| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 158
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:21 am: |       |
Thought I'd start this thread as requested and also so that there is somewhere to discuss this subject separately.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
G'day,
On the 3rd day of the inquest into the death of Elizabeth Stride, her lover Michael Kidney told the Coroner that he visited Leman Street Police Station on Monday night the 1st of October and asked for a young, strange detective to act on information 'that would have led to a great deal', if he'd been given assistance.
He said that he: "..could get more information than I could myself. The parties I obtained my information from know me, and I thought someone else would be able to derive more from them."
When the Coroner suggested that he give that information to the inquest, he said: "no, I will keep it to myself."
Michael Kidney was a waterside labourer, who lived at 38 Dorset Street, Spitalfields. Any ideas?
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 196
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 9:03 am: | |
Well the first thing to remember is that there is some dispute over the address. The Central News Agency gave it differently. See Pall Mall Gazette 3rd October - "He lived with her at 35, Devonshire-street down to five months ago, when they moved to No. 36 in the same street." Certainly Kidney told the inquest that they had lived together three years and Sven Ollson stated "two years ago she gave her address as Devonshire-street" so plainly they had lived in that road at some time.
In my opinion the Central News Agency reporter got it a bit garbled and he was describing previous addresses to them, as I don't see the Times and Telegraph both getting the address wrong in their inquest reports. However that means that they had only lived in Dorset Street for less than five months, and so it is quite concievable that these parties he obtained his information from hail from the Devonshire Street days rather than the Dorset Street days. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 992
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
G'day,
I can't work out what you are saying here, Alan. Can you explain please? Why is it your opinion that the parties he obtained his information from hail from the Devenshire Street days?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 997
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:29 pm: | |
G'day,
'The Jack the Ripper A-Z' says that Michael Kidney was a resident at 33 Dorset Street and 'Kidney had known Stride for three years and lived with her most of that time.'
The inquest report from the 'times' said that he stated at the inquest: 'I live at 38 Dorset street, Spitalfields.'
Then as Alan pointed out, Sven Ollson (whoever he is/was) stated "two years ago she gave her address as Devonshire Street."
Can someone help me work this out?
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:47 am: | |
Leanne
Sorry didn't see the earlier post. I wasn't suggesting that he necessarily had the information from Devonshire Street. From the last sentence of your original post I was assuming that what you were saying was that the "parties" that he obtained his information from would be people living near him in Dorset Street. I was making the point that, in my opinion at least, he and Stride had only lived in Dorset Street a short time and before that had been living in Devonshire Street and that hence these "parties" could equally well be from there.
In my opinion the 33 Dorset Street address stems from a misprint of 38 Dorset Street which is the address he seems to have given at the inquest. He certainly gave the 36 Devonshire Street address to the Central News Agency but as I said in the post above, I think that the author was confused and that Kidney was giving his previous address. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:26 am: | |
G'day Alan,
If they had lived on Dorset Street for less that five months, that means that they moved there around May or June. Emma Smith was attacked on the 2nd of April by three youths, so do you feel that Michael Kidney's information must have been about that?
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 261
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:48 am: | |
Leanne
Now there's a thought! It hadn't occurred to me before but Michael Kidney seems just the sort of person who might well have been acquainted with members of the High Rip gang or their ilk, so this could well have been the source of his "information". I have an description from a Whitechapel constable of the sort of treatment a "copper's nark" could expect to receive at the time, so this would explain his reluctance to give his information at the open inquest. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
G'day Alan,
Surely the police weren't ignoring other cases, (ie Emma Smith's attack). It might have been worthwhile hearing what Michael Kidney had to say! It also MAY have taken the Ripper investigation in a whole new direction, (to the docks), NO?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:01 pm: | |
G'day Alan,
I am researching this issue for this book, but I'm stressing the point that whatever Michael Kidney had to say, was not neccessarily about Joseph Barnett! I am wondering if it was right to ignore him and treat it as a big joke, which is what everyone in the courtroom seemed to do!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 11, 2003) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 265
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:05 am: | |
Leanne
I went back over Kidney's display in the inquest last night and I have to say it suddenly makes almost perfect sense when you read it in this light. I am now almost convinced that it was some gang members he was talking about.
However I don't think it would have helped the Ripper investigation, because I don't think that the gangs knew who he was. If they had they would have dealt with him themselves, because by frightening the girls off the streets he was bad for their business. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
G'day Alan,
That is if they knew who he was! Couldn't he have been inspired by them? ie: "if they can get away with it, so can I." ?
Hey, how can they blame the Ripper for frightening the girls off the streets, when what they did would have frightened them as well?
LEANNE |
