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

  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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’.



    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    I agree with the first part: that sums it up. People could be known in various written sources with one name (for instance, their birthname or married name) and be known in every other instance with another name.
    I disagree with the second part: there was no name that one "should" use when contacting "authority".
    We’ll have to agree to differ on that, Kattrup.

    Let me ask you a question. If Christer discovered a body on his way to work one morning and when he eventually made contact with the authorities he told them his name was ‘Christer Fisherman’, would you consider that at all odd? After all, dozens of us know him by the name Fisherman.

    I personally would find it extremely odd. It may not be illegal in Sweden to do so, but I bet the vast majority of the population there would also find it somewhat suspect.

    There is considerable evidence that the Victorian public held the same view as me, that the name in which your birth was registered is your ‘official’ name. And there are even examples of newspaper advice columns expressing the same view. Plus we have countless examples of people who have adopted a new name disclosing their ‘real’/‘proper’ (whatever) name. Why would they have bothered to do that unless they thought it was the correct thing to do? And if they thought so, why didn’t CAL?
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-23-2021, 03:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    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
    Actually, there can be no defeat as long as there is no conclusive proof. Even if you were to say "I was wrong, Feigenbaum is a crap suspect", that would not rule him out definitively as the possible killer. Itīs is the same phenomenon, but backwards, as is the fact that neither of us can conclusively prove that our men was the killer.

    The one difference between us is that Lechmere is a much better suspect based on the case material.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    I agree again, Trevor. And I would be bold enough to tell you that I think that Herlock is also quite aware of this.

    So how come we donīt believe in Feigenbaum as a suspect?

    Strange, is it not? Given the overwhelming amount of evidence there is against him, one would have thought ...

    But no.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The evidence and the facts together determine the status of any one suspect, and not personal opinions based on no facts or evidence

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I agree again, Trevor. And I would be bold enough to tell you that I think that Herlock is also quite aware of this.

    So how come we donīt believe in Feigenbaum as a suspect?

    Strange, is it not? Given the overwhelming amount of evidence there is against him, one would have thought ...

    But no.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-23-2021, 02:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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

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

    Its irrelevant Trevor.
    The evidence and the facts together determine the status of any one suspect, and not personal opinions based on no facts or evidence

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    I agree with the first part: that sums it up. People could be known in various written sources with one name (for instance, their birthname or married name) and be known in every other instance with another name.
    I disagree with the second part: there was no name that one "should" use when contacting "authority".
    What you are proposing is that somebody who contacted a specific authority, used an alternative name then and there and not in contacts with any other authorities. If you think that should not raise any eyebrows you are not being realistic.

    Once we consider that the singled out authority was the police and that the person using an alternative name was involved in a murder case where the circumstances point to the possibility that he was the killer, it seems you choose naivety over common sense.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-23-2021, 11:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

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

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

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

    Its irrelevant Trevor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

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


    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post



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

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    I’ll indulge you to a degree, Kattrup.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

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

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

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

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

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

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

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

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

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

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk



    Leave a comment:

Working...
X