Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[Herlock Sholmes]

But producing positive proof would that change the views of those on here who dont subscribe to Mckenzie of Coles being ripper victims and the elimination of Druitt from suspicion. - not on your nelly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can assure you it changes nothing he is still a viable subject you might want to look at the documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=2415s
and go to 41 mins it shows the problems encountered with obtaining crew manifest lists. At the time we were only concerned with the dates of the canonical five, The enquiry regarding Coles and Mckenzie came several years later.

But what valuable evidence was obtained was that Feigenbaum was actually shown in the seamans maritime records as having worked for the Nordeutcher Line for almost his whole merchant seamans life, the records show that he worked on their ships which sailed back and forth between Germany and London. We also know that one of their ships was in London berthed near Whitechapel on all of the dates of the Five except one, and on that occassion another ship from the same line was here.

Another major problem encountered with the investigation into Feigenbaum is that he used a number of aliases namely Anton Zahn, Carl Zahn, and Carl Strohand making the whole investigation complexed.

Not forgetting that when he finally left the sea and settled in The USA there were several murders of a similar nature in that country which have tenous links to him being responsible.

At his trial for murdering the woman in New York in 1894 he was shown to be a liar and a thief as well as a killer.

I dont know of any other ripper suspect that can match those ripper credentials

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have you always subscribed to Mackenzie and Coles being victims Trevor or have you now become conveniently convinced in another obsessive attempt to eliminate Druitt?

Here’s the problem. Yes we know who Feigenbaum had previously worked for. Yes it’s certainly not impossible that he could have been on a ship that returned to London in time for the murders but….. you and Harry are constantly saying that we should treat our ‘suspects’ in the same way that the Police do today. That we should apply the same criteria. So why does this apply to Druitt but not to Feigenbaum?

How many times do we here people say “well you can’t even prove that Druitt was ever in Whitechapel.” I’ve never understood what evidence we should expect to have found? For a start Druitt wouldn’t have wanted it known had he visited the Whitechapel and I tend to doubt that The Britannia or The Ten Bells had membership lists or visitors books so even at the time if we knew for certain that he’d been in Whitechapel I’d say that it would have been near impossible to find evidence of such visits. Despite this posters like yourself and Harry still repeat the ‘there’s no evidence of him being in Whitechapel’ point. And this is when discussing an area within walking distance of his places of work and residence.

This doesn’t appear to apply to a man that lived 4000 miles away though. You try and skip over it by saying “well he could have been on a ship.” I’d say that the likeliness of Druitt walking or catching a cab into Whitechapel is considerable less problematic that Feigenbaum undertaking a 4000 boat trip.

If we do great this like a police investigation (as you and Harry propose) I’m assuming that your old boss would, at the very least, have wanted you to prove that your man was in the same country at the time of the crime before naming him as suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

And yet when he allegedly told Lawton of his desire to kill women in his uncorroborated statement you believe him? So was he only a liar on certain days of the week?

Didnt you call him a ‘compulsive’ liar in your book?

yes, but much of what he told Lawton was found to be true one way or another, and not forgetting Lawtons own investigations into what he was able to discover as a result of what Feigenbaum told him and the evidence that came out during his trial, so thank you for your observations and concerns, which have been duly noted, but i will stand by what I have got.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

McKenzie is included because a medical person gave an opinion she could be a Ripper victim,and his opinion was not,nor has not been challenged by persons competant to do so.So suggesting that percentage wise of posters today is an ideal way of deciding whether McKenzie should or should not be included,is never,in any way,going to be taken seriously,nor should it be.

Phillip’s didn’t think that she was killed by the same man. He was a Doctor too. Is Phillips to be taken seriously Harry? Or do we pick and choose Doctors too?

[Herlock Sholmes]

At his trial for murdering the woman in New York in 1894 he was shown to be a liar and a thief as well as a killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And yet when he allegedly told Lawton of his desire to kill women in his uncorroborated statement you believe him? So was he only a liar on certain days of the week?

Didnt you call him a ‘compulsive’ liar in your book?

[harry]

McKenzie is included because a medical person gave an opinion she could be a Ripper victim,and his opinion was not,nor has not been challenged by persons competant to do so.So suggesting that percentage wise of posters today is an ideal way of deciding whether McKenzie should or should not be included,is never,in any way,going to be taken seriously,nor should it be.