's family just thought he was insane, not that he was a murderer.

Hi Wick, Does that not go against what Anderson said - that certain Polish/low class Jews would not give up one of their own for justice.
Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

...
Wickerman,
In reply to your post 1008,
I understand that Macs was an official report,but you failed to answer the question I asked.Did Mac officially describe any persons as suspect.
It is from the memorandom that the three named persons emerge,and then it is only an opinion offered by Mac, on suspicions of the police against the three,that Druittt comes to attention.The three were already under suspicion,and Macs opinion is that Druitt was a better prospect than the other two,and he never gives information of why he thinks so.Not much against Druitt is there?

Did Mac officially describe any persons as suspect.

In the Memorandum, yes.
He used it specifically towards Kozminski, as he was still alive in 1894.
He didn't use it with Druitt, you can't be a suspect if your dead.
And, in general he said many homicidal maniacs were suspected.

But no, Mac. does not single out Druitt as a better prospect than Kozminski or Ostrog.
In fact, this is where we read:
"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."
Which means there is no evidence in any case, including the three he mentioned.

Yet, he claimed with Druitt he believed his own family suspected he was the murderer.
Kozminski's family just thought he was insane, not that he was a murderer.

[Wickerman]

Regarding Druitt, does not his Cricket trip to Bournemouth rule him out? Was he confirmed as being in Bournemouth?

Also the likelihood of him playing a game of cricket just hours after the murder of Annie Chapman just does not sit well with me.

”The last major match he played was a single innings game against the Christopherson brothers, in which he took 3 for 38 in a 22-run win. In this game, Stanley Christopherson dismissed him and later Druitt returned the compliments. Significantly, the match was played on September 8, and started a few hours after the second Whitechapel murder.”

I did mention authors have addressed the cricket schedule, I just came across David Andersen's piece in Blood Harvest.

He writes that it was a 2 hour train journey from the East End to Wimborne, the fixture that he played on the day Nichols was murdered. Her murder occurred around 3:30-3:45, if the match did not start before 9:00 am, he had over 5 hours to make the 2 hour journey.

On the morning Chapman was murdered his match was scheduled for 11:30 am at Blackheath. The murder took place at the latest about 6:00 am, so he had 5 1/2 hours to make the 30 minute train journey.
Trains from London to Blackheath ran from Charing Cross every ten minutes in the morning.

Druitt had no matches on the days of Stride & Eddowes murder, or of Kelly's murder.

[harry]

Herlock,
In reply to your post 1004.
We could start with dropping the description 'Suspect'.That in no way would prevent discussion of any individual,and their involvement in the Ripper killings.For instance,a discussion of George Hutchinson could very well proceed without him being thought of as suspect.
Wickerman,
In reply to your post 1008,
I understand that Macs was an official report,but you failed to answer the question I asked.Did Mac officially describe any persons as suspect.
It is from the memorandom that the three named persons emerge,and then it is only an opinion offered by Mac, on suspicions of the police against the three,that Druittt comes to attention.The three were already under suspicion,and Macs opinion is that Druitt was a better prospect than the other two,and he never gives information of why he thinks so.Not much against Druitt is there?

[Wickerman]

I think in the case of Aaron Kosminski, he was identified and watched at his brother's house before being taken to the workhouse for a second time on February 4, 1891. This was also Sugden's conclusion as well. Thus Swanson's marginalia note that in "a very short time" after being watched, he was sent back to the workhouse. So the identification proceeding and surveillance occurred a few days prior to February 4th.

I still don't see why you think the identification took place a few days before Feb. 4th.

We have considered the I.D. could have occurred in the 4 days he was at Mile End Workhouse (July 12-15, 1890), and Swanson wrote "after (the I.D.) he was returned to his brothers house. (On suspects return to his brothers house).
He was then watched by City C.I.D. and after a short time (7 months?) he was returned to Mile End/Stepney.....

I'm not seeing how "a very short time" can mean "a few days". It seems to refer to the time between July 15, 1890 and Feb. 4, 1891 which is about ten days short of seven months.
Maybe I need another coffee....

[Wickerman]

They are not potential suspects they are either persons of interest, suspects, or prime suspects.

Agreed, in official terminology those are the common choices.

How can you even start to catergorize Aaron Kosminski when we dont even know the real identity of the Kosminski named in the MM and the Marginalia

That's a weak argument, the circumstances & timing between what Swanson wrote, and Aaron Kozminski's admittance records to Mile End & Colney Hatch lean towards what we have on Aaron.
My concern with Kozminski is that too much reliance is given to the recollections of Sagar & Cox.

Because Feigenbaum was as far as we know not reported to the British Police as a suspect because of legal client confidentiality that Lawton was under and after his execution the same situation would have prevailed as did with Druitt, although as stated there was more circumstantial evidence against Feigenbaum than Druitt.

We haven't seen any circumstantial evidence against Feiganbaum. I thought by your rules a lawyer's claims to the press would be considered unsubstantiated or hearsay when there was nothing in writing from Feiganbaum.
I still can't find anything about Feiganbaum in 1888, so he isn't even on a par with Druitt. Even Kozminski was at least in London in 1888.

[Wickerman]

Also MM says that Druitt WAS sexually insane. Yet in his auto he describes the term as someone who derives pleasure from killing and uses Dr Cream as an example I believe.

What we do not know is whether Mac. used the term as he knew it, or was his informant a doctor who used the term in a letter to the police?
It might be assumed Mac. would need to know Druitt very well for him to use the term as he understood it, but we have no cause to believe Mac. knew Druitt that well, never mind his medical condition.
I'd be inclined to think the informant was either a doctor or a person who had spoken to his doctor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How was his Lawyer dodgy? he was no more dodgy than MM and Anderson who should have all been singing from the same song sheet but we know that wasnt the case, apart from Swanson they were both full of bull and bluster trying to make names for themselves. and in Swansons case someobe trying to make a name for him

Ask yourself why would his lawyer make up this story what could he possibly gain from it? 8 years after the WM murders

He would have risked being questioned about the research he had conducted into the movements of Feigenbaum and risked someone checking them and proving him to be lying.

If you say he was dodgy, why out of all the unsolved murders in and The UK and The US did he pick the WM to question Feigenbaum about,

To find out more about Feigenbaum you really should spend some of you pocket money and buy a copy of my book and read the lengthy chapter on Feigenbaum follow the link

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The lawyer who went straight to The Press you mean? Obviously an attention-seeker and self-publicist.

Further proof that you don’t read posts is that I’ve told you before….I have your book. That’s why I know that you call Feigenbaum a “compulsive liar.” And yet you believe him. I’ll ask you again…. on what day of the week was his day off from being a compulsive liar?

Your accusations against MacNaghten are empty, baseless and self-serving. You have a suspect to promote, books to sell etc.

Druitt was in London and we have not a scintilla of evidence that Feigenbaum was and so, until you can provide evidence that he was in London (or even in England) he cannot be considered a suspect under any circumstances. Let’s face it Trevor if you keep promoting the silly idea of rigidly segregating ‘suspects’ into suspect, prime suspect and person of interest because that’s how the police would do it then we have to ask how your superiors would have regarded your approaching them with “look, I’ve got this potential suspect but we can’t prove that he was in the country at the time?” I doubt that the words “book him Danno,” would be forthcoming do you?