Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?
Collapse
X
-
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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
Great work, that, Trevor! Really great and soooooo unbiased.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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:
-
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
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:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostI’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’.
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:
-
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’.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kattrup View PostI 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".
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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
The one difference between us is that Lechmere is a much better suspect based on the case material.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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
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:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kattrup View PostI 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".
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:
-
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
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:
Leave a comment: