Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Michael Kidney's visit to police stat... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Elizabeth Stride » Michael Kidney's visit to police station « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 158
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thought I'd start this thread as requested and also so that there is somewhere to discuss this subject separately.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 8:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 196
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 9:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 992
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 997
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 261
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1002
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 4:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1003
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 265
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1005
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 6:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.