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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its not a game, I am not playing pin the tail on the donkey like some on here. Feigenbaum is a genuine suspect based on what has been presented that is not going to change no matter how much you cannot accept that fact.

What you’re saying is “I’m saying that he’s a suspect therefore he is one.” I stated the differences which couldn’t be clearer Trevorbut you ignore them. I’m afraid that it’s you that won’t accept the facts.

For some reason you are not able to assess and evaluate factual evidence in realation to what makes a suspect, in particular Feigenbaum.

Ive assessed them Trevor. How is a stab in the neck the same as a ripper murder? How is killing his landlady in a room with her son present similar to murdering prostitutes and leaving them on display in the street? All that your seeing is: murder + woman + knife = bingo!

Both you and Fish keep banging on about not being able to prove he was in London at the time of the murders. But you cannot prove that he wasnt, and with the balance of probability based on other facts and evidence makes him a viable suspect to consider.

Thats not good enough Trevor. Why can’t you see it?

Perhaps both you and Fish should get your heads togther and try to ascertain how many of the other 100 ripper suspects can be proven to have been in London at the specific time of the murders?

Lechmere and Druitt for a start. Then Bury and Sickert and Kelly and Hutchinson and Gull and Chapman and Kosminski and Levy.

And finallly as to Lawtons credibilty if as you suggest he was lying and made it all up, why did he not go the full distance and simply say Feigenbaum confessed to having been Jack the Ripper, who could have argued that, no one because Feigenbaum was dead, but no he doesnt do that he gives his account and then invites the police to check out what research he had done to form the opinion that Feigenbaum could have been Jack the Ripper.

We don’t know why but it doesn’t prove honesty. Again, why didn’t he go straight to the police rather than the Press?

Memebrs of the jury I rest my case

You don’t have one.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And again Trevor, the inconvenient question that you keep avoiding....

Why do you believe that Feigenbaum was being truthful about having these desires to kill and mutilate women when you yourself describe him as a compulsive liar? Was he only a compulsive liar on Mondays and Thursdays perhaps?

[Trevor Marriott]

And again Trevor, the inconvenient question that you keep avoiding....

Why do you believe that Feigenbaum was being truthful about having these desires to kill and mutilate women when you yourself describe him as a compulsive liar? Was he only a compulsive liar on Mondays and Thursdays perhaps?

Even compulsive liars tell the truth at some time in their life and there is evidence that he lied, in fact he even lied to the court telling them that he had not been resposnsible for the murder of Mrs Hoffman but of course anyone facing execution if convicted might try to avoid this by making up a story.

Are we looking at him as a poetential murderer of simply a compulsive liar?

You ask the question "why didn’t Lawton go straight to the police rather than the Press?

The answer to this is that he gave the press interview directly after the execution oustide the prison, and during that interview he invited the police to check his story, whay would he do that if as you suggest he had fabricated it?

But again you are forgetting how the invesitgation unfolded thereafter the whole outcome does not hang on what Feigenbaum said, or what Lawton said, its all the other enquiries and connecting facts and evidence which point to him quite rightly being regarded as a suspect.

I asked the question as to how many of the 100 suspects were in London at the time of the murders

You replied Lechmere and Druitt for a start. Then Bury and Sickert and Kelly and Hutchinson and Gull and Chapman and Kosminski and Levy. Not the best band of suspects are they, all mostly lacking in any real evidence to elevate any of them to prime suspect status at best nothing more than persons of interest. yes they were all in London but so were thousands of other unnamed people any one of which could have been the killler, including Feigenbaum

If you have any new questions I am happy to try to answer them but please refrain from asking the same questions over and over again this repetition is becoming tiresome.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
If you have any new questions I am happy to try to answer them but please refrain from asking the same questions over and over again this repetition is becoming tiresome.

Which translates as “stop asking about Feigenbaum being a compulsive liar because i can’t provide a logical answer.”

Of course liars tell the truth from time to time but how do we know when those times are? Just selecting an occasion thats convenient for your theory doesn’t work. If he was a known compulsive liar then everything he ever said is questionable.

You ask the question "why didn’t Lawton go straight to the police rather than the Press?

The answer to this is that he gave the press interview directly after the execution oustide the prison, and during that interview he invited the police to check his story, whay would he do that if as you suggest he had fabricated it?

Because he might have been taken in by Feigenbaum ‘the compulsive liar?” Perhaps he’d spoken to the police and they’d looked at Feigenbaum and dismissed him as the ripper? With no chance of the police beginning an investigation Lawton was free to make his claims to the paper and get a bit of publicity. Which ever way you choose look at it Trevor this man was a solicitor. How many do you know who would do the same? “I have information that might lead to the ripper case being solved. Shall I go to the police in the USA? Shall I send a letter to the Met? No I’ll blurt it out to the whole country by telling the Press.”

You replied Lechmere and Druitt for a start. Then Bury and Sickert and Kelly and Hutchinson and Gull and Chapman and Kosminski and Levy. Not the best band of suspects are they, all mostly lacking in any real evidence to elevate any of them to prime suspect status at best nothing more than persons of interest. yes they were all in London but so were thousands of other unnamed people any one of which could have been the killler, including Feigenbaum

Both Druitt and Kosminski were named by very senior Police Officers as suspects. Bury and Kelly both murdered a woman with a knife and were in London at the time. Chapman was the murderer of 3 women and in London at the time. Lechmere is the only suspect that can be place at a crime scene alone with the victim. Levy is certainly someone worthy of ongoing research.

I’ve seen you stridently point out the differences between the ripper murders and the Torso Murders. I’ve recently seen you give your list of ‘differences’ between Stride’s murder and the others in the series. It’s very instructive though to observe how you conveniently ignore all of the glaring differences between the ripper murders by whoever and the murder of Mrs Hoffman by Feigenbaum. Why is that?

........

Do you know why he committed suicide or have any details? Maybe he was mentally unstable/unbalanced and it gradually got worse over time? After all Druitt (ripper or not) was practicing to the end and he committed suicide and, at least on the surface, was able to function. So Lawton might have appeared to have been functioning normally but was having issues?

[paul g]

Is it ok to have no or little evidence and at best circumstantial evidence for your suspect, then attack and belittle someone’s who forwards a new suspect with similar evidence criteria to your own.
I suggest not you can’t have it both ways.
U.K saying of the kettle calls the copper black springs to mind.
I am of the view that with you Trevor it’s more personnel for some reason, not just the suspect itself.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which translates as “stop asking about Feigenbaum being a compulsive liar because i can’t provide a logical answer.”

Of course liars tell the truth from time to time but how do we know when those times are? Just selecting an occasion thats convenient for your theory doesn’t work. If he was a known compulsive liar then everything he ever said is questionable.



Because he might have been taken in by Feigenbaum ‘the compulsive liar?” Perhaps he’d spoken to the police and they’d looked at Feigenbaum and dismissed him as the ripper? With no chance of the police beginning an investigation Lawton was free to make his claims to the paper and get a bit of publicity. Which ever way you choose look at it Trevor this man was a solicitor. How many do you know who would do the same? “I have information that might lead to the ripper case being solved. Shall I go to the police in the USA? Shall I send a letter to the Met? No I’ll blurt it out to the whole country by telling the Press.”



Both Druitt and Kosminski were named by very senior Police Officers as suspects. Bury and Kelly both murdered a woman with a knife and were in London at the time. Chapman was the murderer of 3 women and in London at the time. Lechmere is the only suspect that can be place at a crime scene alone with the victim. Levy is certainly someone worthy of ongoing research.

I’ve seen you stridently point out the differences between the ripper murders and the Torso Murders. I’ve recently seen you give your list of ‘differences’ between Stride’s murder and the others in the series. It’s very instructive though to observe how you conveniently ignore all of the glaring differences between the ripper murders by whoever and the murder of Mrs Hoffman by Feigenbaum. Why is that?

........

Do you know why he committed suicide or have any details? Maybe he was mentally unstable/unbalanced and it gradually got worse over time? After all Druitt (ripper or not) was practicing to the end and he committed suicide and, at least on the surface, was able to function. So Lawton might have appeared to have been functioning normally but was having issues?

Perahps you should start to deal with the facts as they are known and forget about inputing all the "what if`s. "the maybe`s£, "the mights", and "I think" along with the "perhaps" those who contuinually use these phrases are clearly desparate to look for alteravtive explantions and reasons not to accpet what is before them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Perhaps both you and Fish should get your heads togther and try to ascertain how many of the other 100 ripper suspects can be proven to have been in London at the specific time of the murders?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The message behind this is clear: Since so very few of the suspects can be placed in London in the autumn of 1888, we may accept that such a presence is not neccesary for upholding a suspect status.

This is only true in the respect that there are no other demands on a suspect in ripperology than that it must be impossible to conclusively prove that the suspect cannot have been the killer. It basically means that a chinese, indian or african killer can be a suspect, even if it cannot be proven that these men ever left their home countries - they are killers and so they may have been the ripper, a` la Carl Feigenbaum.

When it comes to TRUE suspect statues, this demands - and has always demanded - proven means, motive and opportunity. And when it comes to Feigenbaum, the means (the knife) is all there is. His motive when killing seems to have been to gain money, and not to mutilate, and no opportunity is proven.

Lechmere had the means, since he would have carried a knife being a carman. The motive seems to have been a wish to obtain a body to cut into, and none of the suspects are proven to have had that urge - meaning that it could have been any of them. But Lechmere has a proven opportunity and in that respect he is very rare!

To think that having a proven opportunity is not important is to be unaware of the demands for a suspect. Feigenbaums failure to meet this criteria is and remains of paramount importance when assessing his value as a suspect. To me, if it was not for his lawyer’s claims on Feigenbaums behalf, he would not even make the ”person of interest” group. And the lawyer’ s claims means that we have a case of ”A said that B had said...”
Its called hearsay, not evidence. And hearsay only is not any ground for a suspect status.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which translates as “stop asking about Feigenbaum being a compulsive liar because i can’t provide a logical answer.”

Of course liars tell the truth from time to time but how do we know when those times are? Just selecting an occasion thats convenient for your theory doesn’t work. If he was a known compulsive liar then everything he ever said is questionable.



Because he might have been taken in by Feigenbaum ‘the compulsive liar?” Perhaps he’d spoken to the police and they’d looked at Feigenbaum and dismissed him as the ripper? With no chance of the police beginning an investigation Lawton was free to make his claims to the paper and get a bit of publicity. Which ever way you choose look at it Trevor this man was a solicitor. How many do you know who would do the same? “I have information that might lead to the ripper case being solved. Shall I go to the police in the USA? Shall I send a letter to the Met? No I’ll blurt it out to the whole country by telling the Press.”



Both Druitt and Kosminski were named by very senior Police Officers as suspects. Bury and Kelly both murdered a woman with a knife and were in London at the time. Chapman was the murderer of 3 women and in London at the time. Lechmere is the only suspect that can be place at a crime scene alone with the victim. Levy is certainly someone worthy of ongoing research.

I’ve seen you stridently point out the differences between the ripper murders and the Torso Murders. I’ve recently seen you give your list of ‘differences’ between Stride’s murder and the others in the series. It’s very instructive though to observe how you conveniently ignore all of the glaring differences between the ripper murders by whoever and the murder of Mrs Hoffman by Feigenbaum. Why is that?

........

Do you know why he committed suicide or have any details? Maybe he was mentally unstable/unbalanced and it gradually got worse over time? After all Druitt (ripper or not) was practicing to the end and he committed suicide and, at least on the surface, was able to function. So Lawton might have appeared to have been functioning normally but was having issues?

Just for your information the wound to Mrs Hoffman was not a stab wound. Her throat was cut deeply I have attached the relevant part from the murder trial evidence given by the coroner in which he describes and incised wound to the neck. Just so you full understand the difference between a stab wound and an incised wound here it is

Incised wounds are wounds that are usually longer than they are deep. They are caused by a sharp item cutting or slashing into the skin, making a long laceration or cut. Often times these wounds are not very deep, usually only damaging the skin. However, occasionally these types of wounds can be very deep, cutting into muscle tissue, tendons, or major blood vessels. Damage to major blood vessels can cause life-threatening bleeding.





read them and weep !!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perahps you should start to deal with the facts as they are known and forget about inputing all the "what if`s. "the maybe`s£, "the mights", and "I think" along with the "perhaps" those who contuinually use these phrases are clearly desparate to look for alteravtive explantions and reasons not to accpet what is before them.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just accept what you say without question then?

ok

[Fisherman]

Just accept what you say without question then?

ok

And weep, Herlock; don’ t forget to weep!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for your information the wound to Mrs Hoffman was not a stab wound. Her throat was cut deeply I have attached the relevant part from the murder trial evidence given by the coroner in which he describes and incised wound to the neck. Just so you full understand the difference between a stab wound and an incised wound here it is

Incised wounds are wounds that are usually longer than they are deep. They are caused by a sharp item cutting or slashing into the skin, making a long laceration or cut. Often times these wounds are not very deep, usually only damaging the skin. However, occasionally these types of wounds can be very deep, cutting into muscle tissue, tendons, or major blood vessels. Damage to major blood vessels can cause life-threatening bleeding.





read them and weep !!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No problem Trevor.

You have countered just one of the points that I made about differences.

I’ll replace it with one that I’d forgotten to mention:

The victim was left alive by the killer and died a short time later.

The list of differences remain

[Herlock Sholmes]

And weep, Herlock; don’ t forget to weep!

I forgot the weeping part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
When it comes to TRUE suspect statues, this demands - and has always demanded - proven means, motive and opportunity. And when it comes to Feigenbaum, the means (the knife) is all there is. His motive when killing seems to have been to gain money, and not to mutilate, and no opportunity is proven

And so to achieve true suspect status - means, motive and opportunity

Means - Feigenbaum owned a knife. Well that shrinks the pool. Not many people own knives of course.

Motive - Feigenbaum killed for money. The ripper didn't.

Opportunity - Feigenbaum cannot be placed in London or England in 1888. Saying that he could have got there is just not good enough. So could millions of people. The fact that he went to England in 1891 is largely irrelevant.

Looking at the above Trevor, on what planet does Feigenbaum qualify as a TRUE suspect? The very best that we can say about him would be that IF he could be placed in England in 1888 he would be a person of interest.

[Trevor Marriott]

No problem Trevor.

You have countered just one of the points that I made about differences.

I’ll replace it with one that I’d forgotten to mention:

The victim was left alive by the killer and died a short time later.

The list of differences remain

Just for the record victims who have their throats cut do not live for long for reasons theat even you can comprehend, in this case no medical persons were in inital attendance and it was thought by the police that she may have still been alive, because the police took Feigennabum back to the crime scene believing that she might still be alive in an attempt to get her to identify him as the killer but she was alreday dead.

If you read the doctors testimony he states her jugular vein was severed so she would have died fairly quickly. just like the Whitechapel victims and she like them was not able to cry out. So your differences you seek to rely on are none that would suggest Feigenbaum could not have been the Whitechapel Killer.

On a final note serial killers do not always kill using the same MO. Take Richard Ramirez he used a wide variety of weapons, including handguns, knives, a machette a tire iron, and a hammer. to kill his victims, and some victims he chose to let live.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And so to achieve true suspect status - means, motive and opportunity

Means - Feigenbaum owned a knife. Well that shrinks the pool. Not many people own knives of course.

And with that knife he murdered a woman by cutting her throat

Motive - Feigenbaum killed for money. The ripper didn't.

The true motive was never established it was sugested that he had seen Mrs Hoffman place money in a cabinet in the lounge,

Opportunity - Feigenbaum cannot be placed in London or England in 1888. Saying that he could have got there is just not good enough. So could millions of people. The fact that he went to England in 1891 is largely irrelevant.

You need to look at the rest of the strong cirumstancial evidence not keep nitpicking parts that suit your argument which you think give you an advantage because they dont

Looking at the above Trevor, on what planet does Feigenbaum qualify as a TRUE suspect? The very best that we can say about him would be that IF he could be placed in England in 1888 he would be a person of interest.

This planet, and in suspect status well above many of the others who have much less going for them as potential suspects such as Kosminski who you will no doubt say is Aaron Kosminski when the only name mentioned is a surname, Druitt who again is mentioned in hearsay, as is Chapman, Sickert who again cannot be placed in London at the time of the murders, there is sweet fa against these but you have the audacity to suggest there is nothing to show Feigenbaum be regarded as a suspect. You need a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

This planet, and in suspect status well above many of the others who have much less going for them as potential suspects such as Kosminski who you will no doubt say is Aaron Kosminski when the only name mentioned is a surname, Druitt who again is mentioned in hearsay, as is Chapman, Sickert who again cannot be placed in London at the time of the murders, there is sweet fa against these but you have the audacity to suggest there is nothing to show Feigenbaum be regarded as a suspect. You need a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was you who mentioned means, motive and opportunity Trevor.

You seriously can’t be suggesting ‘ownership of a knife’ as an important factor? Please tell me that you don’t?

Whatever you say Trevor the fact remains....you cannot place him in the same country. That is an insurmountable issue for a suspect. Until you can place him in England at the time of the murders then we have to assume that he was in America.

He is a non-suspect. Behind every single suspect that can be proven to have been within reach of London. If you found a ripper copycat killer in Venezuela you wouldn’t just say “well there were ships around; he might have sailed to England so this guy is a top suspect.”