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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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 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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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`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

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    .
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-24-2021, 10:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Im not a researcher Trevor. I’ve never claimed to be. But I’m sure that if Fish (or any other researcher) took the time he could find a killer (I’d say a few actually) who killed a woman by cutting her throat and who lived in Europe. Any of them might have come to England. Indeed research might even find that at some point in their lives that they had visited England. There must been killers out there that committed the same type of murder that Feigenbaum did. How many other ripper ‘suspects’ are out there?
    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.

    There were different MO`s seen with many of the Ripper victims all with the use of a knife

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

    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 still makes him a viable suspect to consider.

    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?

    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.

    Members of the jury I rest my case

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-23-2021, 11:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    If I could positively prove that then the case is solved

    Even if you could prove that he was in London the case still wouldn’t be solved. How would it make him any stronger a suspect than Bury for example?

    But what can conclusivley be proved is that he worked for The Nordeutcher Line a merchant line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders. This is confirmed by official maritime reords. Sadly the crew lists for these vessels are mssing from the Bremen Archives.

    What also can be confirmed is that crew lists for one of the same merchant vessels shows him in London as late as 1891. So can an inference be drawn to suggest he might just have been on those vessels in 1888?

    No we can’t. It’s no better than my hypothetical killer in Cornwall where someone could just as easily say “well there was a perfectly good train service between Cornwall and London so he could easily have got there.”

    According to Lawton he admitted to being in London on some of the dates of the murders. So why should we disregrad Lawton?

    Its not just a case of dismissing Lawton Trevor it’s a case of why should you choose to believe Feigenbaum?, a man that you yourself describe as a ‘compulsive liar.’ Did he suddenly become a paragon of honesty when talking to Lawton? You can’t have it both ways.

    He is one of the only suspects to have actually murdered a female using a long bladed knife by cuting her throat.

    Did he? According to the victims son he “saw the defendant strike his mother with the knife in the neck.”

    Now if those facts are not enough in your eyes to elevate him to suspect status then you need a reality check, and a lesson in catergorizing criminal suspects.

    Different type of victim/ Different circumstances/ Different type of location/ Different use of the knife/ Killer in a different country/ Testimony of a compulsive liar that isn’t witnessed by anyone else.

    If that’s ‘bang to rights’ in your book Trevor then I’d suggest the police review some of your old cases
    .

    Where is your proof and corroboration to show that MM was correct to name Druitt as a suspect?

    There is none Trevor but there are others who also went for MacNaghten’s ‘solution.’ There is more than enough to make Druitt an interesting possible culprit. But I don’t say that Druitt was definitely the ripper. I use caution. I just say that I think that he’s an interesting suspect who is dismissed too easily IMO. I think it’s a possibility that he might have been the ripper. I just look at MacNaghten and I don’t assume that he was a liar or an idiot. I also don’t take the view that all of the senior policeman at the time were either moustache-twiddling Victorian villains or Colonel Blimp-ish buffoons. Could he have been mistaken? Of course he could have. I don’t assume though. As you appear to do. Why does the mere mention of the name Druitt get some so hot under the collar?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Im not a researcher Trevor. I’ve never claimed to be. But I’m sure that if Fish (or any other researcher) took the time he could find a killer (I’d say a few actually) who killed a woman by cutting her throat and who lived in Europe. Any of them might have come to England. Indeed research might even find that at some point in their lives that they had visited England. There must been killers out there that committed the same type of murder that Feigenbaum did. How many other ripper ‘suspects’ are out there?



    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post

    I have a death certificate for my great grandmother that has step dads first name and dads last name, also has mum’s surname as Price not Prince, and certificate is only as good as the person filling it out, and if people are illiterate, well.... almost anything goes.
    I’m not sure of the point you’re making, GUT. My point was that both the person being married and the registrar considered both names relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    No it was the other way round:

    Stepfather’s surname first (the name she’d been known by for most of her life) then ‘previously known as’ birth father’s surname.

    She felt it necessary to provide both, and the registrar felt it necessary to record both.
    I have a death certificate for my great grandmother that has step dads first name and dads last name, also has mum’s surname as Price not Prince, and certificate is only as good as the person filling it out, and if people are illiterate, well.... almost anything goes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    He is one of the only suspects to have actually murdered a female using a long bladed knife by cuting her throat.8

    Now if those facts are not enough in your eyes to elevate him to suspect status then you need a reality check, and a lesson in catergorizing criminal suspects.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    ... whereas having been alone with a murder victim at the approximate time of her death, having a logical geographical and chronological link to all the murders in a series, having disagreed with the police over what passed on the murder night and having used a name he was not registered by in combination with the investigation of course does not make Lechmere a suspect.

    Great work, that, Trevor! Really great and soooooo unbiased.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    So you have a suspect. You’ve written a book and do speaking tours but you are completely unbiased.

    I on the other hand have said no more than, of the named suspects I favour Druitt but I wouldn’t put money on ihim. A very mild opinion. And you deduce that I’m the one that’s biased?

    Unbelievable. Now me and Fish are in a conspiracy of naysayers. I never thought I’d live to see the day considering Fish and I have spent the last 2 years doing little more than disagree!

    We are perfectly capable of forming an opinion Trevor. I’m certainly not claiming to always be right and I’m guessing that Fish wouldn’t either but I look at Feigenbaum like this.

    He killed a woman by stabbing her in the neck with a knife - unlike the ripper.
    She was not a prostitute - unlike the rippers victims.
    The murder was indoors and there was another person present - unlike the ripper
    There were no mutilations - unlike the ripper (Stride apart of course) - and you can’t claim that the woman’s son disturbed him before he mutilated her because no one could think that he could attempt to do all that without waking him.
    She screamed before he killed her - unlike the ripper’s victims as far as we know.

    You also constantly slate the MacNaghten Memorandum as uncorroborated but turn a blind eye to the fact that no one heard Feigenbaum tell Lawton anything.

    And strangely you believe that Feigenbaum was being truthful after calling him a compulsive liar in the same piece! Make your mind up Trevor

    And, and this is the biggie Trevor, the one you simply can’t get past - you cannot place him in England at the time of the murders. Until you can he simply has to be eliminated as a suspect.

    He was in America at the time of the ripper murders as far as we know so the burden of proof is on you to prove that he wasn’t.
    If I could positively prove that then the case is solved

    But what can conclusivley be proved is that he worked for The Nordeutcher Line a merchant line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders. This is confirmed by official maritime reords. Sadly the crew lists for these vessels are mssing from the Bremen Archives.

    What also can be confirmed is that crew lists for one of the same merchant vessels shows him in London as late as 1891. So can an inference be drawn to suggest he might just have been on those vessels in 1888? According to Lawton he admitted to being in London on some of the dates of the murders. Soi why should we disregrad Lawton?

    He is one of the only suspects to have actually murdered a female using a long bladed knife by cuting her throat.

    Now if those facts are not enough in your eyes to elevate him to suspect status then you need a reality check, and a lesson in catergorizing criminal suspects.

    Where is your proof and corroboration to show that MM was correct to name Druitt as a suspect?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The main naysayers on the topic of Feigenbaum would seem to be you and Herlock. You have a good reason for rejecting him as a suspect, and Herlock clearly has his own preferred suspects which do not include Feigenbaum. Its only natural that both of you are going to stand your ground and support your own suspects, to do anything else would admit defeat.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    So you have a suspect. You’ve written a book and do speaking tours but you are completely unbiased.

    I on the other hand have said no more than, of the named suspects I favour Druitt but I wouldn’t put money on ihim. A very mild opinion. And you deduce that I’m the one that’s biased?

    Unbelievable. Now me and Fish are in a conspiracy of naysayers. I never thought I’d live to see the day considering Fish and I have spent the last 2 years doing little more than disagree!

    We are perfectly capable of forming an opinion Trevor. I’m certainly not claiming to always be right and I’m guessing that Fish wouldn’t either but I look at Feigenbaum like this.

    He killed a woman by stabbing her in the neck with a knife - unlike the ripper.
    She was not a prostitute - unlike the rippers victims.
    The murder was indoors and there was another person present - unlike the ripper
    There were no mutilations - unlike the ripper (Stride apart of course) - and you can’t claim that the woman’s son disturbed him before he mutilated her because no one could think that he could attempt to do all that without waking him.
    She screamed before he killed her - unlike the ripper’s victims as far as we know.

    You also constantly slate the MacNaghten Memorandum as uncorroborated but turn a blind eye to the fact that no one heard Feigenbaum tell Lawton anything.

    And strangely you believe that Feigenbaum was being truthful after calling him a compulsive liar in the same piece! Make your mind up Trevor

    And, and this is the biggie Trevor, the one you simply can’t get past - you cannot place him in England at the time of the murders. Until you can he simply has to be eliminated as a suspect.

    He was in America at the time of the ripper murders as far as we know so the burden of proof is on you to prove that he wasn’t.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-23-2021, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    I’ll have to dig out my wife’s birth certificate, because I believe it gave her birth father’s name as her surname and then added her stepfather’s as ‘also known as’.


    No it was the other way round:

    Stepfather’s surname first (the name she’d been known by for most of her life) then ‘previously known as’ birth father’s surname.

    She felt it necessary to provide both, and the registrar felt it necessary to record both.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X