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

[Trevor Marriott]

”As late as”? You are aware that is TOO late, are you not? The Ripper murders occurred three years BEFORE that, at a remove in time when you cannot put Feigenbaum in Calais, can you?
As a contrast, I can put Lechmere in Britain in 1888.
In London, even.
In the East End.
In Whitechapel.
In Buck’ s Row.
At around 3.45 on the morning og August the 31st.

Each to his own.

This really isn’ t going your way, is it?

You can put Lechmere in London and all of those places you say, But arent you forgetting all the other residents of London who could also have been in that place at that time, any of which could have been the killer, or even Carl Feigenbaum for that matter. Lechmere had a legitemate reason for being where he was at the time he found the body, until you prove otherwsie that will stand as good evidence to prove his innocence

You have not produced one scrap of evidnce to show Lechmere had any violent tendencies, or that he ever carried a knife, or that he ever used the services of prostitutes. In fact as you keep being told you have failed to produce any evidence to support your misguided beleif.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hypothetically speaking....We have a man who had killed a woman by cutting her throat in Cornwall in 1896. We know that he visited London in 1891 but we have no evidence that he visited at any other time. The murder wasn’t of a prostitute though and it took place in a house with other people present. There was no attempt at mutilation. There was a perfectly good train service though so he could easily have got to London though. Then someone that knew our man claims that he’d told him that he’d fantasised about killing and mutilating women. This man doesn’t bother reporting it to the police he just goes straight to the Press for publicity. No one can corroborate this though as no one else was present when it allegedly took place.

Would the police consider this man a good suspect? Or even a suspect at all?

Id go for the latter. Our second man would be shelved with the cranks that surface when a murder occurs.

If I were you I would stick with your man Druitt and not bother with suspects you know nothing about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If I were you I would stick with your man Druitt and not bother with suspects you know nothing about.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That may well be the funniest post out here in a long time!

[Trevor Marriott]

That may well be the funniest post out here in a long time!

No it can never beat your posts where you continue to try to show Lechmere was a serial killer, and a body dismemberer.

Its a wonder Lechmere ever found time to go to his place or work with all that killing, mutilatiing, removing organs, and the cutting up bodies and dumping them in the Thames is all parts of London.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You can put Lechmere in London and all of those places you say, But arent you forgetting all the other residents of London who could also have been in that place at that time, any of which could have been the killer, or even Carl Feigenbaum for that matter. Lechmere had a legitemate reason for being where he was at the time he found the body, until you prove otherwsie that will stand as good evidence to prove his innocence

No, I am not forgetting a single soul, Trevor. It always applies in every case of murder in a large town that there are myriads of people present. But that is not what the police is interested in - they want to know whether or not their suspect specifically had reason to be at or close to the murder spots at the relevant hours. It is the suspects movements that are tracked, not those of Mrs Smith or Mr Brown. There would be no need to check for this parameter if it was always counterweighed by how other people could also have been there. I would have thought that an ex-copper was aware of this...?

You have not produced one scrap of evidnce to show Lechmere had any violent tendencies, or that he ever carried a knife, or that he ever used the services of prostitutes. In fact as you keep being told you have failed to produce any evidence to support your misguided beleif.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’ t have to prove that he was violent, and even if I did, it would not per se make him the Ripper.

It seems you are unaware that carmen carried knifes so as to be able to cut the harness of their cart in case of an accident? Now that you know, you may wish to be a bit more careful before you step in it again.

How much evidence is there for Feigenbaum being the Ripper, Trevor? I ha e told you time and time again that a theory is a fact-based suggestion, and why a far more factbased suspect than Mr Figtree should be disegarded to please a poster who does not have much knowledge about anything, police suspicions and carmen’ s knives included, I cannot fathom.

It is almost as hard to understand as why you keep coming back for more everytime you have had your bottom kicked.

[Fisherman]

No it can never beat your posts where you continue to try to show Lechmere was a serial killer, and a body dismemberer.

Its a wonder Lechmere ever found time to go to his place or work with all that killing, mutilatiing, removing organs, and the cutting up bodies and dumping them in the Thames is all parts of London.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe he was a lot more resourceful than you, Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I were you I would stick with your man Druitt and not bother with suspects you know nothing about.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Apart from the fact that Druitt was named as a suspect by the Chief Constable of The Metropolitan Police of course (something that, no matter how seriously or not the individual views Druitt, cannot be denied)

......

As far as what I know about Feigenbaum, ive read the only source of information on him that I know - your book. So I know for an absolutely indisputable fact that no one else heard what Feigenbaum allegedly said to Lawton (a man who, rather than contacting the police, went to the Press - strongly hinting that he was more interested in personal publicity rather than assisting the Police to solve the case. So how important was this ‘testimony’ that no one else heard? Well, according to you:

“What he revealed would be crucial as far as the final pieces of my investigation were concerned.”

So a piece of uncorroborated evidence is crucial? Ok.

You say that he made the statement to the Press in the hope that the police would take up the case? Why this route and not just go direct to the police? Did the police show any interest in this suspect? Again, according to you:

“Neither the New York Police nor the Metropolitan Police in London appeared to have pursued this line of enquiry, and I have to ask why not?”

Because they saw no value in it perhaps? Neither the police or the Press felt that it was worth contacting the Met?

You even use this against Feigenbaum:

“We know that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar as was proven at his trial and corroborated by the trial transcript,”

Without considering how it might point to the possibility that he might have told Lawton a pack of lies. Unless he was only a ‘compulsive’ liar under certain circumstances which rather contradicts the word ‘compulsive.’

And as Lawton committed suicide 3 years after the murder might it not even be the case that he could have been, shall we say, imbalanced at the time that he knew Feigenbaum.

I fail to see why you consider this man a strong suspect. I don’t believe that Lechmere was the Ripper (unless Fish persuaded me with his book) but at least he was at the scene. It’s difficult to suspect a man that we can’t even show was in the country at the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from the fact that Druitt was named as a suspect by the Chief Constable of The Metropolitan Police of course (something that, no matter how seriously or not the individual views Druitt, cannot be denied)

......

As far as what I know about Feigenbaum, ive read the only source of information on him that I know - your book. So I know for an absolutely indisputable fact that no one else heard what Feigenbaum allegedly said to Lawton (a man who, rather than contacting the police, went to the Press - strongly hinting that he was more interested in personal publicity rather than assisting the Police to solve the case. So how important was this ‘testimony’ that no one else heard? Well, according to you:

“What he revealed would be crucial as far as the final pieces of my investigation were concerned.”

So a piece of uncorroborated evidence is crucial? Ok.

You say that he made the statement to the Press in the hope that the police would take up the case? Why this route and not just go direct to the police? Did the police show any interest in this suspect? Again, according to you:

“Neither the New York Police nor the Metropolitan Police in London appeared to have pursued this line of enquiry, and I have to ask why not?”

Because they saw no value in it perhaps? Neither the police or the Press felt that it was worth contacting the Met?

You even use this against Feigenbaum:

“We know that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar as was proven at his trial and corroborated by the trial transcript,”

Without considering how it might point to the possibility that he might have told Lawton a pack of lies. Unless he was only a ‘compulsive’ liar under certain circumstances which rather contradicts the word ‘compulsive.’

And as Lawton committed suicide 3 years after the murder might it not even be the case that he could have been, shall we say, imbalanced at the time that he knew Feigenbaum.

I fail to see why you consider this man a strong suspect. I don’t believe that Lechmere was the Ripper (unless Fish persuaded me with his book) but at least he was at the scene. It’s difficult to suspect a man that we can’t even show was in the country at the time.

Lawton was governed by client confidentiality which meant he could not by law disclose anything Feigenbaum said to him while he was alive.

After his execution he was able to disclose what he did. In fact he did invite the police to do their checks into his story here is the relevant quote

"“His motive for crime was his frightful desire for mutilation. I will stake my professional reputation that if the police will trace this man's movements carefully for the last few years their investigations will lead them to London and to Whitechapel. He had been all over Europe and much of this country. He seemed on first acquaintance to be simple-minded, almost imbecile, yet the man was crafty beyond measure. He had means of his own, as was proved by a will he made before his death, yet he always professed extreme poverty.”

Not the actions of someone who you claim invented this story. Out of all the wordlwide crimes 8 years after the murders ceased what would Lawton have gained kniowing that the authorities might have taken up his offer to investigate.

In case you are not familar with the rules of evidence

"Circumstancial evidence" - Evidence to support the truthfulness of that alreday given- and there is a wealth of that which you seem to have overlooked.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

In case you are not familar with the rules of evidence [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

"Circumstancial evidence" - Evidence to support the truthfulness of that alreday given- and there is a wealth of that which you seem to have overlooked.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

... says the poster who claims that there is no evidence for Lechmere!

In which universe is there more circumstantial evidence for Feigenbaum than for Lechmere, Trevor?

How on earth can you entertain any sort of hope to be taken seriously???

By the way, are you aware that heaps of people claimed they were the Ripper? Just as scores of people confessed falsely to the Green River killings, the Yorkshire Ripper murders, the Hillside Strangler murders, the BTK murders and any infamous series of murders ever perpetrated? The police (you used to be one, so you may have heard of this phenomenon) are prepared for these nutcases, and they very quickly discard them. They make for an unwelcome tapping of the resources, though.
Serial killers are quite often narcissists, and so they claim more murders than they are repsonsible for on many occasions. Have a look at Henry Lee Lucas, for example. And listen to how Bundy and many others hinted at death tolls far beyond the proven cases.

If Feigenbaum ever confessed to the Ripper murders - and as Herlock correctly pointed out, it may well be that his lawyer invented it all on his own - what "circumstantial evidence" are you going to point to in order to seal the Feigebaum deal?

And YOU claim that I have nothing!

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s not a claim it’s a fact you have absolutely no evidence to warrant Lechmere being looked upon as a prime suspect

if if you want to find out more about Feigenbaum's suspect status I suggest you read the chapter on him in my book because you are as misinformed as is your running mate Herlock

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

It’s not a claim it’s a fact you have absolutely no evidence to warrant Lechmere being looked upon as a prime suspect

if if you want to find out more about Feigenbaum's suspect status I suggest you read the chapter on him in my book because you are as misinformed as is your running mate Herlock

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would I waste time on a non-starter, Trevor? The second we are informed that Lechmere was at a murder site when the victim would go on to bleed for many minutes, Feigenbaum is left lightyears behind.

Its a tough pill to swallow, I know. But really, you are asking for it.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Sorry to intrude on the verbal jousting chaps, just a quick thought on the Cross/Lechmere name business.

Principally, the name issue isn't of that much importance, either Trev wise or Fish wise. The Lechmere candidacy rests or wrecks on far more relevant and tangible lines. It is worth a look though, because it's undisputable that Charles Cross used the name Lechmere on every official document that can be found. The name Cross is recorded twice, both in relation to police investigations. So, he uses the name Cross when he's up to no good? Well, no, not really. In the accident when the child was run over, he uses Cross. But, he wasn't on trial, he was absolved of criminal guilt, he certainly wasn't hiding his identity. But Cross disappears until 1888. Again, he's not on trial, and given that his address and employment were known, it's not like he was hiding.

So, could it be that the reason we have these two records of Cross, it's because it's the two occasions we actually have his verbal record of his given name? We know names were more fluid in the time, if we had only written records, he'd be Lechmere, unequivocally. But we have two occasions on record where he was able to give a verbal record, and his verbal record is the name Cross. Does this seem like a plausible explanation?

As I mentioned, this wouldn't mean that if Lechmere wasn't being deceptive then he couldn't be the killer. He was found on scene with a very recently murdered woman. Others were found on his routes. I just think the name issue maybe isn't as important as it appears.

Anyway, there's an interlude. I'll let jousting recommence.

[paul g]

Trevor , can you put Feigenbaum's in London at the time of the murders.
sorry if you have provided unequivocal proof in any previous previous writings but I have not read everything.
regards.

[rjpalmer]

because it's undisputable that Charles Cross used the name Lechmere on every official document that can be found.

With the caveat that he is listed as 'Charles Cross' in the 1861 census.

True, being only 11 or 12, he probably didn't contribute to the census form, but it is still evidence that he may have been known by that name during these formative years, which is potentially relevant.

It's in your teens that you meet many of your mates, and first enter the work force, so it is not inconceivable he was known as Charles Cross in his immediate circle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s not a claim it’s a fact you have absolutely no evidence to warrant Lechmere being looked upon as a prime suspect

if if you want to find out more about Feigenbaum's suspect status I suggest you read the chapter on him in my book because you are as misinformed as is your running mate Herlock

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s that old question of terminology which you appear to find so important Trevor. I remember Paul Begg and myself talking to you about it on the Druitt thread. It’s not important in any way if we term someone a suspect or a prime suspect or a person of interest because, as we said before, we aren’t undertaking a police investigation here. Obviously terminology is important to a police investigation because it’s important that they prioritise. They have finite resources and the consequences of them following a wrong path are infinitely worse than if we do. Killers escaping justice, further victims etc. So we have no need for a league table of suspects because it doesn’t matter. We are armchair detectives as the saying goes (yes I know that you were a real one) playing Hunt The Ripper. In this ‘game’ a suspect is someone that is suspected by someone. So Lewis Carroll is a suspect (even though it appears that only one person thinks him guilty.) Walter Sickert is a suspect as is James Maybrick and Druitt and Kosminski and Bury and Lechmere and Hutchinson - until they can categorically be eliminated (for example if we can’t even prove that the ‘suspect’ was in the country at the time.)

Feigenbaum has a ‘suspect status’ because you’ve given him one. Fair enough. Each ‘suspect’ is down to subjective judgment. Why is Feigenbaum a likely suspect because you believe that he is and yet Lechmere isn’t even though Fish and others think that he is or might be. If we have a suspect league table who decides who goes where you? Me? Fish? Or Dale Lerner who thinks that Van Gogh was the ripper? (and he definitely wasn’t in the country at the time btw) And if we did have suspects in a suspect status table and you were the judge and you placed Lechmere at the bottom would that stop people discussing him or Fish’s forthcoming book? No it wouldn't? This terminology thing is completely pointless Trevor.