Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by paul g View Post
    Trevor , can you put Feigenbaum's in London at the time of the murders.
    sorry if you have provided unequivocal proof in any previous previous writings but I have not read everything.
    regards.
    There is no unequivocal proof but there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence part of which comes in the form of part of his lawyers account following his execution

    .” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do 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.”

    The statement made by Lawton to the press is also crucial to the Ripper investigation. When he made his statement he invited the police to investigate Feigenbaum and his movements concerning the Whitechapel murders. Neither the New York Police nor the Metropolitan Police in London appeared to have pursued this line of enquiry, and I have to ask why not? Surely if they had spoken to Lawton he could himself have given the details of the enquiries he conducted, and this is where Lawton’s credibility as a witness is confirmed.

    Lawton would not have made that statement if the facts contained in it were false or untrue. He would have known that facts mentioned by him would likely be closely scrutinized and tested. So this is another reason to accept his statement as being correct. The other issue is that if Lawton was fabricating his statement, as some have now suggested he was, then why did he not simply come out and say that Feigenbaum had confessed to being Jack the Ripper? After all who could rebut this, certainly not Feigenbaum
    ?


    Feigenbaum was a former German merchant seaman who is recorded as working for the Nordeutscher Line who had merchant ships in London during the time of the murders. He also used several differnt aliases, and was a thief, and was known to carry a long bladed knife, which he used to cut a womans throat in New York in 1894.
    As stated he was still working for the same merchant line in 1891 as he is recorded as being on one of their ships which was in London at that time.

    He was also a former soldier in The Prussian Army and would no doubt have been able to learn to cut someones throat without them being able to cry out.

    He left the sea and became an itinerant travelling around differnt parts of The US Midwest where other murders were recorded

    Feigenbaum is certainly worthy of being considered as a suspect unlike Charles Lechmere

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-22-2021, 11:48 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      It’s that old question of terminology which you appear to find so important Trevor. I remember Paul Begg and myself talking to you about it on the Druitt thread. It’s not important in any way if we term someone a suspect or a prime suspect or a person of interest because, as we said before, we aren’t undertaking a police investigation here. Obviously terminology is important to a police investigation because it’s important that they prioritise. They have finite resources and the consequences of them following a wrong path are infinitely worse than if we do. Killers escaping justice, further victims etc. So we have no need for a league table of suspects because it doesn’t matter. We are armchair detectives as the saying goes (yes I know that you were a real one) playing Hunt The Ripper. In this ‘game’ a suspect is someone that is suspected by someone. So Lewis Carroll is a suspect (even though it appears that only one person thinks him guilty.) Walter Sickert is a suspect as is James Maybrick and Druitt and Kosminski and Bury and Lechmere and Hutchinson - until they can categorically be eliminated (for example if we can’t even prove that the ‘suspect’ was in the country at the time.)

      Feigenbaum has a ‘suspect status’ because you’ve given him one. Fair enough. Each ‘suspect’ is down to subjective judgment. Why is Feigenbaum a likely suspect because you believe that he is and yet Lechmere isn’t even though Fish and others think that he is or might be. If we have a suspect league table who decides who goes where you? Me? Fish? Or Dale Lerner who thinks that Van Gogh was the ripper? (and he definitely wasn’t in the country at the time btw) And if we did have suspects in a suspect status table and you were the judge and you placed Lechmere at the bottom would that stop people discussing him or Fish’s forthcoming book? No it wouldn't? This terminology thing is completely pointless Trevor.
      You really dont know what you are talking about.

      People fall into the trap of wanting to name a suspect without having any evidence to support their suspicions, thats why we have such a long list of would be suspects. Even the names of suspects from the Victorian police records are lacking in anything that tells us why they were named, I think it called pin the tail on the donkey!!!!!!!!!! and when we then look at these names 132 years later what do we find nothing to support their suspect status. If the police in 1888 couldnt pin the tail on the donkey back then what realistic chance do we have 132 years later, well to some what do they do?, they create a mystery surrounding a suspect where there is no mystery as we see with Lechmere

      Now there are those who will say well there must have been something for them to be named, In a murder investigation many names are put forward from various sources some on a wing and a prayer, some malicious, other times members of the public trying to be too helpful, they all have to be looked at and investigated and then if they all check out they are eliminated. Thats what the police did in 1888 with regards to Lechmere and I would suggest many of the others that are constantly being banded about.

      The problem is that you and many others on here do not fully understand the definitions of the term "suspect" "prime suspect" and "person of interest" because in the grand scheme of an investigation there is a big difference. There could be no prime suspect in 1888 the term prime suspect did not evolve until the 1930`s yet we still see the likes of Lechmere and all the others named in police documents being referred to in the 21st century as prime suspects from 1888.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-22-2021, 11:53 PM.

      Comment


      • .
        The problem is that you and many others on here do not fully understand the definitions of the term "suspect" "prime suspect" and "person of interest" because in the grand scheme of an investigation there is a big difference. There could be no prime suspect in 1888 the term prime suspect did not evolve until the 1930`s yet we still see the likes of Lechmere and all the others named in police documents being referred to in the 21st century as prime suspects from 1888.
        You don’t actually read posts do you Trevor? You just cast your eyes over them and then keep ploughing on. I’ll say it again:

        We are not undertaking a Police investigation Trevor so the definitions are irrelevant for us. They affect nothing. They mean nothing. They change nothing!

        When we use the term ‘suspect’ it means a person, whether suspected at the time or not, that is suspected by someone or some people that have an interest in the case.

        Again, I’ll ask....who defines whether someone is a prime suspect, or a possible suspect, or a likely suspect, or a person of interest, or an unlikely suspect?

        Are you the judge and jury on that issue Trevor? I’m certainly not so who should it be? It’s down to individuals on who they think is a suspect, whether good or bad.

        Your terminology doesn’t matter. There is no league table of suspects and we have no need of one. It doesn’t affect anything in the slightest. Terminology is a non-issue. Why are you so obsessed with it?
        Regards

        Herlock



        Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
          Sorry to intrude on the verbal jousting chaps, just a quick thought on the Cross/Lechmere name business.

          Principally, the name issue isn't of that much importance, either Trev wise or Fish wise. The Lechmere candidacy rests or wrecks on far more relevant and tangible lines. It is worth a look though, because it's undisputable that Charles Cross used the name Lechmere on every official document that can be found. The name Cross is recorded twice, both in relation to police investigations. So, he uses the name Cross when he's up to no good? Well, no, not really. In the accident when the child was run over, he uses Cross. But, he wasn't on trial, he was absolved of criminal guilt, he certainly wasn't hiding his identity. But Cross disappears until 1888. Again, he's not on trial, and given that his address and employment were known, it's not like he was hiding.

          So, could it be that the reason we have these two records of Cross, it's because it's the two occasions we actually have his verbal record of his given name? We know names were more fluid in the time, if we had only written records, he'd be Lechmere, unequivocally. But we have two occasions on record where he was able to give a verbal record, and his verbal record is the name Cross. Does this seem like a plausible explanation?

          As I mentioned, this wouldn't mean that if Lechmere wasn't being deceptive then he couldn't be the killer. He was found on scene with a very recently murdered woman. Others were found on his routes. I just think the name issue maybe isn't as important as it appears.

          Anyway, there's an interlude. I'll let jousting recommence.
          If you are suggesting that Charles was "Cross" verbally and "Lechmere" in writing, it must be pointed out that the collection of signatures involves both signatures he has signed himself and signatures when he has verbally given his name to people who have signed it for him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            With the caveat that he is listed as 'Charles Cross' in the 1861 census.

            True, being only 11 or 12, he probably didn't contribute to the census form, but it is still evidence that he may have been known by that name during these formative years, which is potentially relevant.

            It's in your teens that you meet many of your mates, and first enter the work force, so it is not inconceivable he was known as Charles Cross in his immediate circle.
            ... while he nevertheless signed himself Lechmere in all his authority contacts, either himself or he had his name signed for him. And the police were not his immediate circle but instead an authority contact.

            Somehow, I feel I have pointed this out before...?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              who defines whether someone is a prime suspect, or a possible suspect, or a likely suspect, or a person of interest, or an unlikely suspect?

              Are you the judge and jury on that issue Trevor?
              No. Nononononono. Please, please no! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                People fall into the trap of wanting to name a suspect without having any evidence to support their suspicions, thats why we have such a long list of would be suspects.
                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                "Trevor Marriott initially made a case for a German merchant seaman being Saucy Jack. He then discovered Carl Feigenbaum, almost a perfect fit for his theory. However, Marriott failed originally to show that the Ripper was a German merchant seaman. The theory was plausible but not proven. Could the Ripper have been a German sailor? Or an American sailor? Or a Portuguese sailor? Or a Malay sailor? Of course. Could he have been a butcher, baker, tinker, tailor, beggar man or thief? Of course. Could he have been Carl Feigenbaum? Not with the almost complete lack of evidence that has been presented to support his candidacy. Wishful thinking cannot solve this puzzle."

                Wolf Vanderlinden in his "CARL FERDINAND FEIGENBAUM: An Old Suspect Resurfaces" on this site.

                Then again, what does Vanderlinden and the rest of the world know about these things? Apart from Trevor Marriott, that is.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  "Trevor Marriott initially made a case for a German merchant seaman being Saucy Jack. He then discovered Carl Feigenbaum, almost a perfect fit for his theory. However, Marriott failed originally to show that the Ripper was a German merchant seaman. The theory was plausible but not proven. Could the Ripper have been a German sailor? Or an American sailor? Or a Portuguese sailor? Or a Malay sailor? Of course. Could he have been a butcher, baker, tinker, tailor, beggar man or thief? Of course. Could he have been Carl Feigenbaum? Not with the almost complete lack of evidence that has been presented to support his candidacy. Wishful thinking cannot solve this puzzle."

                  Wolf Vanderlinden in his "CARL FERDINAND FEIGENBAUM: An Old Suspect Resurfaces" on this site.

                  Then again, what does Vanderlinden and the rest of the world know about these things? Apart from Trevor Marriott, that is.
                  There is no wishful thinking Wolf, Uncle Tom Cobbley, and all, are fully entitled the assess and evaluate facts and evidence and come to their own personal opinions on any Ripper topic.

                  Wolfs article was written in 2007 long before all the new research into Feigenbaum had been conducted, but again you are using Feigenbaum to deflect away from the topic of this thread that being Lechmere and his suspect status for being Jack the Ripper, a typical Fish move

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    No. Nononononono. Please, please no! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
                    You cannot just pluck a name out of a hat and refer to them as a suspect, there are different degrees of suspicon for each catergory of suspect which have to be supported in some way by facts or evidence, and in 95% of those all on the suspect list are supported by nothing more than someones wild speculative uncorrborated opinion.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      You cannot just pluck a name out of a hat and refer to them as a suspect, there are different degrees of suspicon for each catergory of suspect which have to be supported in some way by facts or evidence, and in 95% of those all on the suspect list are supported by nothing more than someones wild speculative uncorrborated opinion.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Yes, I agree.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        There is no wishful thinking Wolf, Uncle Tom Cobbley, and all, are fully entitled the assess and evaluate facts and evidence and come to their own personal opinions on any Ripper topic.

                        Wolfs article was written in 2007 long before all the new research into Feigenbaum had been conducted, but again you are using Feigenbaum to deflect away from the topic of this thread that being Lechmere and his suspect status for being Jack the Ripper, a typical Fish move

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                        Not at all. The more Lechmere is discussed, the happier I am! If ALL threads out here were about Lechmere, I’ d be positively ecstatic.

                        Similarly, the less Feigenbaum is discussed, the more on target the discussion can be.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          I’ll indulge you to a degree, Kattrup.

                          Have a read of the ‘case study’ below and tell me if you think it differs significantly from the Lechmere scenario.
                          I think it differs because we have more occassions of him appearing. But the principle remains: he appears as a witness under his assumed name, Taylor, and nobody cares.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post



                            That sums it up in a nutshell. The concept of a ‘proper’ name that one should use when contacting authority.
                            I agree with the first part: that sums it up. People could be known in various written sources with one name (for instance, their birthname or married name) and be known in every other instance with another name.
                            I disagree with the second part: there was no name that one "should" use when contacting "authority".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              No. Nononononono. Please, please no! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!


                              Regards

                              Herlock



                              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                You cannot just pluck a name out of a hat and refer to them as a suspect, there are different degrees of suspicon for each catergory of suspect which have to be supported in some way by facts or evidence, and in 95% of those all on the suspect list are supported by nothing more than someones wild speculative uncorrborated opinion.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                By naming a person as a suspect what harm to the subject of ripperology does it do? We would all like to know who this man was so how does Patricia Cornwell, for example, in naming Sickert as a suspect, hamper us? It’s not going to potentially prevent us from discovering the killer because everyone will focus entirely on Sickert at the expense of other suspects. Or indeed Fish naming Lechmere? Or you naming Feigenbaum. It’s not as if naming a suspect is the equivalent of John Humble’s hoax Yorkshire Ripper tape which fatally sidetracked the investigation. At end of the day we each evaluate everyone that has been mentioned as potentially guilty and form our own opinion based on what we’ve read, using our own individual judgment and intelligence. We agree and disagree.

                                I’ll say it again Trevor because I genuinely can’t understand why you don’t get this. Who decides if Feigenbaum or Bury is the better suspect? You’d say Feigenbaum; Bill Beadle would say Bury. Some might prefer your suspect to Bill’s some would go the other way. Your not going to stop people talking about various suspects by trying to relegate them as if we’re in some Fantasy Ripper League Table.

                                Its irrelevant Trevor.
                                Regards

                                Herlock



                                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X