|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 8:10 am: |       |
That's fine RJ, but it serves to illustrate that you are, just like the rest of us, employing logic to support your own argument. You suggest that an abusive Kidney-Pie could have slit Stride's throat for leaving him, by way of showing that: "If I can't have her, no one will".
And while that in itself is a perfectly reasonable scenario to put forward, there have been several equally reasonable and logical points made by others, using the facts we have, that might argue against Kidney having committed murder that night. And all the while Kidney can't be squeezed into the frame with any great accuracy, it looks rather empty without Jack there to fill it - at least temporarily.
Someone slit Stride's throat, and someone did the same for 'er indoors - Kelly. They belong in the rogues' gallery of Whitechapel Murderers.
Do Kidney and Barnett belong there, or are they painted black because of a 'fad' for a minimalist Jack?
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 8:36 am: | |
Caz--Hold on. Just so we are on the same wave~length: actually there have been no "logical points" made on this thread that "argue against Kidney." Where are they? I don't recall them. To offer an alternative (and unproven) theory is not the same as a logical objection. Even Saddam's distaste for Kidney pie can't be considered a logical objection. He merely finds the dessert's ingredients wanting and wonders how the bill for the wider banquet is going to be paid. Mr. Linford is the only one that actually attempted a direct objection (more in a moment)
As for Barnett & Kidney. The only Barnett I mentioned was the good Reverend Sam. Let's not mix carrots & peas, as there is really no comparison between Berner Street & Miller's Court---the latter represents the most horrific of all the Whitchapel murders 1888-1891, and I would agree that the burden is entirely on the maverick theorists who dismiss it as a Ripper crime. Berner Street, in contrast, is the least violent murder in 1888 (other than Rose Mylett) and, personally, when I see the inclusionist arguments I'm suddenly filled with a sense of what Macnaghten meant by "nondum satiatus." It doesn't satisfy this monomaniac--he goes back in search of other prey.
With Stride (for me at least) I would want the theorist to give me something new & perceptive to convince me this is part of the series. Something that makes me scratch my head and say "Ah! Yes, now I see the connection." At present, I see very little other than it is "illogical" "insane" and (the latest) "lame" to think otherwise.
Paint it black? With Barnett I think you have a point, but not with Kidney. Two months earlier he was down for drunk & disorderly (3 days worth--must have been relatively serious), and a year earlier he battered Liz Stride. These are merely the ones we know about. After the murder Kidney's boozing once again, and hollering at the police; ex post facto and perhaps entirely understandable, but maybe further indications of a hot-head. (Unlike Barnett) he is evasive at the inquest, and avoids implicating himself in any shape or form. Liz had clearly left him (had she been planning it? On Sept 15 & 20 she applied to the Swedish Church for money) and the previous week, Kidney locks her out so she can't get her things (but she sneaks back anyway). Human nature tells me this would have infuriated Kidney.
Lo and behold, now it's Saturday night. The infamous first Saturday after the big break-up.
Now to Mr. Linford's objection. How could Kidney have known of Stride's whereabouts? I now refer you to the following map, if you will.
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/1859map/map1859_j-l_25-27.html
Unless I have my bearings entirely muddled, Kidney's last known address was on Devonshire Street (below the "D" in Commerical Road), and Berner Street is but a short jaunt to the west. As I say, it's Saturday night and there's any number of pubs along Commercial Road where the old boy could have been drowning his sorrows, as was evidently fond of doing. I insist there is no good reason not to believe that the murderer--Schwartz's drunk-- entered the street from that very direction, and as Stride had been loitering in the area for an hour, I don't dismiss the possibility that someone tipped off Kidney to her whereabouts. Speculation, yes, entirely, but it seems to me better speculation than Macnaghten's rather questionable psychology of nondum satiatus wherein some monomaniacal frenzy the nearly-apprehended murderer rushes towards the City of London to satisfy in his "blood lust." Cheers RJP |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Gentlemen; May I propose a scenario for you?
Michael Kidney was nothing more than a violent, abusive Pimp, and a drunk to boot. He was very strong due to his physical work, and so would have appeared broad-shouldered and strong..
When Liz was about to go up the lane with a customer,she saw Michael rolling down the street.
She tells her John to go wait in the yard, and she would get rid of him. Instead he assaults her and she gives him her sixpence from cleaning the rooms, so he goes off. She goes in the laneway to meet Mr. Long Overcoat, perhaps taking out her sweets. He immediately grabs her in his embrace and does her in. Then he hears the horse clopping along the quiet street and just has time to slip away. The long coat act like a cape, and he is practically invisible in the dark streets and and lanes. I believe he always headed back into the main roads to blend in with the pub crowds or market goers, and acted very non-chalant. He would just keep moving along away from the newly discovered body in Dutfield's Yard, finding himself farther west. He may have heard the voices of Eddowes and her customer, and lurked around until she was alone or walking through the square to go home. I think Catherine Eddowes was looking for a drink more than money,having just woken up from a massive binge. Her hand was on the sailors chest checking for a flask of rum.
I think Jack did kill Liz, because he laid her down along the gutter and cut her throat facing away from him, sort of like with Polly, where the blood had also run down the gutter. This way the blood would flow away from Jacks feet. This is a similarity in some of the murder sites.
Well that's enough to digest for now.
Joan
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Is there much point trying to provide you with logical objections to the Kidney theory? Couldn't you simply brush them all aside by repeating that you are not interested in logic, only in revelation? 
But ever the glutton for punishment, I'll simply say that logic dictates that Kidney can only have been Stride’s murderer if Jack wasn’t. I guess one logical objection to the Kidney theory might be that there is no evidence that this man ever murdered anyone, nor any evidence to connect him with this crime scene, whereas we know that: Stride was murdered; Jack was a murderer; and that Stride was murdered on the same night that Jack was committing murder.
I don't suppose it matters much from which direction you tackle Stride's miserable end: whether you start by seeing it as not Jack's work, therefore it must have been someone else's; or whether you begin by seeing it as the work of the boyfriend who cannot accept losing the upper hand, and therefore not the work of the serial killer known to be active at the time, targeting women in similar circumstances. But if, in the course of arguing against Stride’s murder being the ripper’s work, you find yourself having to make a case for it being Kidney's work, the rub is that you cannot know what Kidney's work was, nor how you would recognise it as distinct from anyone else’s. We can at least have a stab at Jack's, although it would be perilous IMHO to assume anything about what Jack’s work wasn’t.
It's a tough one, I'll admit, but then I'm not offering an alternative theory as such. I'm simply questioning the one which says Stride wasn't a ripper victim, and I have seen some reasonable points which, as I said, 'might argue' against Kidney being Stride's killer.
Barnett fans often argue that the police should have looked more closely at him but didn't because he appeared like the innocent flower. As far as I am aware, the police didn't suspect Kidney of murder any more than they did Barnett, yet you paint Kidney as the far more obvious serpent. Why can't the same objection, that the police satisfied themselves that Barnett was innocent of murder, be applied to Kidney?
And I wonder – if Barnett is thought by some to have killed at least three times before taking his distaste for prostitutes out on Kelly, why is the abusive Kidney rarely if ever suspected of killing anyone other than Stride?
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 710
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi RJ
Thanks for that link. I have problems with the idea that Kidney was tipped off, but OK, I'll concede that it's a possible scenario.
I still think that if Kidney DID murder Stride, then he did so after the drunken man had pushed off, i.e. I doubt if she was murdered by the drunken man.
Caz has drawn attention to the opinion of the police regarding Kidney. I think they'd have checked him out - just as they did John Kelly and Joseph Barnett. And wouldn't they have asked Schwartz to take a look at Kidney? In fact, I wouldn't put it past the PRESS to have asked Schwartz to take a look at Kidney!
You seem to conceive of Kidney as a truly terrifying figure, RJ. Stride is so terrified of him, she goes into a dark yard with him, with only a packet of cachous for company. The pipe smoker doesn't mention this assault on a "Ripper" victim, even with all that lovely reward money on offer. Ditto the person who tipped off Kidney.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 208
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
I for my part believe, that IF Kidney should be included in the scenario here, it would in that case be as the assaulting man, not the murderer (and as you all know I don't believe them to be one and the same). I think a quarrel with Kidney possibly -- but just possibly -- could have been what Schwartz saw, unless we have information about his appearence, character or whereabouts that say otherwise.
But I'm having a hard time with him being the killer. If he was a violent man, I could very well expect him to give her a real bashing and in worst cases -- stab her. But cut her throat? No, I don't think that's something just any man would do; we have no indications on him being that kind of personality. Cutting the throat means a deliberate killer, not just an angry lover, companion or husband.
I do think Robert also has a point here; if the police found him interesting enough, they would most certainly have shown him to Schwartz in some sort of line-up or display, to identify him. This appearently didn't happen.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Police Constable
Username: Franko
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 6:12 pm: | |
Hi all,
Regarding Schwartz, we know only little about him. He seems to have vanished from the stage almost immediately after he entered it, together with his official statement, I might add.
It seems that he didn't appear at the inquest, which was concluded on Oct. 23, but this seems strange as a report dated 1 November by Inspector Abberline still discusses Schwartz as a serious witness.
So, although it indeed seems that the police haven't shown Kidney (or any other for that matter) in a line-up to Schwartz, I - perhaps abundantly - have to say that also regarding Schwartz noting is certain...
All the best,
Frank
P.S.: Glenn, I think your greeting on the thread about Barnett means (something like): "So long" |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 58
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 6:32 pm: | |
Hi,
Just back from a conference. Looks like I've missed a lot. Anyway, this is from a post I put under the Victims thread, but that seems to have gone inactive.
Here are the descriptions of the throat wounds to Stride and Eddowes. I've said I don't think Stride's wound is that much shallower than Eddowes, and Wolf has asked why. Basically, the depth of Stride's wound is to the depth of the muscle over the cartliges. As I read it, it seems to me that the section describing "about an inch" describes the length, not the depth, and the depth is indicated by landmark features of the anatomy (muscle over the cartliges). Eddowes wound goes through these muscles, Strides doesn't. To me, that doesn't sound much different in terms of depth.
Note also, neither victim shows the (2nd?) cicular cut of both Nichols and Chapman.
The left cartoid artery is nearly severed in Stride, while for Eddowes it is completely severed.
Also, the right cartoid artery is untouched in Stride, while for Eddowes it contains only a small hole.
Both cuts are 6 (Stride) to 7 (Eddowes) inches in length, from left to right. Again, consistent with the same cutting movement that goes deeper the 2nd time.
In other words, the throat wound to Eddowes appears to be much the same cutting motion as that for Stride, only it goes slightly deeper (cuts the muscles, completely severs the left cartoid, and nicks the right, continues a bit longer).
As for my suggestion about the length of the knife in an earlier post, I'm at a loss to understand how the doctor drew his conclusion about the length of the knife? If the knife was drawn across the throat (slicing it), which is what it sounds like to me, how can the length be determined? A minimum might be possible, and that's what I suspect was suggested. A short knife could have done it, while with the others, a short knife might have been ruled out (pending on one's definition of short, of course).
Finally, as for "interuption", this is simply the phrase used to encorporate all of the theories that in one way or another suggest "Jack was the killer and he left before mutilating Stride". The interruption could be anything from "he realised he was spotted" (if he's the original attacker) to "Diemshutz shows up". If one pushes the "interruption" closer to the former (i.e. Schwartz and pipe man, etc), then the interruption explains the lack of strangulation (he just cuts her throat and gets out of there).
I've never said that Jack had to be Stride's killer, and I'm not saying it now. All I'm suggesting is that if Jack was Stride's killer, something caused him to leave and there are a few events between the assault and the finding of the body that could reasonably have produced this. And, this "interruption" could then explain 1) lack of strangulation (he's rushed and has to adapt to the situation) and 2) lack of mutilations 3) shallower throat wound.
We just have to keep in mind that none of these points need an explanation if we don't make the assumption that Jack is the killer of Stride. Since, as far as I'm aware, Stride's killer has not been identified, we don't know for sure if Jack is or is not involved. What we do know is that if he is, the dissimilarities can be reasonably accounted for. It is because they can be reasonably accounted for that leaves us in a state of not knowing. Both the Jack and "not Jack" theory work.
Anyway, here's the quotes I was working from, and below them I list in point form what look to me like interesting similarities.
(Stride) Mr. George Bagster Phillips:
On neck, from left to right, there is a clean cut incision six inches in length; incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck. The carotid artery on the left side and the other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through, save the posterior portion of the carotid, to a line about 1-12th of an inch in extent, which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery. The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. It is evident that the haemorrhage which produced death was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.
(Eddowes): Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 in. or 7 in. The sterno cleido mastoid muscle was divided; the cricoid cartilage below the vocal chords was severed through the middle; the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed to the bone, the knife marking the intervertebral cartilage. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just open; the carotid artery had a pin-hole opening; the internal jugular vein was open to the extent of an inch and a half - not divided. All the injuries were caused by some very sharp instrument, like a knife, and pointed. The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate.
From these descriptions I find the following similarities between the wounds:
a) Length: 6 (Stride) and 6 to 7 inches (Eddowes)
b) Direction: Left to right (both)
c) Depth:
1) grazing mussels over left cartilage (Stride), cut to the bone left side (Eddowes)
2) Left cartoid artery almost completely severed (right cartoid appears undamaged; Stride) and Left cartoid artery completely severed, right cartoid with small hole (Eddowes)
3) Cut on right side more superficial on both
d) Knife: clean cut with Stride suggests sharp knife (my note), Brown states a sharp knife for Eddowes
e) victim position: Both victims found laying on their left side, with head turned to the left.
However, there are some differences as well.
Differences: Strides wound appears to start shallow for ¾ of an inch, then get deeper, whereas Eddowes’ wound sounds like it starts deep; i.e., stabbed then cut, as apposed to “cut across” (I could be very wrong here though as this latter conclusion is not stated by the Doctor, and is only my interpretation).
Now, I’m not an expert, and some of these similarities may not be all that unexpected. For example, a 6 to 7 inch cut may simply be what you get when you cut someone’s throat. Cutting from left to right may simply indicate both killers are right handed. Etc.
Anyway, because it looks to my untrained eye that the one wound which is common to both Stride and Eddowes appears very similar, with differences possibily reflecting different unique events that arise during separate attacks, I find this suggests a common attacker.
There are also some descriptions of men seen with Stride that correspond to the description of the man seen with Eddowes, and again could suggest the same individual (of course, the problem is that the descriptions could just as easily describe 2 different people). Finally there is the similarity of the time of the murders. All of these factors appear to suggest a common attaker.
None of these similarities is definitive enough, alone or even in combination, however, to rule out separate attackers. Especially if the commonalities between the wounds is not unlikely, but reflects the typical wound pattern of a knife attack. That detail, however, requires an expertise that I do not possess and comments are most certainly welcome.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 714
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
Re the length of the knife, I'm no expert on knives, and I have trouble imagining spatial relationships, but as far as I understand it (with the help of Wolf) Phillips's point was : Stride didn't appear to have been strangled. Therefore he'd have expected some spurting. But there was none on the wall. Therefore it must have gone into the ground. Therefore Stride must have been lying on her left side when her throat was cut. Since the natural way to draw a knife across a throat is to start with the part of the blade nearest the handle, so that the latter part of the wound is made with a part of the blade nearer the point, there wouldn't have been room for the murderer's knife at the start of the cut, if it was a long knife, as the point would have been sticking into the ground (Stride being on her left side). Therefore the knife must have been a shorter kind of knife, rather than a longer one.
I'm not sure whether I've got all that right, but that's what I understand Phillips to have been saying.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 210
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Nice work, there. I don't have time at the moment to make comments upon it, but thanks for the interesting views and facts on the matter. I agree, this is complicated stuff if one is not a medical man or an expert on anathomy and forensics. However, much of your arguments seem fairly reasonable and valid, I think. I'll study it more carefully later.
All the best
--------------------------------
P.S.
Frank!
Almost right, but there's another little twist to it. "Hej så länge" means -- in rough translation -- the same as "Bye for now", indicating that there'll soon be another contact.
Vi ses! (Got that one...?) 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 10:10 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I follow that, and agree that it would be difficult with a long blade. But, if we accept all the assumptions (spurting happened, but into the ground, position of the body when the throat was cut was the same as when found, etc), then a person lying on their left side, with their head turned to the left, would leave a gap between the ground and their neck. (Lay on the floor in this position if it's not obvious; the shoulder raises the neck off the ground). In other words, a longer blade (say 6 inches) would easily fit into such a gap because it would run parallel to the ground, not perpendicular.
The problem of the knife point sticking into the ground only occurs if the victim is flat on their back.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that we don't know what exact position she was in at the moment her throat was cut. Some positions may be problematic for a long knife, others are not. Because we don't know, we have to stay open to all the possibilities. At the same time, we have to be careful not to build on only one possibility.
I'm worried about some lines of reasoning like the notion that because there was no spurting on the walls that means it must have been directed into the ground because she wasn't strangled. Couldn't this also be evidence that she was strangled? Also, Annie Chapman was strangled and there was still some spurting on the fence. Finally, the above explanation (spurting guided into the ground), sounds like Eddowes as well (the blood pooled underneath her, there doesn't appear to be a line of spray out from the body like there was with Chapman; the spatter about 14 inches up the fence I think - I'm open to the idea that this could be from the knife blade though).
Anyway, I just don't see Stride's murder as being so very different from that of Eddowes later that night (apart from the obvious lack of follow up). Either the lack of follow up is due to a different killer and the similarities are coincedence, or the lack of follow up indicates something made Jack leave Stride after cutting her throat.
I don't favour one explanation over the other. It just seems to me that assuming Jack is involved requires specific statements to be made. This may lead to new ways of looking at the data we have to see if those statements hold up to scrutiny. We look for "unusual similarities" with the other murders.
If we don't include Jack, then we look for the differences. Problem is, with so little data, we don't know if the differences are because of "different murder" or "different murderer".
I'm trying to look at both the similarities and the differences and weigh them against each other. As I've said before though, I rather suspect that Stride is best placed in the "unsure but worthy of serious consideration" pile.
- Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 10:25 pm: | |
"You seem to conceive of Kidney as a truly terrifying figure, RJ. Stride is so terrified of him, she goes into a dark yard with him, with only a packet of cachous for company."
Robert--There's a touch of sarcasm in your comment. But I say: "PRECISELY." Have you ever had any exposure to battered women? The scenerio doesn't strike me as absurd, so much as it is chillingly commonplace.
R.P.
Logic will not help; a deep understanding of human nature might. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 715
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi RJ
I assure you, I do not take the issue of battered women lightly. In fact, I think perpetrators should be dealt with far more severely.
But we also have the behaviour of the pipe smoker and the person who tipped off Kidney to explain. And, if Kidney had an alibi, maybe even another person, who lied for him (though you can always say that this would have been the person who tipped Kidney off).
I think the pipe smoker's failure to come forward can be quite naturally explained, if the drunken man was a member of a gang of street thugs, or something like that. The pipe smoker might have been too scared to come forward. As far as we know, Kidney wasn't a member of such a gang.
Also, even though Stride had left Kidney only recently, the doctors (again as far as we know) found no bruising - either on her face or her body - except for the pressure marks on the shoulders.
And isn't it odd that Stride should have hung around for so long in an area close to where Kidney lived? She wouldn't have wanted to bump into him.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 6:09 am: | |
....a deep understanding of human nature might.
But then again, RJ, it might not. We do have some information (courtesy of Schwartz) about Stride's last actions, and the actions of the man who assaulted her shortly before she had her throat cut. We also have a little information about Stride's relationship with Kidney. But, and this is a big but, people don't all act the same in any given situation - even battered women (and men) have unique personalities, believe it or not, and unique ways of dealing with abuse. All have their individual reasons for staying or leaving a destructive relationship, and all have different points of no return.
Ok then, so let's assume Kidney was on the prowl that night to give Stride a piece of his mind (the same night Jack was on the prowl, looking to take a piece or two of body), and he found his wayward girl near Dutfield's Yard.
If Stride was the breed of battered woman who finally has the guts to leave (yes it can take more guts to leave than to stay for the next beating, physical or mental) and start afresh, because it dawns on her that if she stays with this abusive creep she will lose her mind, body or soul to him, then, as Robert says, she nevertheless chose to hang around where Kidney was able to find and punish her. She was thrown down but then, given the opportunity to fight for her life by screaming blue murder in the presence of at least two witnesses who had the potential to come to her aid, what did she do?
This battered woman, who upped and left this violent creep, apparently because she feared becoming a murder statistic if she stayed, cried out three times, but not very loudly, let the witnesses leave the scene and just lay down and died for him?
Maybe this is indeed how Stride lost her grip on life that night.
How deep would you judge a deep understanding of human nature to be? How long is a piece of string? If your understanding is 7" to my 6", we could still both miss Stride and Kidney's natures and behaviour by a mile.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:12 am: | |
Turn the equation around, Caz. There's a monster loose in the East End hacking up women & cutting out their wombs--gawd---imagine the horror this would inspire in the unfortunates living out on the streets. We don't even need to imagine what Liz thought of it if Dr. Barnardo can be believed---she cried bitterly at the prospect of being the next victim. How odd then, that when Liz actually finds herself being manhandled she only cries out "not very loudly" and odder still that she's found with nothing obvious in the way of defensive wounds. Again (to my thinking) it's her very lack of a struggle that is consistant with her knowing the man who is assaulting her.
And what about that man? What do you make of his actions?
Jeff writes above: The interruption could be anything from "he realised he was spotted" (if he's the original attacker) to "Diemshutz shows up". If one pushes the "interruption" closer to the former (i.e. Schwartz and pipe man, etc), then the interruption explains the lack of strangulation (he just cuts her throat and gets out of there).
This is very odd, in my book. The attacker (if Jack) is spotted by one, possibly two witnesses, and yet responds by not only showing aggressive behavior towards the witnesses, but even continues on to "cut her throat and get out of there"??" Difficult for me to accept. Why, once spotted, would a killer--- who we know was capable of a certain amount of stealth---run the enormous risk of turning a small physical altercation with an unfortunate (which would have meant nought to the legal authorities) into capital murder and the prospect of a dangling from the rope? I think the words of Messers. Begg, Fido, and Skinner are worth repeating here:
"The assault witnessed by Schwartz, made by a man whose drunkeness, threatening shout of 'Lipski', and continuing ferocity in the presence of male witnesses is all quite incompatible with the normal conduct of Serial murderers." (A-Z, pg. 387, 1st Ed.)
But could the fact (if it is a fact) that the attacker continued on with the assault to the point of actual murder (despite witnesses) suggest that Liz had a specific meaning for him? He was hell-bent on continuing despite being spotted? If this is the case, my belief is that we are very probably looking at a domestic murder. And considering the London Press that Autumn-Winter, any unsolved street killing of a woman in the East End would have been attributed to the Ripper.
By the way---of course battered women can have remarkable courage; by and large, though, don't they use their wits to survive? Again, it is speculation, but it's based on the historical record. Liz didn't confront Kidney when she bailed out; she kept a key and snuck back to gather her things. The fact that she applied for aid to the Swedish Church the prior week I don't hold as coincidence, but an indication that she had planned her departure in advance. If she encountered an enraged Michael Kidney by accident, I tend to believe she'd use her charm or wits, not her hands.
Many years ago, I casually knew of a fellow that ended up coming across a scene somewhat like I imagine Berner Street. A woman was being assaulted. He came forward to help, only to have the man pull a knife and stab him repeatedly. He died from his injuries, but at trial, the battered woman testified on behalf of the defense, it was made to look like a street fight gone wrong, and the fellow in questin got something like a ridiculous 2 or 3 years for manslaughter.
|
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 142
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
There's a monster loose in the East End hacking up women & cutting out their wombs--gawd---imagine the horror this would inspire in the unfortunates living out on the streets.
I don't know about Liz in partuicular, but many of the "unfortunates" took a remarkably cavalier attitude toward the possibility of becoming a Ripper victim. "It's the Ripper or the bridge for me," as one of the was heard to exclaim commenting on the inevidibility of death -- perhaps even the attractiveness of it as a release from squalor -- whether by murder or suicide.
Andy
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 60
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I see what you mean. The attack on Stride, in front of witnesses, does sound out of character. But then, pipe man was standing to the side and possibly out of view at the onset of the attack and Schwartz may also have not been visible by the attacker. If so, the sudden blitz attack is not so out of character. The shout of Lipski could easily indicate surprise by the attacker who, for arguments sake, is Jack. Now, Jack's worked up, he's ready to kill, but things have gone wrong all of a sudden. He kills Stride 1) because she's got a good look at him (rational explanatin) and/or 2) he's excited now that he's started an attack (deranged explanation). Knowing he's been spotted, though, he flees the scene.
Anyway, that's one possible scenerio where nothing too outlandish is suggested in the chain of events. The problem is that this, like all Jack and "not Jack" scenerio's, has to fill in details without direct proof of them. Although the police appeared to take Schwartz seriously, we have very little recordings of what he saw and no one ever backs his story up. It's hard to know how much weight we should put in his testimony. Did it really happen the way he thought he saw it? Did the attacker, for instance, really walk down the road and just assault Stride? Or, possibly, were they talking for awhile, he walks off a few paces, turns walks back, and then attack her? Did Schwartz only see the last bit? I don't know, nobody does. Without more evidence, there are too many reasonable ways to fill in the gaps, and this fill can either include Jack, Kidney, or someone else, or both.
I don't think the stories I present are "what must have happened" by any stretch of the imagination. They are just reasonable possibilities. I think it is also a reasonable possibility that Kidney killed Stride. If the throat wound data, however, suggests that the killer of Stride and the killer of Eddowes are likely to be one in the same, then I think something like the above must have happened.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 720
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
I'm not sure I accept Phillips's scenario. I know that he had a great deal orf Ripper expertise, but I notice that Blackwell does seem to have had a slightly different view of the case.
As far as I know, there is no record of Phillips actually saying that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim. And the police, who also had expertise, included her in Jack's tally.
Jeff, your analysis of the throat wound was very detailed and interesting. I fear like Glenn I'm going to need more time on that one!
Is there a doctor in the house?
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 61
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 7:55 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Stride is the most difficult of all the victims to really decide on, at least to me she is. Much of the reasoning, possibly by the doctors and police at the time as well, is probably based upon the finding of Eddowes later that night. This is not unreasonable, but it's not proof either.
We, however, are stuck with only the information that has been recorded and then survived. We can't go back and interview witnesses, canvas for new information, or any of the things we might like. All we can do is examine things from two polar opposite positions, and try and see if the evidence fits one general scenerio better than the other. In this case, those poles are "Jack" and "not Jack". And, with this case, both seem to work just fine. Both need information to be filled in (i.e., why Jack leaves or how Kidney found her if she left). And, because we really have so little evidence, both general scenerio's can be made to fit realtively easily.
I'm really hoping someone with forensic experience specifically relavent to the throat wounds will be able to give an opinion. I have no idea how much or how little weight should be given to the points I made above. I think they are interesting, and I think they should be considered. Unfortunately, they are also a "one sided test". If the similarities are sufficient to suggest a common hand, we can probably rule Stride in. If, however, the similarities are "common place", they don't rule out a common hand so we're left in the same boat - evidence that works both ways.
Finally, since story building simply demonstrates the current problem, and most of them are variations on themes of "Jack interruptus" or "not Jack", I'm hoping this might point in a direction where we can at least examine the evidence we have, rather than trying to explain the evidence we don't have.
There's nothing wrong with creating theories and tossing ideas around, but at some point, we reach the edge of our constraints. I think we've reached that edge with Stride. And the edge is at a point that is frustratingly insufficient to decide on her "canonical" status.
- Jeff |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
"...there is no evidence that this man ever murdered anyone, nor any evidence to connect him with this crime scene, whereas we know that: Stride was murdered; Jack was a murderer; and that Stride was murdered on the same night that Jack was committing murder..."
>>Excellent logic, Caz. Nothing evidenciary is assumed, causation intact. Just this much is a strong defense against Kidney theories.
"...Then he hears the horse clopping along the quiet street and just has time to slip away. The long coat act like a cape, and he is practically invisible in the dark streets and and lanes..."
>>How would he know that Diemschutz would turn into the alley, Joan? If all he hears is the horse clopping along, wouldn't he surmise along conventional lines and assume the cart would merely pass by? Plus, I don't think wearing a long dark coat would make him invisible to Diemschutz heading down the street. What he MAY have done is ran up the alley into the yard whilst Diemschutz examined the body, then quickly darted out as soon as Diemschutz entered the club.
Also, you assume both Kidney's presence and the presence of an additional unseen person--these are totally theoretical on your part, with no evidenciary support whatever. You just can't offer a reasonable argument to reasonable people if you do this.
LET'S GET ONE THING CLEAR: MICHAEL KIDNEY'S PRESENCE IN BERNER STREET IS PURELY MYTHOLOGICAL, WITH NO EVIDENCIARY SUPPORT. PEOPLE WHO PROMOTE THIS POSITION ARE FILLING IN THE KNOWN EMPIRICAL DATA WITH AN ASSUMPTION TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY CAN'T OTHERWISE. ASSUMING MICHAEL KIDNEY WAS PRESENT IN BERNER STREET HAS THE SAME LOGICAL STATUS AS ASSUMING ANY ONE OF PERHAPS SCORES OF OTHER MEN WHO MAY HAVE KNOWN STRIDE WAS.
"...Stride didn't appear to have been strangled. Therefore he'd [the doctor] have expected some spurting. But there was none on the wall. Therefore it must have gone into the ground..."
>>Isn't it true that the murderer always practiced killing in such a manner as to control blood spurting, Robert? In order to make good his escape, wouldn't he have to consider how to ensure he wouldn't be heading away from the crime scenes with blood visibile on his clothing? Killing Stride without blood spurting up indicates that measures may have been taken to control and direct blood spurting, and this would put her murder in keeping with the Whitechapel murderer's known M.O.
Saddam |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 9:31 pm: | |
"NO KNOWN EVIDENCE TO CONNECT HIM TO THE CRIME SCENE."
This pearl of logic I find particularly bright and shiny. How about known evidence connecting him to the VICTIM? Or do we conveniently forget that most murder victims are known to their assailants? Not to mention the "empiracle data" of this particular love affair?
In any murder investigation, Kidney is an obvious suspect. Clearly, no one has nor ever will have any evidence against him; 115 years later the question is beyond proof or disproof.
The police would have looked at him, of course. Yet, consider what they must have been faced with. The press and the Home Office was already clammering. The morning of October 1st is their worst nightmare. With Eddowes murdered the same evening, and the circus (literally) in town, I have to wonder how rational this particular investigation would have been. There is an extant index to a file in the Home Office (Evans&Skinner, p 134-135) which chronicles no less than 5 pages discussing the Schwartz sighting with comparisons to Mitre Square &tc., as well as pages dealing wth the house to house search &tc., but any mention of Kidney is entirely lacking.
Suddenly we are met with the war cry of "empiracle data." This is humbug, however, as Wolf has already competently demonstrated that connecting Stride's murder to the Mitre Square murder is, at the very least, and despite all theatrics, an entirely open question. You can shout down Kidney-pie if you wish but until you identify another man as the murderer, he remains in the line-up along with the usual suspects. RJP
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 220
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 10:44 pm: | |
Once again Palmer,
Why should Kidney slit her throat? That is quite a redundant act, a modus operandi more suitable for an experienced killer than a drunk/angry husband or life companion. A person from the latter category, like Kidney, would most likely strike her or knock her down -- and in worst cases stab her.
Of course most murders are known to be domestic.
But slit her throat...?
I'm getting more and more puzzled by your excursions into human behaviour. Is it possible? Maybe, but not likely -- nothing is impossible in theory. More logical than her being a Ripper victim after being assalted by the first man? Absolutely not. And where are your evidence? Is their personal history enough, do you mean, to point at him being a murderer? Interesting...
"This pearl of logic I find particularly bright and shiny"
I see you're getting back into your usual sarcastic manner -- I'm glad I finally recognize you at your best again.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 62
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:32 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I wouldn't be too surprised if throat cutting wasn't that uncommon. Guns weren't available to most people, especially the poor. Knives, however, were. Stabbing takes time and gives the victim much more opertunity to scream, while throat cutting reduces that latter bit if one cuts across the front (cuts the windpipe, the vocal chords, etc). I would think it's easier to get the knife in the "right place" for cutting as compared to trying to stab someone in the neck, but then again, I don't have any experience in this area myself!
I'm thinking this because there was the husband earlier the same night who also cut his wife's throat. Perhaps the Leather Apron scare increased the "idea" of cutting throats? Perhaps I'm just rambling though! ha!
Hmmmm, what might be necessary is to compile the information from domestic murders that occured in the area over some time period around 1888 and try and determine how "common" throat cutting actually was. It could be that it wasn't common, but it could be that it was "fairly routine" even in domestics.
I'm not sure if such information is already available, but if it were, it could prove useful. In fact, a breakdown of domestic murders in terms of percent strangulations, poisonings, stabbings, "cuttings", blunt force trauma, etc might be very useful. Does anyone know if this information is easily accessible already?
- Jeff |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:57 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
What a short memory you have.
You said...
"Why should Kidney slit her throat? That is quite a redundant act, a modus operandi more suitable for an experienced killer than a drunk/angry husband or life companion.........
Of course most murders are known to be domestic.
But slit her throat...?"
Let me refresh your memory with the following article......(please note the method used by the husband)...this was the 3rd murder that weekend we spoke of
THE WESTMINSTER WIFE MURDER.
At the Westminster Police-court, on Monday, John Brown, forty-five, a labourer, working in St. James's Park, was charged with murdering his wife, Sarah, by cutting her throat at 11, Regent-gardens, Regency-street, Westminster. Mr. Chief-superintendent Dunlop attended on behalf of the Commissioners of Police. Constable Powell, 499 A, deposed that at eleven o'clock on Saturday night he was at the police station (Rochester-row) door, when the prisoner came running up, and in reply to a question thrice repeated as to his business, he said, "I have stabbed my wife!" He seemed out of breath. I at once took him to Mr. Fairey, the inspector on duty, to whom he repeated the statement.
(Illustrated Police News, Oct. 6, 1888)
Entire article is at the bottom of this link.
http://casebook.org/press_reports/illustrated_police_news/il881006.html
Glenn, for a crime historian to make a remark such as that, tut, tut, - shame on you.
Best Regards, Jon
|
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 7:26 am: | |
I'm new to this board and this is a long thread so this may have been discussed before but....
I always assumed that the most logical scenario, if Kidney were to be considered a suspect (and note I say a suspect, as has been pointed out 115 later it is pretty much impossible for anyone to say with certainty whether this was the work of Jack or not) would be as follows:
Liz Stride was said to have dressed better than usual that evening. She was also seen in the Bricklayers Arms being more friendly with her male friend than would be normal between prostitute and client. It was said to have been more flirtatious, more like a boyfriend/girlfriend situation. This was said also of the man she was seen about with several times on Berner Street
Kidney was a drunk and known to be a violent man. If he had been out and about on Commercial Road that evening he may easily have gone to the Bricklayers Arms and heard these same stories which were given to the police later.
The IWEC club was predominantly a Jewish institution and many residents of Berner Street were Jewish. As Stride and her gentleman friend were seen variously around Berner Street that night, it isn't a huge leap of logic to assume that he may well have been Jewish.
Now we are getting into the realms of "fitting the story to the facts". This man may have had a place to spend the night somewhere in the region of Fairclough Street. When James Brown saw the two together at 12.40-ish he may have asked her to spend the night there with him, her reply being "no not tonight, some other night". He would then have agreed to walk her back to her lodgings, thus turning up Berner Street towards Commercial Road.
Kidney has just left the Bricklayers Arms, in Settles Street almost directly opposite. He sees the two arm in arm coming up Berner Street. He has heard stories which suggest that this time Liz has left him for good and is taking up with a new man, and here he is confronted by the two of them. He runs down the street, verbally abuses the man, and grabs Liz, dragging her across the street and into the entrance of Dutfields Yard.
Now Israel Schwarz arrives on the scene. This is what he sees. Kidney is fighting with Stride in the entrance to the yard, shouting anti-semetic slurs at her new beau across the street who, shaken by the incident, is lighting himself a pipe to settle his nerves before moving off as soon as possible.
All this does not explain why the Pipe Smoking man did not come forward, but that one is the easiest of all to explain away. If he is a married man, how exactly is he to explain his presence to the authorities without alerting his family to his planned infidelity? The woman is dead now, the Ripper has been blamed, why not just allow the matter to rest there?
Of course, quite apart from all the supposition in this theory, even if every word were true it still doesn't mean the Kidney killed Stride, merely that he threw her to the ground and verbally abused her potential lover. It also follows logically that he may have left and that Jack, on the prowl and seeing the distressed woman in a dark secluded gateway, saw an opportunity and took it. This would explain something which has always bothered me about this killing which is why a killer who needed time to carry out his mutilations should choose to attack next to a busy club with people entering and leaving at various intervals.
Oh well, that's my two-pennyworth anyway! |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
