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

[Fisherman]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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 don´t 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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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 don´t 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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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. It´s 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.

[MrBarnett]

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?

[MrBarnett]

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’.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Fisherman]

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.

[GUT]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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