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 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.

    Comment


    • 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

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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.
          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 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?

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  The proven killer is Feigenbaum.

                  Wow congrats you managed to get something right at last

                  He is however not the proven killer of Nichols.

                  Nor is Lechmere

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

                  A suspect only by your wild speculative theory

                  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.
                  I am glad you are able to give the above self appraisal of yourself

                  You have made Lechmere a suspect based on no evidence at all, Lechmere is akin to the majority of those would be suspects that appear on the list of 100, none of them have any evidence to support their suspect status either.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk





                  Comment


                  • . 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
                    Are you so desperate that you’re trying to make two points out of one?
                    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

                      I am glad you are able to give the above self appraisal of yourself

                      You have made Lechmere a suspect based on no evidence at all, Lechmere is akin to the majority of those would be suspects that appear on the list of 100, none of them have any evidence to support their suspect status either.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                      Trevor, Charles Lechmere was at the murder site, alone with the victim, at a remove in time when Polly Nichols would still go on to bleed for many minutes. That is not "no evidence at all".

                      Lechmere´s logical working paths would take him right past the Whitechapel murder sites. That is not "no evidence at all".

                      He is recorded as having disagreed with the police over what was said and done on the murder night. That is not "no evidence at all".

                      He is closely linked to the area where Stride was killed. That is not "no evidence at all".

                      His old working trek from James Street to Broad Street would have passed right by Mitre Square. That is not "no evidence at all".

                      He used another name than the one he was registered by and otherwise used when in contact with authorities as he spoke to the police and inquest. That is not "no evidence at all".

                      Carl Feigenbaum killed a woman in USA. That is not "no evidence at all". It IS evidence, but not evidence that he was in any way involved in the Ripper murders.

                      And really, I don´t have to give myself any "self appraisal". All I have to do is to position myself next to you and boy, will I look good!

                      Now, if there is nothing more...?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-25-2021, 08:14 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I am glad you are able to give the above self appraisal of yourself

                        You have made Lechmere a suspect based on no evidence at all, Lechmere is akin to the majority of those would be suspects that appear on the list of 100, none of them have any evidence to support their suspect status either.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        You claim to be objective Trevor but that’s not how you’re approaching this when you use phrases like ‘wild speculative.’ As I’ve said, I don’t think that Lechmere was our man (though of course I could be totally wrong) but I can still see that he’s not wildly speculative compared to a man, and apologies to all for being repetitive but I’ll keep saying it, that you can’t even place in the same country as the victims. How much more basic a requirement for suspecthood can there be. It must be right at the top of any league table of requirements. Ok, I’ll put it at number 2.

                        1. Must have been alive at the time.

                        2. Must have been in the same country as his proposed victims.

                        Not ‘well, he might have been’ or ‘it’s possible that he could have travelled...’ those aren’t good enough.

                        That’s it. Until you can prove, at the very least, that he was in England at the time of the murders every other fact or inference about him is pretty irrelevant. And yet you consider it ‘wildly speculative’ to consider Lechmere? If you disregard every point that Fish has raised and just leave the fact that he was alone with the victim for a period of time just before a second person arrived it puts him, in that respect, ahead of all other suspects and so he has to be considered. We then evaluate him as individuals. We won’t all agree of course but you seem to want to use this notion of terminology (suspect or non-suspect or person of interest or whatever) to remove him and any suspect apart from Feigenbaum from the conversation.

                        Why are you so keen to try and ‘erase’ suspects by using this nonsensical terminology argument? Do you think that by discussing Lechmere the real killer might be evading us??
                        Regards

                        Herlock



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

                        Comment


                        • I never thought I’d live to see the day when I was on a Lechmere thread with Fish and I’m defending Lechmere’s status as a suspect.
                          Regards

                          Herlock



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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            I never thought I’d live to see the day when I was on a Lechmere thread with Fish and I’m defending Lechmere’s status as a suspect.
                            Maybe because you are as deluded as he is, and both of you have no basic understanding of how suspects are determined, You both clearly do not understand the terms "Person of interest","likely suspect" and "prime suspect" In the real world of criminal investigations these are valid catergories are there are clear differences.

                            Which catergory does Lechmere fit into? In my opinion based on what is known I would say none of them. Does finding a body make someone a suspect or even a person of intereset, based on what has been presented no.

                            In the light of what has been presented on Feigenbaum he must be regarded as a likely suspect for one some or perhaps all of the murders, If it could be conclusively proven that he was in London at the time of the murders then he would be elevated to a prime suspect, and there are very few of them in Ripperology.

                            This thread has been hijacked by both you and Fish and turned into a Feigenbaum debate in an attempt to deflect away from the original Lechmere thread. So I will leave you both to continue your futile attempts to show Lechmere was a killer.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Here is some definitions of the above Trevor.

                              A prime suspect or key suspect is a person who is considered by the law enforcement agency investigating a crime to be the most likely suspect. The idiom "prime suspect" believed to have originated in 1931. "Key suspect" is seen as early as 1948. ... Having the most likely motive to commit the crime.

                              suspect verb [T] (THINK LIKELY)
                              to think or believe something to be true or probable:

                              A “person of interest” refers to someone who authorities believe might have information pertinent to a crime. .

                              Here are some definitions which one does your suspect fall into Trevor.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Maybe because you are as deluded as he is, and both of you have no basic understanding of how suspects are determined, You both clearly do not understand the terms "Person of interest","likely suspect" and "prime suspect" In the real world of criminal investigations these are valid catergories are there are clear differences.

                                Which catergory does Lechmere fit into? In my opinion based on what is known I would say none of them. Does finding a body make someone a suspect or even a person of intereset, based on what has been presented no.

                                In the light of what has been presented on Feigenbaum he must be regarded as a likely suspect for one some or perhaps all of the murders, If it could be conclusively proven that he was in London at the time of the murders then he would be elevated to a prime suspect, and there are very few of them in Ripperology.

                                This thread has been hijacked by both you and Fish and turned into a Feigenbaum debate in an attempt to deflect away from the original Lechmere thread. So I will leave you both to continue your futile attempts to show Lechmere was a killer.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                The only ‘futility’ hear Trevor is the apparently pointless attempt to drill into you the fact that WE ARE NOT UNDERTAKING A POLICE INVESTIGATION! Why won’t you let this sink in?

                                We are under absolutely zero obligation to adhere strictly to the same terminology that the police use so why are you intent on saying that we are? Why are you so intent on ploughing on? I honestly can’t make up my mind whether you genuinly don’t understand this or if you’re just continuing bloody-mindedly. It really is elementary stuff Trevor. Pleeeeese try and understand. It doesn’t matter if we call someone a suspect or a person of interested or a cheese sandwich. It’s irrelevant.

                                All that we can do is debate the positives and negatives of each SUSPECT.

                                And just to add to this weirdness you yet again accuse me of trying to prove Lechmere a killer when I’ve stated at least twice but possibly three times on this thread that I don’t think that he was the ripper.

                                And the only issue with Feigenbaum is that you seem to believe that 3,500 miles don’t matter! That’s not bias of course though

                                Please get a grip Trevor.

                                Regards

                                Herlock



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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X