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

[Trevor Marriott]

ah OK - then feigenbaum remains a non suspect until then. thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

ah OK - then feigenbaum remains a non suspect until then. thanks for clearing that up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and i am wasting my time trying to make you see sense? So once more for the sake of my sanity.

The police and doctors believed that the canonical five were the sole work of one killer JTR, we now question Stride as not being a ripper victim simply because of the MO of her murder not being consistent with the other murders, but we are prepared to accept without question that Nichols,Kelly.Chapman and Eddowes were killed by JTR clearly we are, and there are those who would add Stride to the number of Ripper victims.

So how do we conclude that the aformentiond 4/5 victims were the work of JTR? by accepting the facts and the evidence from 1888. Evidence from both police and doctors. It matters not what we think now its what they thought back then.

But when applying the same principle to McKenzie whose murder had all the hallmarks of the previous murders you are disregarding the police and doctors evidence and opinions by saying she might have been a ripper victim and i fully accept that but it doesnt detract away from the fact that the police and doctor sugested she was as they did with the other victims, and my point is that if she was then Druitt is eliminated completely.

I hope we can now draw a line under all of this now as all that needs to be said on this topic has been said, and I personally can add nothing further and I will withdraw from this thread now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re not only wasting your own time Trevor but sadly, yet again, you are wasting everyone else’s.

We form our opinions on Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, Mackenzie and Coles (and other potential victims, whether fatal or otherwise) in exactly the same way.

We look at the evidence and come to our own conclusions as individuals.

We base our opinions on the evidence that exists and our own individual interpretations of it.

This is why opinions can differ from individual to individual.

When considering Ripperologist’s opinions we see that they vary but some things are far more agreed upon than others.

I can’t produce exact figures of course but I’d suggest the following.

The overwhelming majority of Ripperologists are pretty firm in naming Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as victims (some might disagree of course but I’m confident when I say the overwhelming majority.)

Stride is still debated as we know. I’m confident that I’m correct in saying that more people believe that she was a victim than believe that she wasn’t.

Tabram is considered a victim by some but I’d tend toward suggesting perhaps 25% or so (again these are only my estimations)

In Mackenzie I’d estimate that perhaps 25% or possibly fewer believe her to be a victim (perhaps largely based on the cursory injuries when compared to previous murders)

Im unsure if anyone goes for Cole’s as a victim but if they do I’d suggest the lowest percentage of any victim.

…….

Therefore, in general and only my own estimations of course, I’d say 95+% go for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly.

75% go for Stride.

Maybe 40/50% go for Tabram.

Maybe 25% go for Mackenzie.

Maybe 10% go for Cole’s.

……..

And so to sum up, and I really can’t believe I’m having to explain this to an adult, let alone an ex-copper…….

It is completely and obviously correct to say - if Mackenzie was a victim then Druitt couldn’t have been the ripper.

But it’s completely and obviously wrong to say - Druitt should be dismissed because for all that we know Mackenzie might have been a victim.

You cannot state a positive by using an unknown.

You yourself or any poster is free of course to say - I’m 100% convinced that Mackenzie was a victim therefore I cannot consider Druitt a suspect but you would be delusional of course because it is completely physically impossible to claim to know.

……

If you can’t understand and accept the above you are beyond all hope of reason Trevor. I’ve said nothing unreasonable, I’ve made no claim to knowing anything 100% I haven’t claimed any opinion as fact. Just for once Trevor, don’t argue that black is white just because you desperately want to eliminate Druitt.

[Aethelwulf]

ah OK - then feigenbaum remains a non suspect until then. thanks for clearing that up.

I too was eagerly awaiting this useful piece of info. You would have thought this kind of thing would have been central to F being a suspect and something Trevor would have close by, at hand, ready to ram down our throats at any given opportunity, like his makeshift sanitary towel theory, but: 'If and when I find it I will post it' = it doesn't exist

[Herlock Sholmes]

I too was eagerly awaiting this useful piece of info. You would have thought this kind of thing would have been central to F being a suspect and something Trevor would have close by, at hand, ready to ram down our throats at any given opportunity, like his makeshift sanitary towel theory, but: 'If and when I find it I will post it' = it doesn't exist

You’re very cynical Wulf

[Abby Normal]

I too was eagerly awaiting this useful piece of info. You would have thought this kind of thing would have been central to F being a suspect and something Trevor would have close by, at hand, ready to ram down our throats at any given opportunity, like his makeshift sanitary towel theory, but: 'If and when I find it I will post it' = it doesn't exist

hi wulf
so much for proof positive. lol. but i was actually kind of excited for this because of course if he was on a ship docked near wc when mckenzie was murdered then this would bump him up to a viable suspect, and all kudos for trevor. a proven throat cutting murderer of a woman sailor in wc at the time of a probable ripper victim and accused by a lawyer not too far removed in time would be very interesting indeed IMHO.

but until that proof positive is produced and vetted, a viable suspect he is not.

[Trevor Marriott]

hi wulf
so much for proof positive. lol. but i was actually kind of excited for this because of course if he was on a ship docked near wc when mckenzie was murdered then this would bump him up to a viable suspect, and all kudos for trevor. a proven throat cutting murderer of a woman sailor in wc at the time of a probable ripper victim and accused by a lawyer not too far removed in time would be very interesting indeed IMHO.

but until that proof positive is produced and vetted, a viable suspect he is not.

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

[Abby Normal]

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

trevor. keep digging and if you ever find fiegy, and can show it, was on ship docked near wc on AMs murder, (or any of the murders) ill be tje first to congradulate you. im serious. it would make him a real suspect.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But he could have simply made it up. Lawton could have added details after a bit of research. No one else heard this or could confirm it so, by definition, no one could corroborate that he ever said any such thing.

Wasn’t Lawton a cocaine user who committed suicide?

[GUT]

Abby

hi trevor whats the "positive proof that he was in London on one of those ships on the date of mckenzies murder"? do you have a ships manifest or something with his name?

Trevor

Yes the crew list for the vessel in question


Abby

could you please produce this list? im assuming its got the name of the ship, tje date it was docked, tje location it was docked and fegeinbaums name??

Trevor

If and when I find it I will post it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



So, what is proven???