|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 6:18 am: |       |
G'day,
Elizabeth Stride spent the last 3 years of her life living on and off with Michael Kidney, a waterside labourer who gave his address at her inquest as: "33 Dorset Street". He was seven years younger than her, born in 1852, and their relationship was often stormy.
At the inquest into the death of Elizabeth Stride, Michael Kidney said that she was in the habit of occasionally going away on her own, but always came back to him.
The fact that Elizabeth charged Kidney with assault in 1887, yet failed to turn up to court to prossecute him, tells me that she thought she could control him. She probably had the same confidence when Schwartz's '1st Man attacked her just before she died, as she screamed but 'not very loudly.' So was Michael Kidney '1st Man' and if so, did he kill her?
Personally, I think Stride being seen attacked by '1st Man', gave the killer the perfect cover to go in for the kill afterwards. As he planned, '1st Man' was thought by the police to have killed her!
LEANNE |
Jon P. Van Skiver
Police Constable
Username: Jonvs
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
Leannie,
I respectfully disagree with your reasoning why Liz did not show up in court.
There are many reasons why women fail to press abuse charges, the two most common are a "change of heart", for any number of reasons, and pressure and/or abuse from the perpetrator to drop the charges. From what I've read about Kidney, my guess would be the latter.
I agree with you about her relationship w/Kidney, but I think it's not about control but more, "I can take him or leave him", however I don't think Kidney felt the same about Liz, he needed her and was very jealous.
From what I've read about Liz she seemed to be an independent type that used whatever means that were available to survive, whether it was cleaning, prostitution or begging the Swedish church for handouts. She also seemed to be relatively intelligent; she was, according to what I've read, fluent in three languages, English, Swedish and Yiddish.
I find her really interesting and wonder if she was a "harpie" as several peopled stated on the previous boards. I wish there was more information about her but, according to the experts, the trail is cold, especially since there are no official records of any children and therefore no one to contact.
After all she was just one of tens of thousands of anonymous people living in the East End, it was JTR who thrust her into history.
Regards,
Jon
|
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
I think the case for Michael Kidney being Strides murderer is within a gnats whisker of being proven. There are circumstances about the attack that point towards her attacker being very well known to her. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
I believe (as I stated on another thread), that Stride was probably killed by Kidney.
Bob Hinton, would you be willing to elaborate a little? Your post is very intriguing.... |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
G'day Bob, Jon,
I've just read alot about Elizabeth Stride's past in a story by 'Des McKenna', titled 'A Short Look At Long Liz', from 'RIPPER NOTES - NUMBER 16'. 9xA4 pages of it!
Of the last year of her life, it says: 'She amassed eight convictions in her own name for being drunk and disorderly.....Michael Kidney was a confirmed drunkard with an established pedigree, and who seven months before her death she charged with assault. But she never turned up in court, and the case was dropped. Only two month before she died, he was sent down for for three days, found guilty of the same charges for which she gained eight convictions.'
BOB: Where's the proof that the man who attacked her and pushed her into the open street, suddenly dragged her into the dark yard and sliced her throat? After he'd been seen. Yes I believe 1st man was very well known to her, and may have been Kidney, but as this story says: 'The first man, finding himself alone, mooched off as Jack came into view. He picked Elizabeth up and soothed her down...'. This describes exacly what I think happened, and I hadn't even read the story to work this out!
LEANNE
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 6:02 pm: | |
Leanne: I remember reading that Liz's scarf was tightly knotted up toward her left ear, and the knife wound had actually shredded the scarf along it's lower edge. Her one side was well coated with mud. Does this sound like she was half-dragged into the passage-way by the scarf, which knotted tightly, also preventing her from yelling any more? Then her throat was slit along the lower edge, shredding the fabric. In the post-mortem it was noted that there were brown spots along her neck and cheek on that side, (known as petechia) which is a sign of strangulation with a soft fabric (as opposed to a rope-type ligature.)
Partly domestic, but also close to Jack's M.O.of partial strangulations?
Midnyte |
tired_cos_of_jack_the_ripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 9:31 am: | |
This is very interesting! do u lot mind if i put this in my project? i believe stride was NOT a ripper murder  i feel im coming to a conclusion with this jack the ripper! yay!  thanks for all ure help! |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 9:56 am: | |
G'day Joan,
That sounds to me as though she was pulled to the ground by her scarf. She was found lying on her left side...am I right? It's no reason to assume that she was pulled into the passage way. She probably went there voluntarily, as I don't think any killer would start his attack in the street!
LEANNE |
Andrew Cutmore
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
I am replying to Leanne Perry.I am Andrew and my family and I have been to Elizabeth Stride's grave three times recently(I did the weeding job on it before Andrew Spallek went,after I gave him directions).
Leanne,I am very interested in Liz Stride as I believe her to be a relation of mine-by marraige-though I have to work on my family tree to prove it!You mention that you have a story'A Short Look at Long Liz'-any idea how I can get a copy(from you?I don't know how that would work!)I hope to hear from you.Thanks!Andrew |
Gary Adams
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
It's my understanding that Kidney showed up at a police station very agitated about the murder of Liz Stride BEFORE she had even been identified. Also, as Patricia Cornwell points out in her book, isn't it possible that her assailant actually said, "Lizzie!" and not, "Lipski"? I just find it very hard to believe that a murderer who was so careful about being seen would assault a woman in the street in front of witnesses. It really seems more like a crime of passion, don't you think? Maybe Liz was seeing someone special that night , and Kidney followed her or heard about it somehow. This is a man who padlocked her into her room. Those cachous in her hand and the flower and fern on her dress are so poignant, and I think they point to romance and s death at the hands of a jealous lover. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 7:53 am: | |
I followed that course too, Gary, some few years ago. Sad to say though, Long Liz had been identified and named before Kidney went to the police station.
Never the matter though, like you I'm inclined to think the crime was a 'domestic' and that Kidney is the best fit for it.
Stride definitely had a date that night, and it wasn't with rough old Kidney, so I assume he followed them and killed her in a fit of temper.
That is the common-sense answer, but of course others would have it far more complicated than that.
You should read my chapter on the subject, available on-line here. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 2:25 pm: | |
AP,
I can very much grasp that idea and it's along the same lines I've been thinking lately.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Thanks Glenn
the associated reportage of the Stride crime just doesn't ring true for the behaviour of a killer of the nature of Jack.
As I've said before, all Jack's crimes have a lot of noise after them and not much before.
Stride's case falls out here by miles.
All the noise comes before the crime.
These are not the actions of a serial killer but rather that of a man driven by a domestic jealousy.
I believe Kidney to be the logical suspect. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hi AP,
I couldn't agree more with everything you say.
At least it's a very plausible possibility.
"Stride's case falls out here by miles.
All the noise comes before the crime."
I love it when you rhyme, AP. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Phil hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
I am inclined to believe that Kidney killed Stride.
But what makes that line of reasoning so interesting, is the impact it has on the whole Whitechapel Murder mystery. Suddenly the "double event" is no more. No JtR scurrying unsatisfied in search of a second victim - with all the implications that may have for his psychological profile. Eddowes is no longer a victim snatched in haste - she might have been stalked, followed for some time.
Kidney may have escaped justice because both at the time and since because he was able to hide the needle of his deed, within the haystack of JtR's rampage. Perhaps, as with other aspects of this series of killings, we should be prepared always to question the conventional wisdoms and assumptions and see what that does for the overall picture.
Just some thoughts,
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
Mr. Hill,
If you want to discover "the impact that a line of reasoning makes on the whole Whitechapel Murder mystery," may I recommend the use of an epistemological center? Otherwise, your account of the case will be unbelievable.
David
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
Mr Radka - I would never dream of attempting an "account" of the case.
If the police could not achieve such a thing in 1888, the chances that we might do so today are very small.
All I can do is to consider the "evidence" we have (much is, of course, NOT evidence at all, but journalism of varied quality or hearsay). Even the official papers represent only a fraction of what was available to the authorities in 1888-94ish.
So I simply enjoy looking at what we have, rather as a jigsaw, and seeing what patterns we can make. I try a piece here in juxtaposition to another, and then ruminate on the implications. I don't expect others to accept my conclusions, or regard them as anything more than tentative and transitory.
In my time I have been a Druittist (he remains on my list, but I think he may well have been libelled); I have not ruled out Tumblety; and if pressed, my prime suspect would probably be Kosminski.
I have ruled out, to my own satisfaction at least, royal conspiracies; Gull, Sickert, (Maybrick and his diary!!) Lord Randolph.
I retain an open mind on Barnett as MJK's killer (but not as JtR); and have concluded that Stride was probably killed by Kidney.
But I have no over-arching theories. I do, however, have a keen interest in seeing the material we have used sensibly; in Ripper studies becoming more highly esteemed than less so; and in being prepared to think the unthinkable about aspects of the case, from the double event to the graffito; from the identity of MJK to whether there was ever a single JtR - other than in the imagination).
So I probably shalln't be using an "epistemological center" - whatever that may be.
Thanks for the recommendation though,
Phil
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
An "epistemological center" is that fluffy white artificial stuff you can find in the middle of mass produced snack cakes like Twinkies or Ding-Dongs. Swallow enough of it and the chemical preservatives make you start hallucinating.
At least that's what we've been able to determine from all the times David has referred to it to try to support nonsensical statements on another thread.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 1:35 am: | |
Oh, I thought it was the basis of such phrases as "taking the epistemological centre" out of someone.
Or as in JtR "took away half of Eddowes' epistemological centre".
Silly me. 
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
Switching the subject to "...fluffy white artificial stuff you can find in the middle of mass produced snack cakes like Twinkies or Ding-Dongs" is a cunning segue when you don't have an answer to a reasonable question. Such as my most recent summary of what Mr. Norder has failed to respond to on the A?R thread for now over twelve weeks.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 422
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Pssttt. David, stop snorting the Twinkies...
Anyway, to get this back on topic:
I do think Kidney is a strong suspect in Stride's murder, as the scene as reported by Schwartz looks much more like a domestic dispute than an attack by a serial killer who had previously (and later) stayed out of sight.
Add in that Kidney was shown to be controlling with Stride and gave bizarre testimony at the inquest, and I'd say the idea that he jealously went at her quite violently is extremely plausible.
If it were true that Stride killed Eddowes, other than disproving an alleged communication from the Ripper that almost nobody takes seriously anyway, I'm not sure it'd change our thinking about the rest of the case very much. With Kate having been released from jail not too much earlier and apparently looking for a john to pick up, I really doubt there'd be much stalking or preplanning that could even be made with the extra time Jack would have if he hadn't just come from Berner Street. I don't think it would change most interpretations of the Goulston Graffiti (which may not be relevant anyway) or the mutilations (the idea that Eddowes was severely mangled because of frustration at not being able to get Stride properly doesn't mesh with Mary Jane Kelly being even worse, unless you assume he tried an attack earlier that night too and was denied what he wanted).
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Oh, c'mon David-- you haven't responded to questions I asked you way back in April, for cripes sake. Give Dan a break.He may have just decided to take my advice.
Dan, I can conclusively prove that Stride didn't kill Eddowes. My epistemological center is ..."She were dead first, mate". ;-)
Mags |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
The strongest indicator of Kidney’s involvement in the murder of Liz Stride was his sudden appearance at the police station the following morning where he played out a certain role.
Such a killer always feels the need to be involved, on the pulse of things as it were, as control slips away from him so he feels the need to wrest some sort of control from the circumstances that are clearly beyond his control.
This behaviour from Kidney has always told me that he killed Liz Stride.
This and the fact that he locked her out of their shared room.
I don’t believe Kidney was a killer of the nature of Jack. He was just a dock worker of the LVP and if his woman strayed then he would have killed her.
Which I believe he did.
If he had an episodicalmyoplasmic centre it was probably up his asp. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 424
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
Hi Mags,
Actually, I have already answered all those questions David claims I haven't. I didn't give answers which agreed with his, so he keeps asking me again and again.
Boy, the sentence in question sure got mangled, "Kidney killed Stride so the Ripper had extra time to pull off Eddowes' murder" was what i was going for. That's what i get for posting when half asleep. (But then if I were like some posters here, I wouldn't admit to making a mistake and would instead now be spinning a tale of how Stride obviously killed Eddowes and everyone else is too stupid to see eat.)
Hi AP,
I think you were the one who best spelled out the case against Kidney, so it's good to see you posting to this thread.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1289
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
AP,you may well be right about Kidney.He certainly seems to have been violent towards her on occasion.
However I think its misrepresentative of Dock workers of the LVP or any other period to imply that they were all wife killers if angered or upset.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
Quite right, Natalie, please forgive my implication.
However Dock workers of the LVP or any other period can never be viewed as a class who press fresh flowers on women and scatter poetry at their feet whilst dabbing their eyes with perfumed hanky.
Kidney was a brute, but obviously not all dockies are... or were. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Ms Giordano wrote:
1. "...David-- you haven't responded to questions I asked you way back in April, for cripes sake. Give Dan a break.He may have just decided to take my advice."
>>I searched the archives and found one post you made in April with questions. I had thought I'd answered it, but if you say I didn't, I didn't. I have answered it now in the A?R thread.
I don't hide behind a woman's skirts as Mr. Norder does.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Dan, thanks for restoring sanity to the thread!!
Some good points.
Phil
P.S. in the first sentence of your last pa i assume you don't mean "...if stride killed Eddowes..."? |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1292
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:58 pm: | |
AP,I can see why you think Kidney was her killer
but for me there are some strong clues to it being JtR.
-whoever it was seems to have acted with great speed even though they may have been disturbed because there were quite a few people about and this seems to be one of his hallmarks
-the darkness was chosen as a cover
-the police called him as a witness but didnt seem to seriously suspect Kidney.
But you may be right and you make a good arguement for it being him.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3655
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
I tend to think that Stride was a JTR victim. However, there's so much doubt in my mind, that I'm wary about using any of the Stride info as a stepping-stone to finding Jack.
Re Kidney, though, surely Schwartz would have been asked to have a look at him?
Robert |
Adam Went
Police Constable
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 3:56 am: | |
I believe Elizabeth Stride was a JTR victim, and a JTR victim alone. If her killer was indeed Michael Kidney, then that eliminates her as a JTR victim. But, as with Martha Tabram, there is a strong case for accepting her as a Ripper victim.
First of all, if Michael Kidney had killed Liz, he was putting himself in a monumentally dangerous situation. If the police had found out he had done it, which they could have, then he would immediately be thrust into the Jack the Ripper position, and even if he was proved not to be, he'd probably hang for killing Liz alone. Why would he risk his life by killing her at any time, but especially right in the middle of the Jack the Ripper murders?
Second, the police checked him out, and cleared him. In the desperation of the times, if he was even so much as slightly suspected, he'd be locked up while they investigated further. Take the case of John Pizer as a perfect example of that.
Third, surely he would have known Liz went out into the streets before. Why would he wait 3 years, as I said above, right in the middle of the Ripper murders, to kill her? After 3 years, surely he would have been used to it. It is very shaky ground to tred on to say that after 3 years he had finally had enough.
Fourth and finally, if it was Kidney, why kill her in an alleyway? In full view of Schwartz? Schwartz said there was 2 men, and the other man followed him for a short distance. Why the second man? A look-out? Or just a passer-by?
The questions linger. But, in a short summary, the grounds for saying that Michael Kidney killed Elizabeth Stride are just far too shaky and flimsy to even seriously consider him as a viable suspect until more incriminating evidence is found, if it ever is or can be.
Cheers,
Adam. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 386
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
Welcome to the boards!
You wrote: “But, as with Martha Tabram, there is a strong case for accepting her as a Ripper victim.”
The best reason for including Stride as a Ripper victim to me is that she was killed some hour before Catherine Eddowes. If she had been killed on some other day – even if it was during the Ripper’s ‘reign of terror’ – she would probably not have been included that easily.
”Why would he risk his life by killing her at any time, but especially right in the middle of the Jack the Ripper murders?”
If he had actually done it and would hang for the Stride murder, that would only have served justice. A murderer always risks getting caught and in those days even risked his life by killing anyone. However, history shows that this kind of thinking does not stop murderers from killing. Besides, IF Kidney killed Stride, I don’t think he planned it or gave it much thought beforehand. If he killed her, I think it was an impulsive act of rage.
Not that I’m saying Kidney necessarily killed her then because of it, but I’d say that killing her while the Ripper was on the loose would enlarge the chance that she would have been considered a Ripper victim. Perhaps it was exactly because she was considered a Ripper victim that he got away with it – IF he did it (he would have had alibis for the previous murders).
“In the desperation of the times, if he was even so much as slightly suspected, he'd be locked up while they investigated further. Take the case of John Pizer as a perfect example of that.”
Pizer was cleared because he had alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman. I’m quite sure the police would have asked Kidney for alibis for the previous murders. Not being the Ripper, like Pizer, he would probably have had checkable alibis for those murders.
”After 3 years, surely he would have been used to it. It is very shaky ground to tred on to say that after 3 years he had finally had enough.”
Stride had apparently left him only days before her murder. She had left him before, but we know this time she didn’t seem to have the intention of going back to him. From the evidence one may get the impression that she was having a romantic date on the night of her murder. According to one witness she was dressed ready to go out. Several other witnesses saw her leaving a pub and later loitering around Berner Street with what could have been one and the same man. Probably at some point during that time she was given a flower. Kidney seems to have been quite a jealous and dominant bloke, and he is certainly known to have been aggressive to her. The apparent break up and the possible date may have triggered Kidney into killing Stride. Jealousy seems a strong possible motive here.
”Fourth and finally, if it was Kidney, why kill her in an alleyway? In full view of Schwartz?”
Whoever killed Stride, he didn’t do it in full view of Schwartz. The man who assaulted Stride scared Schwartz off and the second man may have been too. The alleyway was quite dark and in that respect was as good a place as any. Although there was always the chance that people would be coming in or out of the Club, from the street the couple would hardly have been noticed.
There are some other reasons for considering Kidney as a viable suspect. First of all, the assailant seen by Schwartz walked up to her and seems to have started his assault almost right away, which would fit the scenario of someone who knew her and had some unfinished business with her. Secondly, strangely enough Stride didn’t scream very loudly, which would fit the scenario of an abusive boyfriend. On the one hand she wanted help, but on the other she didn’t seem to want to infuriate her assaulter any more for fear of being beaten up, like he had apparently done before. And then there was Kidney’s rather strange behaviour at the police station and at the inquest.
All in all, I wouldn’t say that the grounds for Kidney as Stride’s murderer are as shaky and flimsy as you say. They’re not flimsier or shakier than the grounds for saying it was Jack the Ripper who killed her.
All the best,
Frank |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 282
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hello all,
I'll admit I've only skimmed this thread, but the arguments are familiar. I do not believe that Schwartz's Man #1 was either Kidney or Stride's killer. As for as the Kidney idea goes, he was a sickly man of almost 40, and this is not the man Schwartz described. I see nothing at all peculiar about his showing up at the police station upon learning that his common-law wife had been murdered. In fact, wouldn't this be expected? HAD he been her attacker/killer, he would have known that he'd been witnessed by at least two men - so why show himself to the police and risk identification? Despite the popular description of the quarrel witnessed by Schwartz as an "attack", it's important to note that Stride's face and arms were not bruised. Not even her wrists. Only her shoulders were bruised, and we can't be positive as to who left these. She certainly HAD NOT received a beating in the days preceeding her death. We know the police considered the possibility that Stride was not a Ripper victim, which would indicate that Kidney would have been investigated as a suspect, and this being the case, he was obviously cleared. On top of this, the murder of Stride was not one of anger. She'd been silenced by some unknown means, then laid gently upon the ground before having her throat cut NOT in the front, as a layman would do it, but over the left carotid artery to induce bleeding - identical to the first cut to Polly Nichol's throat. Would the clearly emotional Kidney have been capable of such an act? I think not.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 161
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 7:50 pm: | |
Amen,Tom.
If it was Kidney, he had to be one dumb s.o.b. to assault his common law wife out in the open and THEN kill her with Pipe Man in proximity and of course,all those people going in and out of the Workin' Mans Club......a real dumb dude !
The logical "next step" for Kidney [ or actually,any perp in a domestic murder ] would be to hightail it outta town,and NOT allow himself to be possibly fingered by Pipe Man or anyone else,including Schwartz, in a line up. Kidney would have had no idea the day he was questioned if that potential line up WAS going to materialize, and if our boy Izzy was a real concerned citizen with a civic sense of responsibility to report what he saw and whom he saw....looks like Kidney cut the original mustard.
I've got a couple of bridges to sell a "dumb" Mr.Kidney,if he's still around....but it looks like this Kidney used his "bean" !
(Message edited by howard on December 12, 2004) |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the welcome!
In response to your answers to my post...
"The best reason for including Stride as a Ripper victim to me is that she was killed some hour before Catherine Eddowes. If she had been killed on some other day – even if it was during the Ripper’s ‘reign of terror’ – she would probably not have been included that easily. "
Well, of course there is the famous double murder with Catherine Eddowes that pushes the case of Liz Stride just that bit further. But, if the killer had not been interrupted by Diemschutz and his cart while working on Stride, as I believe he was, then perhaps Catherine Eddowes would not have been killed as well, because he would have satisfied his blood lust. Remember, Liz was seen alive 15 minutes, perhaps less, before she was found. As in the case of Cathy, he had so little time to work with, and he had to make his getaway too.
The characteristics of Liz Stride's murder coincide largely with the ones preceding her. I am completely confident in saying that the only reason they didn't match perfectly was because he was interrupted early on, and that is the reason why Catherine Eddowes was suddenly thrust from nobody into a worldwide known woman in 1 night, along with the other 4 ladies.
"Besides, IF Kidney killed Stride, I don’t think he planned it or gave it much thought beforehand. If he killed her, I think it was an impulsive act of rage. "
IF Kidney had killed her, then yes, it would have been a huge act of rage. But, to go so far as murder her? To put his own life in danger?
Besides, you need to remember the witness descriptions. The descriptions by the majority of the Stride witnesses of the man they saw with her have a marked resemblance to the man Lawende described. So, that would have meant that Kidney killed her like the Ripper killed, killed her within what could almost be called minutes from when the Ripper took his next victim, in the same vicinity, dressed remarkably the same as the Ripper was seen to be dressed on that night, and even left the body just how the Ripper would leave it - next to a wall in a secluded spot. He basically matches all the characteristics. So that can only mean 1 of 3 things:
a.) Michael Kidney was Jack the Ripper and responsible for the deaths of atleast 4 other women.
b.) Michael Kidney was not Jack the Ripper, did not kill Elizabeth Stride, and she was a victim of a Jack the Ripper.
c.) It is all an amazing coincidence of how alike Jack the Ripper and Michael Kidney were in 1 night, Elizabeth Stride was killed by Kidney, and was not a victim of JTR.
C is way, way too far fetched to be accepted as true. They simply could not be so much alike at the same time.
A is possible, but the police investigated Kidney and cleared him. If anyone could identify him, he would be locked up. And why would he need to kill any other women if he was only after Liz?
So we are left with just B. The most logical and well suited explanation all round, I think.
" Pizer was cleared because he had alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman. I’m quite sure the police would have asked Kidney for alibis for the previous murders. Not being the Ripper, like Pizer, he would probably have had checkable alibis for those murders."
I think my response above basically answers this point itself. Even if Kidney did kill Stride, why would he kill like Jack the Ripper, forever thrusting controversy on her viability as a victim, and himself as a suspect?
"Stride had apparently left him only days before her murder. She had left him before, but we know this time she didn’t seem to have the intention of going back to him. From the evidence one may get the impression that she was having a romantic date on the night of her murder."
So what that means is that Kidney was stalking her, waiting for the perfect moment to strike, yes? I doubt it. First, he wouldn't have any idea where in Whitechapel, or for that matter, anywhere in the East End, she had gone. Second, if anyone saw him following her, they would have said so to the police when she was killed. Third, surely she would have realised he was following her, and escaped to somewhere where he couldn't get her.
"First of all, the assailant seen by Schwartz walked up to her and seems to have started his assault almost right away, which would fit the scenario of someone who knew her and had some unfinished business with her. Secondly, strangely enough Stride didn’t scream very loudly, which would fit the scenario of an abusive boyfriend."
I'm surprised she screamed at all. Put yourself in her shoes for a moment. If you turned around to see a threatening man, possibly holding a knife, standing right over you, what would you do? She was probably so shocked that she didn't know how to react, as you or I or anyone else would initially be. She screams a couple of times, he tackles her to silence her, Schwartz passes by, and then she is dragged into the alleyway, where she is killed. Doesn't that seem like a much better fitting explanation? It explains the assault on her first.
"All in all, I wouldn’t say that the grounds for Kidney as Stride’s murderer are as shaky and flimsy as you say. They’re not flimsier or shakier than the grounds for saying it was Jack the Ripper who killed her."
I believe the grounds for saying that JTR was responsible for her killing are much stronger than saying it was Kidney. Just read the circumstances I have listed above, the descriptions and similarities are just far too many to shrug off as coincidence.
Personally, I think Ada Wilson, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Elizabeth Stride and Alice McKenzie were all victims of the Ripper too, but especially Tabram and Stride.
Regards,
Adam.
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 4:11 am: | |
Adam,
I generally agree with the sentiment of the above post. If the police wanted to clear Kidney, couldn't they just have Schwartz attempt to identify him? The people who are arguing in favor of Kidney being Stride's killer are saying the killer was "Man #1", ie. the "drunk" who walked up and started attacking her immediately. ie. the man Schwartz gave a description of.
I think it would have been very easy for the police to have taken Kidney before Schwartz, "Is this the man?"... Schwartz: "No". "OK, thanks".
Obviously the police did not suspect Kidney, and I dont think there is anything much which makes him a suspect in Stride's murder. And also, I think the man Schwartz witnessed attacking Schwartz was, in fact, the Ripper. But thats another argument altogether.
RH |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Although the argumentation here is logically sound, I tend to feel that we are ignoring the illogical nature of the violent man… which Kidney was. Please do not forget that Stride had earlier made an official complaint to the police after Kidney had attacked her with some violence, however when the case was due to come to court Stride refused to give evidence and the charge was dropped.
My interpretation of that circumstance is that Stride feared Kidney more than Kidney feared the courts… or police. If convicted of a violent assault on a woman during the LVP Kidney would have only received a minor sentence, probably not even a year.
The street scene associated with the killing of Stride reads more like a ‘crime of passion’ than the deliberate murder of an unfamiliar whore for who knows what motive. There is so much emotion associated with this crime, and so much ‘noise’… it is almost like watching a play on the stage, we have the prelude, the acts, the end and then even several curtain calls.
Everywhere one looks is noise and more noise. So many folk on the stage that it is crowded. We know every part of the play so well.
But when one views the real crimes of Jack the Ripper we are presented with an empty unlit stage where no actors come on or off.
We know and see nothing. The curtain might lift in some sudden breeze caused by the slamming of the back door, but more than that we do not see.
And I still stand by my somewhat quirky statement that the best evidence for Kidney’s guilt was his appearance and behaviour at the police station.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Hi AP, Funny that you see it like this because I tend to picture it differently.I see her drawing back into the shelter of darkness behind the gate immediatly after this attack by the tipsy
man only to have fallen into the hands of the ripper...who could have been the man heard by William Marshall earlier saying"you would say anything but your
prayers"--that sounds to me like it could have come from someone who had a down on streetwalkers.Though I must admit that I too think its very unlikely the ripper would have risked being seen or heard in front of number 63 Berner Street,
Natalie
One thing seems clear,noone saw her throat being slit.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Yes, Natalie, you see it like that.
I see it like that.
Almost like a painting or a drama.
We can build on the canvas and paint in a few extras, as fits our eye.
We can praise or damn the end result, and argue forever.
But with the other crimes we have a totally blank canvas or stage, and there we resort to fiction to restore our faith in understanding the frail human condition.
With Stride we need no fiction for we all know the painting or play.
Here we argue facts. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:59 am: | |
Hi Rob & AP Wolf,
Rob:
"I think it would have been very easy for the police to have taken Kidney before Schwartz, "Is this the man?"... Schwartz: "No". "OK, thanks".
Obviously the police did not suspect Kidney, and I dont think there is anything much which makes him a suspect in Stride's murder."
You are exactly right, I agree with what you are saying completely. As I've pointed out before, in the sentiment and mood of the people and the police at that time, anyone who was considered even remotely as a suspect would be locked up, investigated, etc. They had to have good grounds for them not being the Ripper before letting them out. Imagine what would happen if they had the Ripper in their custody and then released him again? I stand by what I said before, that the case against Michael Kidney for murdering Elizebeth Stride sounds good on the outside, but has a rotten core, and no strong foundations. Anyone who knew the ins-and-outs of her case could easily counter any argument against Michael Kidney with an even stronger case for Jack the Ripper doing it.
AP Wolf:
"Please do not forget that Stride had earlier made an official complaint to the police after Kidney had attacked her with some violence, however when the case was due to come to court Stride refused to give evidence and the charge was dropped."
Well, there is a number of circumstances which could have caused that. Personally, I think that they had an argument, tempers boiled over, and Kidney assaulted her because he had got mad about something. But there's a clear distinction between an assault and a murder, and the case of the assault was a reasonably long while before the Jack the Ripper murders began. More to the point, people do things they regret later on when their temper controls what they are doing, and I think that once all was said and done, Stride and Kidney settled their differences on that matter - for the time being. Doesn't that seem the logical reason for Stride not showing up? If she was really afraid of Kidney, well, she could have got him put away for a while atleast. Time enough for her to decide what to do next.
"The street scene associated with the killing of Stride reads more like a ‘crime of passion’ than the deliberate murder of an unfamiliar whore for who knows what motive."
A 'crime of passion'? Schwartz couldn't even tell whether 'Lipski' was shouted at him or the other man. He also couldn't even tell whether the second man was helping the first man, or whether he was just a passer-by that happened to follow him for a short distance. Remember, it was dark! So if Schwartz wasn't aware even of who the 1st man was speaking to, or what the 2nd man was doing, then what kind of a position does that put him in to say whether he could be so detailed as to call it a 'crime of passion' or an ordinary assault? How would he know?
"And I still stand by my somewhat quirky statement that the best evidence for Kidney’s guilt was his appearance and behaviour at the police station."
Well if suspects should be arrested simply because of how they acted and what their appearance was, then half the men in London could have been arrested. Elizabeth Stride, Michael Kidney's partner of a period of several years, had just been murdered - right out of the blue. How is Kidney meant to act? Everyone deals with stress in different ways, and if Kidney's way was to take up a weird attitude, well, one can hardly blame him in that kind of circumstance.
It is sad that victims of the Ripper have to be scrutinised and ruled out by some as victims. Elizabeth Stride has been seriously questioned. Mary Kelly has also been questioned. Pretty soon the Ripper will have no victims left at all!
Well, that's my 2 cents for this post!
Regards,
Adam.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 428
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Hi Adam,
I always appreciate new blood here, but I have to comment on something you said:
"Anyone who knew the ins-and-outs of her case could easily counter any argument against Michael Kidney with an even stronger case for Jack the Ripper doing it."
One thing you'll notice if you hang around here long enough is that there are a lot of people who know the ins and outs of the case very well and still disagree on some of the key points. If you approach things by assuming that the people you are talking to aren't as informed as you on the case or else they'd agree with you, you'll run into problems.
For example, a couple of years back or so, I said something quite similar to someone who was arguing that Mary Jane Kelly might not be a Ripper victim. Turns out the person in question was Stewart P. Evans, who, does, in fact, know the ins and outs of the Ripper case, as demonstrated by several of the leading books on the topic. Oops.
I think AP Wolf has the ins and outs of the Stride murder down too but just comes to different conclusions. And the possibility that Stride wasn't really a Ripper victim isn't exactly a fringe idea among others who study the case either.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 161
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Hi, Adam-
I have to disagree with the idea that Stride and Kidney's relationship couldn't have been that bad or she would have leapt at the chance to put him away for a while.
We are inundated with stories of women who are in abusive relationships and who yet fail to press charges against their abusers, either out of fear or because they "love" them. Women (and kids) who are abused sometimes would rather live in familiar terror than jeopardize what little stability they have by breaking up their home, however unhappy it is.
I don't pretend to understand this, but clearly it happens all too regularly.
Mags |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
I for one have never really laboured myself with the confused encounter that took place at the approximate time of Stride’s killing.
It was certainly busy, and that is probably why I do immediately place this particular crime in another category.
I have rather busied myself with the events leading up to the crimes, and those taking place after the crime.
Here we see a clear pattern, emerging early in the evening, where Stride appears determined to make the best of herself for a meeting later that night. That meeting is well documented and witnessed. Stride is seen in the company of a man - all night - who plainly is not Kidney. Among the many witnesses is a police constable. When ‘joshed’ in a pub by some roughnecks the couple flee, perhaps showing that their relationship was tainted in some manner or form.
The couple are restless and move from place to place without any apparent purpose or design, much as lovers might do who have no safe place for their love. The man is probably married, and Stride certainly has ‘man’ problems back at home.
We are now in the grips of an East End drama.
Enter the jealous and enraged one-time partner of Stride. Confrontation with ‘gentleman’, gentleman leaves Stride to deal with Kidney, Kidney in a fit of temper kills her.
Gentleman and Kidney leave.
Confusion here. Witnesses unsure about what they have seen.
But one witness is convinced that the man he saw attack Stride actually pulled her into the road out of the darkness that hid them and commit the assault there.
Funny that.
A Jack would seek the shadows.
Regarding Kidney’s appearance and his behaviour at the police station I can only cite previous material that I researched and published years ago which led me to this seemingly odd conclusion. I do have more similar cases showing such a trend but hopefully this should suffice:
‘A curious component of criminal mentality - especially that of many serial killers - is the strange desire to be involved somehow with the investigations of their own crimes. Sometimes, they march boldly into a police station to complain about the inefficiency of the police officers investigating their own crime, or write long letters of accusation against various people - usually officials of some nature - totally unconnected with the crime, and sometimes even offering to help the police in their investigation. This behaviour sometimes results in the criminal revisiting the site of the murder and Colin Wilson feels that this is largely to gloat over their dead victims, but this could be too simple an explanation. Wilson also believes that such serial killers are motivated to contact the police or others because of a suicidal element that is involved with sex crime but again this could be a gross over-simplification of the motives behind such behaviour. This strange behaviour - both the revisiting of the murder site and the bizarre desire to be involved in the investigation - could perhaps have its origins more in the combination of the powerful guilt mechanisms of the individuals concerned and an overpowering desire to be there on the ’pulse’ of things. But no matter to the psychology of the behaviour, it suits our present purpose to know that it exists as a few examples will illustrate.
John Haigh was a classic example, walking into Chelsea Police Station with a woman on his arm in 1949 to report the disappearance of a woman that he had murdered two days earlier. To assist the police even further he gave them his business address where he had murdered Mrs Oliver Durand-Deacon and then melted her body down in a tub of acid. It didn’t take the police long to realize that they had a mass-murderer on their hands who specialized in killing people whose fortune he wanted to ‘inherit’.
When the remains of two bodies were found in a stream in Scotland in 1953 the police and forensic experts really had their work cut out for them as the bodies had been hacked to pieces and the skin removed from the faces so that identification would be impossible. For the same reason the fingertips of one body were also removed. But when a wild, dishevelled man burst into a Lancaster police station to complain about the disappearance of his wife, and police harassment - when there had been none - the police knew they had a suspect. Not satisfied with that performance the man, Dr Buck Ruxton, made another appearance at the police station a few days later where he wept across the counter complaining that his neighbours were spreading malicious rumours that he had killed his wife and maid. Eventually the forensic trail also led back to him and he was finally and successfully prosecuted for the brutal murder of his wife and maid but many involved in the case remained convinced that if the good doctor had not lost his nerve and gone whining to the police he would have got away with the perfect double murder.
In 1946 Neville Heath took a woman to his London hotel room and in the course of a sadistic session - in which it seems the woman was a willing partner - lost control of himself and killed her. He then travelled down to Bournemouth murdering another woman on the beach and then explaining to yet another lady he met that a woman had been murdered by persons unknown in his hotel room in London. She strongly advised him to go to the local police, which he astonishingly did, explaining to the perplexed officials - who immediately recognised him from his description which had appeared in every national newspaper in the country - that he might be able to help them with their enquiry. He was not intending to confess, his offer of help seems to have been genuine enough from his own point of view as he had a few days after the first murder written to the officer in charge of the investigation in London offering his help and promising to supply the weapon that was used to mutilate and murder the woman which he had found by chance in his hotel room. He had also complained bitterly to the other guests at his Bournemouth hotel that a man capable of such a terrible act must have been a ‘sexual maniac’.’ |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Do read AP"s book "Jack the Myth"[available on this site thanks to AP"s generosity].
It captures the zeit-geist of late Victorian London in a style few can equal.
Natalie |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
I do have one question that I thought I would throw out regarding Kidney. IF...it was Kidney,
how did he know where Stride was hanging out? From what most witnesses said, Berner st wasnt exactly the biggest whore hangout.
For me personally, I dont rely too much on the
exact details that Swanson provided in the report. For instance whether the killer slung her into the street or pushed her down or whatever. He wrote the report almost 3 weeks after Schwartz was interviewed...which he could have been writing from memory or reading Abberline's report. Anyway...just thought I would see what everyones thoughts were on that.
Paul |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3671
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
Hi Paul
Have a look at the thread "How many people did ol' Jacky really kill?" (under "General Discussion").
Robert |
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
i tend to go for the obvious solutions...i think jtr killed tabram stride kelley and perhaps others considered only possible victims...i beleive the man seen attactking her was her killer. i beleive that if you looked at the men in the lives of many of the prostitutes in whitechapel at the time you would have found mostly ruff sorts who 100 plus years later we could get just enough dirt on to make them potential jtr's (like barnett or kidney). im not sure where on this site i read this, but i recall that despite whitechapel being a tought place there were relatively few murders in the immediate time frame leading up to the attatcks of that autumn...call me simple but i think what happened is...jack committed most if not all the vicious crimes againts the prostitutes at that time, and i don't personally think the distinctions between stabbing someone multiple times or carving them up like kelley or gutting them like the others is that important...there was a women hating knife weilding maniac on the loose who killed in different ways depending or mood or opportunity but i beleive in the end it was all jack. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Adam, you wrote:
"...Schwartz couldn't even tell whether 'Lipski' was shouted at him or the other man..."
Maybe an argument for him having misheard. Could the other man have said "Liz!" even "Liz, Key!!" as suggested on here before now?
Schwartz strikes me as a typical witness, he definitely saw something, but wasn't sure what, or what to make of it. There is lot's of stuff in what he said, but we have to be careful how we use it.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Perhaps it would help to study a similar case where a knife is used to settle a domestic dispute very similar to Kidney/Stride.
All sorts of people get stabbed in this one, not just the woman who is unfaithful to her man.
'Proceedings of the Old Bailey:
Joseph Mills, killing, murder 17th July 1754.'
Well worth the read. And relevant to the discussion. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Sorry Dan,
somehow I missed both your posts and have only just read them now.
Thanks. This old wolf needs all the help he or she can get.
Appreciated. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
