|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3997
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:06 am: | 
|
Hi Robert,
"are we being asked to believe that the police investigating Stride's murder would actually go so far as to check out three American cowboys....but not Kidney?"
You said it, I didn't.
"PS Check out English sausages."
Did you mean that as a warning or a recommendation? 
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4944
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Glenn, glad you like English cuisine. Now if we can just get you off coffee and onto tea....
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Robert
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting.
We know the police spoke to Kidney - indeed, we know he spoke to them! - but we just don't have any evidence about what the police might have investigated, except that Swanson says they couldn't find any indication of "motive" among Stride's associates.
Maybe they investigated Kidney's whereabouts at the time of the murder, maybe not. I certainly don't see any indication that he established an alibi.
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 926
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Phil...
Thanks for putting my name n' Caz's in brackets...thats the closet I've gotten to her yet.
But seriously..I am not arguing for the C5 in any way,shape or form. I am not arguing against it either. Just tossing out ideas and learning from responses.
The bottom line is that Stride may not have been a victim of the Ripper. Thats unquestionably correct.
However,Kidney may not have been her killer in this scenario either. That is likewise a fact.
Glenn....You've got a good stomach,I'll tell you that.
As far as trusting police officials in this Case,there's no need to worry if I place too much faith in all of them. I refer to Sir Robert,sir.
..and when I said, "keep fighting against the C5"..I really meant it. It wasn't a snide remark. I applaud anyone who challenges the status quo...its all for the best in the final analysis...
Anyone have any answers to explain the public belligerence [ at the Inquest ] by Kidney ? Does this sound like a guy who cared if his past was investigated [ the alleged abuse ]? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4945
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Chris. Glenn seems to be suggesting that Kidney wasn't even asked to provide an alibi, which I find a bit difficult to swallow.
Let's say that he did provide an alibi. Even here, the police could have been taken in, but there you go, we can't check it now.
Now if he wasn't able to provide an alibi : then I think the police would have taken a good look at him - they seemed to be looking at just about everyone else! I think too that they would have asked Schwarz to take a look at him - literally.
RJ Palmer once argued that Kidney was living quite close by Berner St, and even provided a scenario whereby one of Kidney's friends nips round to tell him that Stride's in the area. If he's only right about the address, that would have been another reason for the police to investigate Kidney.
There's also the cachous, but that's another matter.
How, I've had a quick look in the Sourcebook and can't at the moment find any mention at the inquest of Kidney abusing Stride, as far as the witness statements are concerned. Maybe Kidney felt that he could be aggressive, as abuse hadn't been mentioned. Or maybe there never was much abuse.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
If you are implying is that the suspicions against Kidney...are taken out of thin air, you are clearly wrong.
For the last time, what I said was that I see nothing to back up Phil's claim that Kidney 'probably' killed Stride. I wasn't 'implying' anything else, and I have already explained that I'm not choosing to 'dismiss' anything. Others are choosing to dismiss Stride as a ripper victim, while I am undecided about Jack's body count on the current evidence. What on earth is wrong with that?
Challenge is good, challenge is great. But so is counter-challenge. What am I supposed to do - lie down and agree that Kidney 'probably' killed Stride, just because Phil says so?
Not on your nelly. The word Phil is searching for is 'possible', ie we cannot eliminate Kidney as an impossible murder suspect.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Robert
Well, maybe - and Glenn is probably going too far in his certainty that the police didn't consider Kidney as a possible suspect.
On the other hand, it also seems to be going too far to start from a total absence of direct evidence about any police investigation of Kidney, and to conclude as you seem to be doing that they must have asked him for an alibi and (if I understand your post correctly) he must have been able to provide one that satisfied them.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4946
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Hi Chris
No, I'm only going on balance of probability, as I see it. Basically, the chances of either
1. The police didn't ask Kidney for an alibi
or
2. He gave an alibi, but it was false and the police were taken in
or
3. He couldn't give an alibi, but Schwarz wasn't asked to view him, or couldn't identify him after viewing him, or was too scared etc, and the police couldn't find any other evidence against him
being true, coupled with
4. Kidney killed Stride
seem to me to be on the low side. But of course, it's possible, and if someone were to find a report of Kidney using a knife on a woman before or after the Stride murder, the odds would tip round a bit...or a lot.
Re Stride as a JTR victim, I'm about 60-40 on her being one of Jack's.
Robert
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Robert
Oh, I see.
I thought you were arguing against the likelihood of (1), (2) or (3) being true. I didn't realise it was against (1), (2) or (3), and (4).
Including (4) makes it a different question entirely, of course.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4947
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hi Chris
I think if we add (4) and join it to (3) then it does seem less likely to me that Kidney killed Stride, had no alibi and yet the police either couldn't pin the murder on him, or just weren't interested, than that Kidney didn't kill Stride.
Robert |
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Phil.
Is "low standards" anything you don't agree with?
How can you say any post is of a low standard when you (and indeed no one else) has any concrete evidence that the contents of it aren't true.
It's just a case of differing theories mate and every one of them is valid unless they can be discounted 100% and very few, if any, can.
To you some theories may seem ridiculous but your theories may also seem ridiculous to some other people.
Post and let post mate. If you scorn everyone that comes up with a theory you don't like, you're going to have a very boring messageboard.
Sometimes you just have to say "Ok we'll have to agree to disagree on this one". You can't make people believe what you want them to believe and you can't make them post what you want them to post. |
Sam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
All,
What are your reactions to the latest book 'uncle jack'written by Tony Williams suggesting that his great great grandfather John Williams was Jack the ripper?
I have never heard heard his name mentioned in connection with the murders before but he presented some evidence from old records (albeit circumstantial in parts).
It was shown in old workhouse records that he was a doctor and performed an abortion on the first victim!
Thoughts please?
Sam
|
Vade Mecum
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Phil is fighting a brave battle, but he will inevitably fail when he tries to impose his own high standards on others. Some simply aren't interested while others enjoy the fantasies they weave. Also, it might help if Phil had some original work of his own which we all could assess his standards by. Just a few thoughts. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Personally I think you can toss out anyone who is not from the East End.
This killer had a 'comfort zone' as can be seen by looking at any map showing the murder sites,he knew his ground and he knew it well.
Gentlemen 'slummers',no matter how well disguised, would not have had the knowledge of the labyrinth that was 1888's Whitechapel this killer needed because, and this is just an opinion of course, I do not think the killer chose the sites - I think the victims did.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3998
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Chris,
I am not 'certain' of anything.
I am just telling what I see.
Robert,
There is not a single indication in the internal police documentation, saying that Kidney was treated as a suspect or that they checked his alibi. Nor do the documentation mention anything about him being subject to an identification by Schwartz (such an identification should have been normal standards of procedure if the police knew what they were doing), which should have been the case. As I see it, the police got tunnel vision and disregarded him and missed the boat. We are talking about internal police communications here, where such vital information should have been displayed if those actions did take place.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3999
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Sam,
'Uncle Jack' has its own thread in the Ripper media sections.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4948
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Ah Glenn, but (as far as I know) there isn't an internal record of Schwarz being asked to ID anyone at all. Whether the police just assumed that JTR killed Stride, or whether they came to this conclusion after eliminating Kidney, you'd still think that Schwarz would have been asked to ID someone, somewhere, sometime. Perhaps he did, but the record of it either hasn't survived, or wasn't mentioned in internal police communications. But your logic would seem to suggest that Schwarz cannot have been asked to look at anyone, because it isn't mentioned.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4001
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Robert,
"Ah Glenn, but (as far as I know) there isn't an internal record of Schwarz being asked to ID anyone at all. Whether the police just assumed that JTR killed Stride, or whether they came to this conclusion after eliminating Kidney, you'd still think that Schwarz would have been asked to ID someone, somewhere, sometime."
Exactly my point, Robert.
And still it is not noted anywhere, in spite of that it would have been normal procedure to deliver a report about it or to include it in the already available reports.
"Perhaps he did, but the record of it either hasn't survived, or wasn't mentioned in internal police communications. But your logic would seem to suggest that Schwarz cannot have been asked to look at anyone, because it isn't mentioned."
Firstly, the official reports are quite complete, so there really aren't that much missing, if anything at all. What is missing is the personal notebooks of the officers and the original witness statements and interrogation notes.
Secondly, I would definitely say, that such an important act would have been mentioned in the internal police communication to the higher officials or the Home Office. We know that they found it relevant to mention other stuff, equally or much less relevant. The line-up of soldiers for Pearly Poll is mentioned, for example, and similar crucial things that would have been important enough to report, should be there if they occurred, but they aren't. Logic dictates, that it therefore never happened.
Just my two cents.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4949
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
Well, that disposes of the Seaside Home ID!
But we seem to be going round in circles. I'm saying that probably either Schwarz had a look at Kidney, and cleared him. Or, Schwarz wasn't asked to look at Kidney, suggesting that Kidney had already been cleared, e.g. by an alibi.
You on the other hand think Schwarz wasn't asked to look at Kidney, because the police never considered Kidney a suspect. And furthermore, that Schwarz wasn't asked to look at anyone else, even though the police apparently had leapt to the conclusion that Stride was a JTR victim, and had a witness who had seen Stride being assaulted a few minutes before her death and at the place where she died, a witness who was able to describe the man to boot.
Blimey, no wonder they never caught him! 
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Robert
I think you're right about going round in circles, but here goes ...
And furthermore, that Schwarz wasn't asked to look at anyone else, even though the police apparently had leapt to the conclusion that Stride was a JTR victim, and had a witness who had seen Stride being assaulted a few minutes before her death and at the place where she died, a witness who was able to describe the man to boot.
I don't follow this. Where does the bit about Schwartz not being asked to look at anyone else come from?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4950
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
That is my interpretation of Glenn's post of 1.51PM, coupled with some incredulous remarks of my own.
If I understand him correctly, Glenn is arguing that Schwarz wasn't asked to take a look at Kidney or at anyone else. His reason is, if such confrontations had taken place, they'd have been mentioned in the internal police communications to higher officials. He says the reports are fairly complete, yet there's no mention of ID parades etc (except in the case of Pearly Poll and maybe one or two others), Therefore they didn't take place.
I just think that as the police believed that Stride was a JTR victim (and it never crossed their minds to believe otherwise, according to Glenn) it would have been rather a waste of a prima facie importanr witness.
Robert
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 857
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Ian:
Is "low standards" anything you don't agree with?
No, it is argument without reference, or anything to support a belief or opinion that can be considered by others. If you say you assert something because you believe it, I cannot argue with that, it is a fact. If you state your thread of reasoning, the logical chain of ideas that supports your comntention, then we can discuss it.
What Ii am actually arguing for though, is adherence to the academic method. Well tried and tested. You set out your idea or proposal and the supporting evidence - not just facts, but references and citations, the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion. That is then subjected to critique by your "peers" - here, those equally interested in the case. It works in allowing a concensus to emerge or ideas to develop.
How can you say any post is of a low standard when you (and indeed no one else) has any concrete evidence that the contents of it aren't true.
I have set out fully and recently what I mean by evidence in this context: supporting assertions by reference to facts, contemporary or later sources, logic and refernece works.
It's just a case of differing theories mate and every one of them is valid unless they can be discounted 100% and very few, if any, can.
They can also stand and fall by the quality of their reasoning. Not all ideas are equal.
To you some theories may seem ridiculous but your theories may also seem ridiculous to some other people.
Thenlet them debate with me - I have never been known to decline to exchange views.
Post and let post mate. If you scorn everyone that comes up with a theory you don't like, you're going to have a very boring messageboard.
Or a high quality one. That's up to Spry - he can ban me anytime - and the Board is HIS. Not your's or mine.
Sometimes you just have to say "Ok we'll have to agree to disagree on this one". You can't make people believe what you want them to believe and you can't make them post what you want them to post.
No, but I can assure they know I disagree, and learn by discovering what I perceive to be the weaknesses in their arguments. Why must I settle for some lower standard than is easily achievable?
Vade mecum:
...it might help if Phil had some original work of his own which we all could assess his standards by.
Why? I am not talking of new facts, but of the reasoning and logic supporting arguments and assertions. I think you'll find I usually provide that.
I have started and maintained enough threads here, for people to know what my views and standards are. See my current one on the royal conspiracy if you want an example.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4002
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Robert,
"Blimey, no wonder they never caught him!"
Again, you said it - not me.
You you give the police of 1888 too much credit, Robert, and assumes that they operated like a modern police force and were equally experienced in handling such a vast investigation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Robert
I know what you are talking about here.
It is the ‘Heathrow Customs’ scam which I always employed in the days before EU.
You arrive at Heathrow airport with two full suitcases of Samson tobacco and good Spanish brandy, and you do not want the customs officers to open your suitcases, find your goods and make you pay the duty on them, so you march straight up to the ‘Goods to Declare’ channel, open the small rucksack on your back, and say:
‘Good morning, Mister Customs Officer, I seem to have miscalculated the amount of alcohol I am allowed to bring into the UK, and have here a full bottle of Spanish brandy, plus a full bottle of Gordon’s gin. Now, what can we do about this?’
Customs officer plays with calculator.
‘I’m afraid, sir, that I am going to have to charge you five pounds duty on the gin.’
‘Well, that’s very reasonable,’ say I, as I peel off a fiver from my roll and hand it to him.
Said Customs Officer spends twenty minutes writing out receipt for fiver.
‘There you are, sir, just let me scratch some yellow chalk on your suitcases and you may carry on.’
‘Splendid!’ scream I, wheeling a thousand pounds worth of contraband out of the customs hall.
Worked every time.
It is my honest belief that Michael Kidney did exactly the same thing. He made himself a witness before a witness was required.
He satisfied all the criteria that the policemen of the LVP employed, he went to them.
They didn’t open his suitcases, but just had a quick look into his rucksack.
Smoke and mirrors, Robert. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Robert
All I can say is that it would seem very strange for Swanson to write in his summary as he did, if (1) Kidney had been treated as a serious suspect and (2) Schwartz had tried, and failed, to identify him.
As to its being a waste of a witness not to use him, I don't understand who they were meant to show to him, if not Kidney. Perhaps, years later, Kozminski - and who's to say they didn't? - but that could hardly have been mentioned in Swanson's report.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4952
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi all
Glenn, as you are now resident in England, it's too late for me to ask you.
BUT
AP, as you are not resident in England, any chance of you bringing me in some cheap fags? Particularly if you come over for the conference?
Don't worry, I see what you're both saying.
Chris, on your point : maybe it was as Swanson said? Maybe the police just couldn't find anyone from her past who might want to harm her - including Kidney. This might be the case if, for instance, Kidney provided a firm alibi right at the start, and also if there was no evidence of abuse - no stories of neighbours hearing rows, noting black eyes, etc.
So Kidney may have been a suspect, but only for as long as it took to clear him.
Robert |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 177
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
A.P.
I doubt very much that any customs officer at Heathrow or anywhere else,would be mislead by the example you have given.
It is the volume of work they are required to do,and the small amount of time to do it,that sometimes lead to overlooking what may seem a plausible trick.
Believe me,similar stories have been doing the rounds for years,and Customs Officers are well aware of such misleading statements.
Twenty minutes to write out a receipt.Pull the other leg. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
It seems like a lot of the Kidney argument, both pro and con, rests on an assessment of the aptitude of the police and/or a belief that Kidney was one slick, street smart customer.
Addressing the latter first, does the drunken, brutish Kidney really come off as being able to pull a fast one on the cops? Not from where I sit.
And yes, police being human, do screw up from time to time, but from some of the posts here I see them unable to walk down the street without slipping on a banana peel. So we are left with possibility versus probability (as we are so often in this case). Is it probable that they could have been so damn stupid and inept in investigating Kidney? Personally, I agree with Robert. I think Kidney had an alibi,the police checked it and were satisfied.
c.d.
Remember that the Ark was built by amateurs and that the Titanic was built by professionals. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 252
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
If this is now meant to be a ' high quality ' message board as Phil says , then whats our evidence for Kidney killing Stride ?
Not supposition , actual evidence.
If there is none , then how can we say that Kidney ' probably ' killed Liz Stride all of a sudden , when people like Inspector Reid & Dr Phillips & Dr Bond & Walter Dew & Sir Melville MacNaghton & Superintendent Arnold - all who were actually around at the time - put her down as a Ripper victim ? ( see Sugden , p.356-357 )
Stride was a Ripper victim , end of story.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4006
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Simon,
Don't be silly. No one can display any evidence of anything here - only theories. I thought that would have been obvious by now.
I once said, that there are INDICATIONS to suspect that the Stride killing may not have been a Ripper killing and that Kidney could be a prime suspect for this. We do actually have indications enough to make it a valuable effort to investigate it. Or at least to not take her murder for granted as a Ripper killing, as you seem to do. It is wonderful that you seem to think that there is evidence enough to say with 100% certainty that Stride was killed by the Ripper, but I am afraid that is not the case. Saying things like 'Stride was a Ripper victim - end of story' is not professional and such a statement can not be taken seriously.
I am not prepared to rely on any opinions of the Met police of 1888. They were inexperienced in serial killers, they were in a situation where they were subjected to loads of pressure, and witness interrogations as well as methods of investigating were in its infancy compared to modern standards, so assuming that they did it right just because 'they were there' is just stupid. The Met police made a lot of mistakes and we only have to go the work of the City police in connection with the Eddowes murder to compare the level of professionalism.
The Met police were not idiots but it is fair to assume that they couldn't handle the pressure and that their judgement sometimes was clouded by inexperience and tunnel visions. When Eddowes' body popped up the same night, I think they pretty much had to accept Stride's murder as the work of the Ripper - regardless if this was right or wrong - and it is quite supported by the information we have, that they saw it as a Ripper murder. That doesn't mean they were right, in fact, that could be an explanation to why the Stride investigation went as it did. In her case, they were clearly biased right from the start, and that is not a good thing.
c.d.,
It doesn't matter if Kidney was a clever, street-smart bloke or if he was a stupid drunkard. The police communication shows that they clearly failed to do the job they should have done. If Kidney was treated as a suspect he would have been in there as such. As I see it, he was never treated as such and his alibi never checked. In fact, one even gets the impression that they were not at all interested in him in the first place. We have other parts of the Ripper investigation where it is evident that they handled it sloppily and it always comes down to the problem with witness interviews and pressure from the authorities the press, and the general public to catch the Ripper, which could be ONE explanation to why they fail to notice any signs of domestic circumstances in some of the murders and take actions in that direction.
People constantly seem to forget the pressure they were under at the time. One only have to take a brief look through the documentation in the Ultimate Companion to acknowledge the heavy work load they suffered under.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 860
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
What we can discuss and use in dealing with propositions such as "Kidney killed Stride", is reasoning and a marshalling and clear-headed appraisal of the known facts and available evidence (press reports, police files etc).
That is a perfectly acceptable academic method. The probablities emerge, if there are any through debate and testing of the logic.
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 254
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Quote from Glenn - " Don't be silly. No one can display any evidence of anything here - only theories. I thought that would have been obvious by now.
I once said, that there are INDICATIONS to suspect that the Stride killing may not have been a Ripper killing and that Kidney could be a prime suspect for this. We do actually have indications enough to make it a valuable effort to investigate it. Or at least to not take her murder for granted as a Ripper killing, as you seem to do."
Ok , but I personally feel its near enough a certainty that Stride was a Ripper victim to close the book on the matter , thats only my opinion.
I don't see how INDICATIONS that Kidney might have killed Stride are okay though , whereas INDICATIONS that there might have been a Royal Conspiracy are not however.
I cannot prove there to have been a Royal conspiracy , similarly no-one can prove that Kidney killed Stride.
But there ARE indications that there might have been a Royal Conpiracy : the testimony of Florence Pash , Abberline's ' one of the highest in the land ' , Kelly being seen with someone with unusual ' collar and cuffs ' , the story about government agents visiting Mitre Square to possibly hide evidence of Royal involvement , the anecdotal evidence that Eddy kept a mistress near Charlotte Street , Stowell's ' S ' theory , the story about RJ Lees visiting the doctor and so on.
All I am asking is for people to keep an open mind on the Royal Conspiracy theory , thats all. Yes , the exisiting theories are stupid , but if there were a Royal Conspiracy do we know what really happened ? Could there be a reason for it which we don't know yet ?
Could Mary Kelly have been the lover of Bertie or Eddy , maybe she passed on pillow-talk information to the Fenians , who knows ?
It may be improbable , or even seem ridiculous , but don't write a Royal Conspiracy theory off as impossible !
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 255
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
You don't have to prove or disprove any Royal Conpiracy theory , just keep an open mind about the matter.
It'll be up to a future Ripper author to state the case for a new Royal Conspiracy , judge each theory on its merits. Shame Rob Parker didn't write his book. Anyone know what hes doing now ? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4007
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
"I don't see how INDICATIONS that Kidney might have killed Stride are okay though , whereas INDICATIONS that there might have been a Royal Conspiracy are not however."
It's quite simple, Simon.
You see, there ARE NO indications of any Royal conspiracies in the Ripper case. None whatsoever, and certainly no fact pointing in that direction, nor any reason to suspect it.
So clearly one can't compare the two issues as far as 'indications' are concerned.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 257
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
I'm taking it then that you don't accept what I have listed as indications for a potential Royal conspiracy to be valid , Glenn.
What indications are there to indicate that Kidney might have killed Stride then ? That the neck was cut differently doesn't implicate Kidney per se. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Sorry, Harry, it is all gospel.
The form to be filled in needs to answer questions about your movements in the last six months, and although a custom's officer may request to see your passport he has no legal right to demand it - I'm going back some twenty year though here - and then must obtain the services of an immigration officer to examine your passport.
Plus the custom's officer must bill you for the duty, copy for you, copy for him and a copy for them.
It sounds stupid I know, but I did it all the time. Then.
Now, it would not work.
It is a demand and request thing. You get in there first with a demand and then they never request. They are too busy dealing with your demand. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 864
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Simon - I'm sorry, but if you cannot see the dufference between a solid line of REASONING that supports the questioning of the Stride killing; and INDICATIONS - that only you seem to see - of a royal conspiracy; you need to ask, are you wrong/
Glennhas said it all. The royal conspiracy is a mon-starter in HISTORICAL terms, not just questions about this case. It has NO foundations. Florence pash "testimony" - it's hearsay, nothing more nothing less. Understand the difference?
Have you yet been into my specific conspiracy thread and sought to respond to my detailed, and referenced rebuttal of the royal conspiracy theory?
I show there that it is not just a possibility, not even a slight probablity - I demonstrate that it is wholly unlikely, nay impossible. Your arguments, like those of Thomas Neagle - to whom I responded yesterday (with no response) are weak, require almost negative reasoning and always relate to a narrowview - never to the whole political, social and cultural environment/context or to any apparent knowledge of the relevant biographies, or histories of the period.
Why will you not accept that the royal conspiracy theory exists nowhere except in uninformed minds and a romantic spirit? It is a waste of time.
Phil
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 179
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
A.P.
When I came back for a holiday to England 25 years ago,the red and green channel system at Heathrow was in existence.As soon as you entered the green channel,you were as today,declaring you had no dutiable goods in your possession,exceeding the allowable amount.If you had dutiable goods exceeding the allowance,a person was committing an offence as soon as he/she entered that channel.
If one then fronted a Customs Officer and declared he/she had forgotten on entering that green channel that dutiable goods were in possession,the question put would be,"When did you remember those goods were in your possession".In the case you quote the obvious answer must be,before speaking to the Customs Officer.
His reply,"Then you had an opportunity to turn about,retrace your steps,and enter the appropriate channel to declare those goods".
You can't beat them."I forgot",is not a reason they will accept,and I seriously would like to warn everyone,not to try it.
As an Australian Customs Officer,at the point of entry,we also performed the duty of Immigration officer,so demanding a passport was within our power.If you think each of those jobs demanding,try doing both at once.
A little known fact,partial to both countries,and also I believe to U.S.A. is that a Customs Officer cannot demand you open a case or object in your possession,for inspection.There could be no penalty in law,if you refused a request or demand.Again,I would not advise anyone to follow this through.
Anyhow A.P.I hope you have got rid of the evidence by now,you never know who is reading these posts. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 569
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Hi Simon,
I am so going to regret doing this later, but my fingers are twitching uncontrollably!
I really did think as you did, way back, that Stride was a victim of JtR without much reasonable doubt, but certain pieces of information have swayed me towards being more in favour of her being a domestic or chance killing rather than one of the C5.
I still think it is only 60/40 in favour of her being killed by someone else, but there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to be uncertain.
At the risk of boring everyone witless who have heard this reasoning before, here are my grounds for doubt.
Firstly the attack by Mr Broad shoulders appears to me to be a random assault by a non entity, although it could have been Kidney who had tracked Liz down and found her with a new beau.
In this instance it doesn't matter which, because I don't believe that it was Jack. The assault was too clumsy and public. That is a whole long post in it's own right.
That itself would be hardly worth considering as a point against her killer being JtR, but coupled with other factors it needs to be taken at least into consideration.
The main reason I have doubts is in fact the layout of Dutfield's yard itself. There are some very strange anomalies there if in fact her killer was Jack.
Liz's murder took place right outside an open kitchen door with light coming from it. At the time of the killing it was the main route in and out of the building and it was also the only route to the loos or the yard if they couldn't be bothered to walk that far.
There were a good many men upstairs drinking and almost certainly in need of relieving themselves of that beer quite frequently. They would have had to have walked right passed the murder spot and could have done so at any time. Two or three at a time even.
The only way out of the yard was through the gates of the yard which were nine feet away from the murder spot. If anyone had come through those gates as Diemshutz did at any time Jack would have been trapped.
I cannot believe that even a reckless Jack would have risked killing and mutilating a victim in those circumstances.
It is just possible, that if her killer was Jack that he never intended to mutilate her, but killed her on the spur of the moment, but again there are some serious grounds for doubting that to be the case, which I will give in another post if anyone can stand the strain.
Liz was almost certainly on her way from the loos at the back of the yard when she was attacked.....she was pointing in the direction of the gate and had just walked passed the kitchen door. If her killer was Jack then he would have had to have been between her and the kitchen door when he attacked, with his back to the door. Not the most sensible idea when someone could come through it at any time.
The condition in which Liz was found displays a quick assault from behind. He almost certainly grabbed her scarf, asphyxiated her and lowering her to the ground, cut her throat as she reached it. This is why I still am 40% in favour of a JtR killing........that would seem to be a very Jack like attack.
However if he were JtR and wanted to kill Liz and mutilate her, why on earth didn't he do it further back in the yard........the darkness at the back of the long L shaped yard was perfect for his needs. Why the hell would Jack kill her at the front of the yard by the kitchen door when he had a ready made playground further back where he could have reeked havoc on poor Liz to his hearts content.
None of it adds up.
So I have to say that I really can't be at all sure that Liz was a victim of JtR and I think that Kidney might well be in the frame for it, despite his performance at the inquest.
The other alternative is the Mr Broad Shoulders decided that he had not quite finished the argument with Liz, went into the yard and waited for her to come back from the loos and decided to finish the argument conclusively with a knife.
Was he JtR? Of course he could have been, but was it definitely him? Simon I really don't think you can be that definite about it.
We are talking about eliminating the impossible here, not eliminating the viable.
Sorry.
Jane
xxxxx
I am so going to regret posting this! |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 866
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Well, you have my support Jane, as always. A beautifully cogent, moderate, well-argued and succinct account. Well done.
You also bring to your posts the inestimable bonus that you have lived long in that area of London - you live and breathe is atmosphere 100 plus years after JtR roamed those same streets. That, in its instinctual way is as valuable as research, harnessed as you harness it.
Luv,
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4009
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
I agree with Phil,
A very good and sensible post by Jane, with suggestions of pro and cons, based on interpretations of the facts at hand. Indeed. And very easy to agree with as far as I am concerned.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 258
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Interesting ideas Jane , but it might also have been like this :
1) Maybe Jack didn't intend to kill Stride in Dutfield's Yard at all , maybe he panicked because he was seen by Schwartz and dragged Liz into the nearest dark corner to slit her throat.
2) When Liz said ' Not tonight , some other night ' to her mystery man , I've always wondered if he was asking her to go somewhere with him - to a place where he could have killed and mutilated her.
I think the attack on Stride was clumsy and in public because it was botched , simply put - it all went wrong.
3) I believe that the Eddowes murder that same night was caused by Jack being discovered in the act of killing Stride ( by Israel Schwartz ) and having to flee the scene without mutilating the body. Hence the attack in the City - Jack feared the Metropolitan Police might have been alerted , so he left their territory and crossed into the City of London district. Maybe he left the graffiti in Goulston Street on his way back , maybe he had to return to the East End to get to his transport and get out of the area - a coach or even a bicycle !
Remember , nearly all modern serial killers have some form of transport - a van or car or even a truck - which they use to find their victims with and then return home. Few serials go round on foot , why should Jack have been any different ? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4959
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Simon, if the royal conspiracy theory is correct, you're looking at a tandem at least. Or, more probably, something like the contraption the Goodies used to ride.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4960
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
That's Netley on the right.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4010
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Simon,
Fair enough thoughts, although I've heard them before, but I have two reservations:
1) "Maybe Jack didn't intend to kill Stride in Dutfield's Yard at all , maybe he panicked because he was seen by Schwartz and dragged Liz into the nearest dark corner to slit her throat."
This is of course nothing but pure guess-making of how a killer would and would not act, but if he panicked from being watched, I can't see why he would go on killing her. I am not sure that really makes sense. I mean, in such case, the Schwartz incident is some kind of 'interruption' in itself, like the Diemschutz one, although at an initial stage of the actual murder.
2) "When Liz said ' Not tonight , some other night ' to her mystery man , I've always wondered if he was asking her to go somewhere with him - to a place where he could have killed and mutilated her."
I wouldn't think so, Simon. It was the prostitutes that took charge and took the customers to secluded places, not the other way around.
As for Mr BS, I don't think that was the approach of Jack. It is too clumsy and too public; I agree with Jane on that and I'll stand by it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
No worries Harry
I always took the red channel in those days and declared.
Long time ago, different name, different game.
Didn't realise you were OZ.
I'm going to be on the North Shore for a month from mid Jan next year.
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 570
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
I knew I was going to regret posting that, but not as much as everyone else who are now groaning into their beers and pulling faces at the board. 
Oh dear, here we go.......please forgive me.....
Looking at your first premise.......I hope I have interpreted it correctly, but you are suggesting that Jack approached Liz as she waited outside the club, asked her to go with him elsewhere that was safer for him and not her and when she refused, lost his temper and killed her there in a fit of pique.
The reason that I feel it very unlikely are as follows:
The initial assault witnessed by Swartz was clumsy, yes, and conceivably that could have been Jack having a rather bad day. Except for a few things......now these aren't conclusive, but they put enough doubt in my mind at least.
Liz was not killed directly after the initial attack by BS, there was a gap of several (variable) minutes between her estimated time of death and that attack. I haven't got the heart to go and drag out figures now, but there was a gap of some (albeit short) minutes and the events that followed confirm that as well.
During this time Liz for some reason went towards the back of Dutfield's yard........the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that after the initial assault she went to straighten herself out a bit and have a wee.
She walked back with cachous clutched in her left hand. Again this would tie in with recovering from a minor assault and wanting to freshen her breath before she 'spoke' to anyone else. Those cachous were still in her hand when she was found.
Now I find it totally unreasonable to believe that Liz had the cachous in her hand when she was attacked by BS, and still managed to hang onto them as she was dragged further back into the yard and murdered. That is really an impossibility, some of those cachous would have spilled during the struggle and nine feet of dragging.
That is why I am satisfied that there was a gap between that initial assault and her death of some minutes during which time she had calmed down and was settled enough to suck a breath freshener.
Add to this that the yard was very muddy indeed at the time and there were no signs of her being dragged. I have to put firmly to bed the idea that her death was a continuation of that initial assault.
I might really knock it more firmly on the head by saying that nine feet is a long way to drag someone that is struggling and he could have just pulled her a few feet behind the open gate and done for the poor girl there.
That is not to say that BS could not be her killer, but for Jack to hang around with the intention of killing her for those minutes, knowing that he had been witnessed attacking her does seem a tad far fetched.
Again, if Jack was trying to lure her to another place then why take her away from Dutfields yard anyway when the darkness at the back of the yard and the shape of it was about the best he could get for his purposes.......actually in most ways the best of any of the murder sites, because no one at all would have disturbed him there for any length of time he wanted to take.
That doesn't feel reasonable to me.
I think a much more likely scenario is that either Mr BS whoever he was, or Kidney/ unknown male......followed Liz into the yard and tried to have a conversation with her by the open light of the back door. At this point they had no intention of killing her. Things got out of hand and he killed her in a fit of temper on impulse and got the hell out of there as fast as he could realising what he had done.
Total speculation of course, but more reasonable to me than thinking that Jack would hang about for some minutes having been seen to kill a victim.
I know none of this is conclusive, it doesn't tell me one way or the other whether Liz was a victim of Jack or not........but surely it leaves so much room for doubt that no one can really eliminate all other possibilities.
Of course I can't discount the possibility that Jack just happened upon Liz after the initial assault and decided to kill her, but again if that is the case many of the same difficulties arise again......so I still feel it is unsatisfying as a premise.
And I do hope that you are not suggesting that Jack used a carriage because if you do I am going to cry. 
Hugs
Janie
xxxxx
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 259
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Glenn ,
In response to your Point 1 , I'd say that our killer felt he had ' blown it ' in his attempt to kill and mutilate Stride by the time Schwartz turned up. Determined not to let her get away , he dragged her into the nearest dark place and killed her : the murder had to be in a dark place to hide the body for as long as possible to allow the killer to escape. Remember , police were on the beat in those days and Schwartz might have reached a copper within minutes , the Ripper had to get out of there fast.
In response to your point 2 , who says that the relationship between Stride and her mystery man was that of prostitute and client ? Maybe it was something more romantic , they did share some grapes and listen to the music together ( on a rainy night as well ).
I've been away from the Casebook for a while , but I'm wondering where this idea that Stride was not a Ripper victim came from - from some esoteric new theory perhaps ?
The scenario in my post above explains why the Ripper went into the City to kill his next victim , it even explains why there was a Double Event. If you think Kidney killed Stride ( or an unknown assailant did it ) then you have to explain why the Ripper's next victim was killed in Mitre Square and not in the East End. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 260
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Jane , if you remember , Stride was unable to speak according to Schwartz , maybe she had been punched in the throat or half-throttled.
If she was let go , the last thing she would do is go to the toilet and take a breath mint ! She'd go and get some help ! |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 261
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Re : the tandem !
It would certainly give a whole new meaning to the phrase ' Ripping through the East End '  !!
I notice Robert that you are trying to finger the man on the right as Netley. Did you know he has a double-barrelled name ? ' One of the highest in the land ' - maybe ? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
