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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Which one is the killer Feigenbaum or Lechmere?
    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The proven killer is Feigenbaum.

    He is however not the proven killer of Nichols.

    In that case, he is not even a suspect, whereas Lechmere is.

    Being a killer does not mean that you are the killer of every victim across the planet. You make yourself funny over how I ascribe many London victims to Lechmere, but you have no problems reasoning that if Feigenbaum killed in the U S, then he must be the Ripper too.

    It’ s called utter hypocrisy..

    And plain dumb.


    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Yes, just like the Ripper, he went for the hands and arms. And he cut the throat down to ... no,wait, he didn’ t. Well, at least he eviscer... What? He didn ’ t?

    Oh. I see.

    And it was in the American Midwest, you say? So how does this fit together with you scorning me when I say that the Ripper murders took place along the very roads Lechmere likely walked to work? And you tell me that many others will have walked these streets?

    Why is less good American evidence a point in favor of Feigenbaum when much better and more precise London evidence relating to Lechmere is pooh-poohed by you? Isn’ t that a tad hypocritical, Trevor? Why is Feigenbaum a top suspect on account of a murder in the American Midwest when I am described by you as deluded for pointing to how Lechmere was found alone with the freshly killed Nichols IN BUCK’ S ROW???

    How does that mind of yours work?
    It works much better than yours it seems.

    Lechmere was not seen to murder Nichols or any other victim - Feigenbaum was
    Lechmere was not seen standing over a victim brandishing a long bladed knife- Feigenbaum was

    Which one is the killer Feigenbaum or Lechmere?

    You keep being told that there is absolutley no evidence to point to Lechmere killing Nichols or any other victim. He simply found the body on his normal way to work, at his normal time of leaving his house, in any murder someone has to find the body.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    You have many reasons to try to disprove his suspect status bearing in mind you insistence in Lechmere being the killer.

    No, it has nothing to with Lechmere. He stands on his own, and the question of his culpability is to no degree influenced by Feigenbaum. It is only if a suspect is presented with as much or more going for him than Lechmere that Lechmeres candidature is impacted upon. Needless to say, Feigenbaum is not such a suspect.

    As to the MO of the ripper killings as you accept they are not all alike, Tabram stabbed 39 times, Stride had only her throat cut so you have to accpet that in the case of the WM there are diffrences that is if they were all committted by one killer, a fact that I do not subscribe to.

    Peter Kurtens murders entailed drowning, stabbing, hitting with a hammer, slicing throats and so on. Are you saying that they could not have been his, all of them? Now, tell me, what does this teach us?

    As to Feigebnaum after he left the sea he became an itninerant where it is documented that he travelled around the US Midwest where there were similar murders. One in particular mirrors the murder of Tabram and Kelly

    Elkhart Daily Review August 21st 1893

    “An atrocious murder was committed at Perkinstown, a small village west of here. The victim was a fallen woman who lived in a shanty about half a mile from the village, and about one mile from a logging camp operated by Z Darwin. When found her body was found with knife wounds 39 in number, probably inflicted while she was struggling for life, as the greater part of the wounds were on the hands and arms. The left side of her throat was cut. The large arteries being severed and her face was hacked and slashed in a frightful manner. The woman’s name is fand her home Schofield, Marathon County, Wisconsin. A man whose name is unknown has been arrested for the crime, and is now in jail here. When arrested his clothing was soiled with blood. He was a workman in Darwin’s camp and his employers say he believes the man insane. The circumstances point to the guilty man as he was seen going towards the shanty only a short time before the crime was discovered. And he had previously quarreled with the woman.”


    There is no record as to who the arrested man was or that he was ever charged but the similarities are very interesting.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Yes, just like the Ripper, he went for the hands and arms. And he cut the throat down to ... no,wait, he didn’ t. Well, at least he eviscer... What? He didn ’ t?

    Oh. I see.

    And it was in the American Midwest, you say? So how does this fit together with you scorning me when I say that the Ripper murders took place along the very roads Lechmere likely walked to work? And you tell me that many others will have walked these streets?

    Why is less good American evidence a point in favor of Feigenbaum when much better and more precise London evidence relating to Lechmere is pooh-poohed by you? Isn’ t that a tad hypocritical, Trevor? Why is Feigenbaum a top suspect on account of a murder in the American Midwest when I am described by you as deluded for pointing to how Lechmere was found alone with the freshly killed Nichols IN BUCK’ S ROW???

    How does that mind of yours work?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Its not as if he was stopped walking down the road and found to be in possession of a knife.

    He was in possession of a long bladed knife which he used to cut the throat of a female victim those are the facts surrounding the murder itself

    You are arguing on a point where there is no argument to be had.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    But it’s not much of a point though is it Trevor. He had the ‘means’ which was a long bladed knife. How many other men in the same city would have owned or had access to a long bladed knife? A lot. If it was a very specific and not very prevalent type of gun and Feigenbaum owned one then it would be a decent point. Or if it was a rare kind of chemical used on animals and Feigenbaum was a vet then it would be a good point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    If we overemphasize the importance of being a knife killer, that is the precise risk we are running. If you can travel to London from Dundee, then you can travel there from Venezuela, Ulan Bator and Antananarivo too.
    What must be said is that if somebody was killed, mutilated and eviscerated in the same manner as the Ripper victims were, then we SHOULD keep the door ajar for a travelling Ripper; these crimes are so very rare that any deed of the exact same rare character must be looked into.

    In Feigenbaums case, however, these rare inclusions are not present, and so there is no reason to assume a link on account of the character of the deed. What he did much resembles the Stride murder in terms of damage, and we all know how Stride is a much doubted Ripper victim for many. In Feigenbaums case, there is further not the element of a deed in the open streets present, plus his deed seems to be a robbery, something that was arguably not the motivation behind the Ripper murders.

    If Feigenbaum wanted to become a lukewarm candidate, he forgot to mutilate and eviscerate his victim, he didn’ t cut the throat deeply enough, he should have killed out in the open, he should have avoided witnesses and he should not have taken his victims money.
    He should have robbed his victim only and spent the loot on a ticket to London in 1888 and killed away in another fashion there.
    These matters make him an ice cold suspect in my view.
    You have many reasons to try to disprove his suspect status bearing in mind you insistence in Lechmere being the killer.

    As to the MO of the ripper killings as you accept they are not all alike, Tabram stabbed 39 times, Stride had only her throat cut so you have to accpet that in the case of the WM there are diffrences that is if they were all committted by one killer, a fact that I do not subscribe to.

    As to Feigebnaum after he left the sea he became an itninerant where it is documented that he travelled around the US Midwest where there were similar murders. One in particular mirrors the murder of Tabram and Kelly

    Elkhart Daily Review August 21st 1893

    “An atrocious murder was committed at Perkinstown, a small village west of here. The victim was a fallen woman who lived in a shanty about half a mile from the village, and about one mile from a logging camp operated by Z Darwin. When found her body was found with knife wounds 39 in number, probably inflicted while she was struggling for life, as the greater part of the wounds were on the hands and arms. The left side of her throat was cut. The large arteries being severed and her face was hacked and slashed in a frightful manner. The woman’s name is fand her home Schofield, Marathon County, Wisconsin. A man whose name is unknown has been arrested for the crime, and is now in jail here. When arrested his clothing was soiled with blood. He was a workman in Darwin’s camp and his employers say he believes the man insane. The circumstances point to the guilty man as he was seen going towards the shanty only a short time before the crime was discovered. And he had previously quarreled with the woman.”


    There is no record as to who the arrested man was or that he was ever charged but the similarities are very interesting.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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?
    Its not as if he was stopped walking down the road and found to be in possession of a knife.

    He was in possession of a long bladed knife which he used to cut the throat of a female victim those are the facts surrounding the murder itself

    You are arguing on a point where there is no argument to be had.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.”
    If we overemphasize the importance of being a knife killer, that is the precise risk we are running. If you can travel to London from Dundee, then you can travel there from Venezuela, Ulan Bator and Antananarivo too.
    What must be said is that if somebody was killed, mutilated and eviscerated in the same manner as the Ripper victims were, then we SHOULD keep the door ajar for a travelling Ripper; these crimes are so very rare that any deed of the exact same rare character must be looked into.

    In Feigenbaums case, however, these rare inclusions are not present, and so there is no reason to assume a link on account of the character of the deed. What he did much resembles the Stride murder in terms of damage, and we all know how Stride is a much doubted Ripper victim for many. In Feigenbaums case, there is further not the element of a deed in the open streets present, plus his deed seems to be a robbery, something that was arguably not the motivation behind the Ripper murders.

    If Feigenbaum wanted to become a lukewarm candidate, he forgot to mutilate and eviscerate his victim, he didn’ t cut the throat deeply enough, he should have killed out in the open, he should have avoided witnesses and he should not have taken his victims money.
    He should have robbed his victim only and spent the loot on a ticket to London in 1888 and killed away in another fashion there.
    These matters make him an ice cold suspect in my view.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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

    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.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    .
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    And weep, Herlock; don’ t forget to weep!
    I forgot the weeping part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Just for your information the wound to Mrs Hoffman was not a stab wound. Her throat was cut deeply I have attached the relevant p​art 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.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Julia Hoffmans wounds (1).jpg
Views:	173
Size:	110.5 KB
ID:	749884

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Julia Hoffmans wound.jpg
Views:	181
Size:	190.6 KB
ID:	749885

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

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Just accept what you say without question then?

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Perahps you should start to deal with the facts as they are known and forget about inputing all the "what if`s. "the maybe`sú, "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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X