|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 10:45 am: |       |
G'day,
Rags I guess.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 903
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Shannon, I vaguely recall something in "The Female Eunuch" to the effect that men call menstruation "having the rags". I don't know where this expression originated.
This is one subject I'm glad to be ignorant of!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 904
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Just realised the point of your question ; "No drawers or stays." If it was her time of the month, it might have made her eager to get out of BPS, I suppose.
Or Jack may have taken them to wrap the organs in.
If for whatever reason she did need a new pair, how much would they have cost her relative to the money they got for popping the boots?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
G'day,
I've heard that expression Robert, but I decided not to bother mentioning it. I think at school...not from the teacher! It's an old one and I think it describes what all women had to use before other things were invented.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Stride's the trickiest. We have just enough details to make a case either way, but either way we still need to "fill in details". And, depending upon what we choose as fill determines the outcome. As such, I can never make up my mind. I tend to argue the "for Jack" sencerios because that one is just more specific. If we can find something that definately would rule out Jack, then we can't be sure it was Kidney, but for the study of Jack the Ripper, it would be enough. Of course, if we can't rule out Stride as a victim of Jack, then her murder tells us a lot about Jack. Such as the risks he takes, the amount of "safty checks" he performs, his need to kill again (Eddowes), etc.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
G'day,
It didn't take me long to know that Stride was a Ripper victim. I thought: 'Elizabeth Stride and Michael Kidney had a rough relationship, she would go off and live elsewhere, but in the end he always took her back! Why would he risk being hung? Why not just refuse to accept her back, take another woman, or murder her when the two were completely alone?'
LEANNE
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 7:56 pm: | |
Leanne
As I suggested elsewhere (and it is just a suggestion), the answer to your thought could lie in the story of Best and Gardner who said they saw Stride basically playing tonsil hockey with some bloke outside the Bricklayers Arms. Stride left Kidney many times but always came back. On this occasion, if she had found herself a new beau, he might have believed that she was not coming back, and therefore murdered her in a fit of anger. Remember his testimony, "She liked me better than any one else. It was drink that made her go away, and she always returned without my going after her. I do not believe she left me on Tuesday to go with any other man." Could this be a man in denial talking?
Incidentally, I've been looking everywhere to find the source for Best and Gardner. They are quoted on this site, but the only other place I can find the story that I have is in the Mammoth Book and neither place quotes a reference. Any chance anyone? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 372
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 8:04 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
I find it quite probable that Kidney was in denial of many things (and maybe even lied about one or two) but it doesen't necessarily implicate that he killed her.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 52
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 8:08 pm: | |
I never said it did Glenn, but the three basics of crime investigation are means, motive and opportunity. Leanne was questioning whether Kidney had a motive, I was providing one. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 373
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 8:23 pm: | |
It is indeed a good motive, Alan -- at least as good as any. I can't argue with that, although I believe her to be a Ripper victim.
Kidney is a big problem nevertheless. I think it is noticable that he witholds information regarding Stride, or else is remarkably ignorant or in complete denial about her conduct. What --among other things -- makes his behaviour suspious is his arrogant appearence during the inquest, bragging over that he has information to the police that could catch the killer, but then doesen't want to give it to them. Annoying bloke, and indeed an usual behaviour by a mourning male companion.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 910
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 4:04 am: | |
Hi Alan
Paul Begg ("Uncensored Facts") gives the "Evening News" 1st Oct '88 as a source for the Best and Gardner story.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
Thanks Robert. I'm starting to get worried about my own hypothesis, as a certain point about Best's story doesn't ring true, so I wanted to read the original to see if what he was reported (in the Mammoth Book) to have said is what he actually said. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 101
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 8:14 pm: | |
Glenn, in looking at Kidney as a possible killer, it is questionable as to a timetable; but, one has to wonder how it is that he knew Liz was murdered, and made the scene at the police station on Monday night, and as of the hearing Monday afternoon held by the coroner, the body had not been identified as being Elizabeth Stride.
Michael say he as seen the body at the mortuary, however, I don't recall him (or the police) stating that he is the one who ID'd the body.
Is there any reference as to when the body was actually identified, and by whom?
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 104
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:54 am: | |
Leanne, ".... or murder her when the two were completely alone?"
Isnt this what happened to her?
Shannon
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 1:09 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Wasn't it you who said Dutfield's yard was too busy to be a Ripper selection? If it was Kidney and he wanted to make it look like a Ripper murder, he could have picked a more suitable location.
I don't believe it was anyone who wanted to implicate the Ripper! I believe it was the Ripper, only it wasn't a planned killing!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 106
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:06 am: | |
Leanne, "not planned?"
He had the three going for him; motive, means, and opportunity. The killer intended for Liz to be a victim.
If the murder was unplanned, and it was someone other than a person she knew, why no muss and fuss? The murderer didn't cut her throat while she was standing up, nor was she strangeled to prevent screaming, nor was her hand cut in a defensive position protecting againts a second cut (since the first one didnt killer her), nor were her hands used to prevent her fall to the ground. At any point so far had she realized something was wrong she would have screamed and attracted attention.
Two alternatives. 1) it was a punter she picked up (or Jack posing as one). 2) it was someone she knew. Since she did not have any money on her at the time of death, it would not have been someone she was "working" as she would have been paid up front, leaving only one alternative, she knew who attacked her.
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:25 am: | |
Shannon
The body has been identified as that of ELIZABETH STRIDE, a widow according to one
account
That's from The Times from the Monday morning October 1st. There was some confusion as to who Elizabeth Stride was, and whether she was the same woman as Elizabeth Watts, but the name had been made public as early as Sunday. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Alan, looking to see who ID'd the body and when because as of the inquest on Monday afternoon it had not been identified.
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 61
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:05 am: | |
Shannon, apparently the body had been identified by a woman known as "one-armed Liz" as being a person she knew as Elizabeth Stride. Meanwhile Mary Malcolm identified her as her sister Elizabeth Watts. At the time it was believed that Watts and Stride were one and the same. It wasn't until Kidney and others started pointing out that Stride had told them she was Swedish that the authorities started to realise that a mistake might have been made. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:35 am: | |
Alan, that is leading to my point...
How was Kidney notified his lover was possibly murdered? Their doss house is quite a ways from the murder site, and the body was previously identifed as Elizabeth Watts. Since Liz had left on Tuesday of the previous week, returned on Wednesday (while Michael was out) and retrieved her things; possibly not intending to return to him this time, and then turns up dead on Sunday morning in the Jewish part of town, how did the news reach Michael that she had been murdered when no one knew who she was?
If there was a question about the identification of the body prior to the inquest on Monday afternoon, why wasn't Michael called to testify if he had identified her prior to the inquest?
Sometime Monday evening after the inquest Michael made his appearance at the Lehman Street police station drunk, wanting an inspector to look into her death.
Shannon
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
This is why I pointed out that the name Elizabeth Stride was published in The Times and other newspapers on the Monday morning. Kidney didn't need to be notified, he simply had to pick up a newspaper. Wynne Baxter even gave the name Elizabeth Stride at the beginning of the inquest before being told by Inspector Reid that there was some doubt concerning the identity. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 111
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
Alan, thanks. I was trying to understand why he wasn't at the first day of the inquest since he knew her, and why the body had not been positively identified by then. By reading the paper, I would think he would have gone to the mortuary to confirm it was Liz, and then appeared at the inquest. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:53 am: | |
G'day,
SHANNON: Please explain Kidney's motive, means and opportunity.
I don't understand your question: 'Why no muss and fuss?' You know the argument is that the Ripper was interrupted.
The Ripper didn't cut anyone's throat while they were standing!
'nor was her hand cut in a defensive position.' I have already explained my view that her hand prevented a second cut, so the killer didn't bother and then Diemschutz was heard.
'nor were her hands used to prevent her fall.' She must have laid down voluntarily. Don't say but it was wet, because at her inquest Dr. Blackwell said there was no wet on deceased's clothing and it hadn't rained for 2 hours!
I suggested this before too: She didn't have any money on her, but she could have been returning a favour to someone who comforted her after her assault. Plus none of the other victims had any money on them either!
Hey, perhaps she knew Joseph Barnett, who lived on the same street as Michael Kidney!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 391
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:56 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
I agree with you regarding your reservations against Kidney as the killer in question and I've never found that probable myself, but he seem to be an unpleasent character nevertheless. His behaviour in the court room goes beyond me and he doesen't seem taken by the situation at all (according to what we can tell from the inquest report), instead he's just laying energy on trying to prove a point.
Regarding your discussion with Leanne (sorry to barge in on that one):
"nor was her hand cut in a defensive position protecting againts a second cut (since the first one didnt killer her), nor were her hands used to prevent her fall to the ground. At any point so far had she realized something was wrong she would have screamed and attracted attention."
But that could go for the other Ripper victims as well. Neither of them were killed standing up, neither of them showed any sign of struggle, neither of them had any time to scream or know what's happened.
All these characteristics suggests what is referred to as "blitz" attacks. The whole point of such an approach is to keep the victim from defending herself and to get it over with quickly. It doesen't imply or prove any planning at all, or that she knew her killer. It wouldn't be necessary!
You could have a point regarding the money, but then I am not sure if any was found on all the other victims as well.
I believe he picked out the ones he found suitable, kept his victim under survellance for a while -- until the opportunity came to act.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 392
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 9:10 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I don't think she lay down voluntairily. I believed it rained at least an hour before the murder was committed, according to other witness statements, but I could be wrong. Anyway, even if it didn't, the ground would still have been wet, muddy and dirty (think about old cobble stone roads and pavements and how they collect water and dirt quite easy) and we also have statements about that. And the fact that one side of her face was muddy, although her clothes wasn't wet, indicates that the ground wouldn't have been that pleasant to perform anything on, and that she didn't lay down, in my opinion.
That is one of the reasons why prostitution acts was done standing up in such an environment. No way they would lay down voluntarily -- even if the weather was good enough.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
