Jack the Ripper: "New" Suspect Revealed

[eighty-eighter]

I watched this documentary and realised it was a repeat of course. Personally I found it unlikely to say the least; the suspect was arrested for a robbery in which he used a knife - hardly the MO of our Jack. In addition there was nothing to connect him with the East River Hotel murder in New York and hence those cross "signatures" on the body. Finally he could not be placed in Whitechapel at the time, though I must say it was odd that those ship files were missing just for the dates in question. Maybe some authorities requested them suspecting him and failed to return them? On balance though I don't believe him to be our man. If he'd been caught red-handed at the New York prostitute murder/mutilation then that would have been a different matter.

[John G]

I was also impressed with the Channel 5 documentary. One of the first JTR books I ever bought was Jack the Ripper: the 21st Century investigation, which I feel deserves to be credited for looking at events from a truly novel perspective.

I have also downloaded Trevor's latest book, which I am also enjoying, particularly his highly persuasive arguments for how the victims' organs could have been removed.

However, I am unsure as to how viable Feigenbaum is as a major suspect. Thus, according to the documentary he committed a Ripper-style murder in America. However, William Bury, arguably, committed a Ripper-style murder in the UK and, unlike, Feigenbaum, he was known to be present in the East End of London at the relevant time. Nonetheless, I only started reading Trevor's book last night so maybe there are more revelations to come!

I do feel, however, that any plausible candidate has to be connected to Whitechapel specifically. That is the problem with Bury's candidature: he is connected with the East End of London, but not Whitechapel. And arguments that he could have been a commuter killer, because of his pony and trap, are surely not tenable because then you would have expected victim's to be turning up all over the East End, particularly when the police put extra resources into Whitechapel, making it a more risky location to commit murder.

Think I'd better stop now before I turn this into a Willliam Bury Thread!

[Jon Guy]

I watched it last night and enjoyed it !!
The bit in New York was very interesting.

... and of course Trevor should promote his work.

[pinkmoon]

We all have to use our imaginations when we are trying to solve a series of murders that are over a hundred years old as long as we don't shout case solved and use dodgy d.n.a evidence then I think a lot of educated guess work can be allowed.

[GUT]

Of course, nothing wrong with people promoting their work, but shamelessly advertising in every post is something else.

Others put it in their signature so that it comes up in EVERY post.

[Harry D]

Why?

Many posters here are also published in the area aren't they entitled to say so.

Of course, nothing wrong with people promoting their work, but shamelessly advertising in every post is something else.

[GUT]

There should be rules about self-promotion on here.

Why?

Many posters here are also published in the area aren't they entitled to say so.

[Harry D]

My turn for the head shake

In case you lost the link to the book here it is again and dont forget there is also a DVD out

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0 Book

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY DVD

There should be rules about self-promotion on here.

[Mary Kelly's Eyes]

Dvd

I bought Trevor's DVD for myself for XMas and can highly recommend it.A great talk and slide show!

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
Since when could you interpret 'circumstantial evidence' as proof?

Must have had very different dictionaries when you were at school. Pretty neat how your reply managed to plug your book though....
Amanda

Many occasions when circumstantial evidence has been used to convict people. But in the case of Feigenbaum there is not enough to convict. There is enough to place him high on the suspect list.

The book brings the investigation up to date that Doc was made 5 years ago, and put many things in the correct perspective why should I not make people aware of that?

If you are basing your views and comments purely on last nights program might I suggest you go away and appraise yourself of all the facts surrounding Feigenbaum and other important issues then come back and discuss.

My turn for the head shake

In case you lost the link to the book here it is again and dont forget there is also a DVD out

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F4QS0H0 Book

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY DVD

[Amanda]

Really.?

Its all about how you interpret the circumstantial evidence.

I think you need to read up in it all since that doc was made new facts about him have emerged full details can be found in

amzn.to/1tGNEb0

Hi Trevor,
Since when could you interpret 'circumstantial evidence' as proof?

Must have had very different dictionaries when you were at school. Pretty neat how your reply managed to plug your book though....
Amanda

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello, Trevor.

By ALL of the victims are you only including the C5? If so, which of the victims are you discounting and why?

I have discussed and argued these issues many times on here before, I dont propose to go through it all again. All the answers to your questions can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files" available on Amazon Kindle

amzn.to/1tGNEb0

[Trevor Marriott]

Got to hand it to you Trevor, it takes guts to back a theory when you can't even prove Feigenbaum's genealogy, movements on board the ships, time spent in a London and.....oh, yes, his real name!!

Never thought I'd have to do this but the shaking head's out.

Amanda

Its all about how you interpret the circumstantial evidence.

I think you need to read up in it all since that doc was made new facts about him have emerged full details can be found in

amzn.to/1tGNEb0

[Harry D]

Feigenbaum by reason of his antecedents, and what we now know of him has to be considered as a suspect for being involved in perhaps one, or some of the murders, more so than many of the readily accepted suspects.

My stance which is not an official one is that all of the murders were not committed by the same hand.

Since the making of that documentary new information and evidence has come to light. But the program still does highlight the contentious organ removal theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello, Trevor.

By ALL of the victims are you only including the C5? If so, which of the victims are you discounting and why?

[Amanda]

Guts....

Feigenbaum by reason of his antecedents, and what we now know of him has to be considered as a suspect for being involved in perhaps one, or some of the murders, more so than many of the readily accepted suspects.

My stance which is not an official one is that all of the murders were not committed by the same hand.

Since the making of that documentary new information and evidence has come to light. But the program still does highlight the contentious organ removal theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Got to hand it to you Trevor, it takes guts to back a theory when you can't even prove Feigenbaum's genealogy, movements on board the ships, time spent in a London and.....oh, yes, his real name!!

Never thought I'd have to do this but the shaking head's out.

Amanda