|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 291
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 4:06 pm: | 
|
I have been doing some background resarch into Michael Kidney and thought the findings might be of some interest.
IN the A-Z, Michael Kidney's date of birth is given as 1852. However, I searched the list of births for 1852, with the following results:
Jan-Mar: 2 Kidney births registrered, Andrew in Leeds and George in Milton.
Apr-Jun: 1 birth registerd, John in Builth.
Jul-Sep: None
Oct-Dec: None
So, there was no birth registered under the name of Michael Kidney in 1852. In case of late registration at either end of the year, I also checked for 1851 and 1853.
1851:
Jan-Mar: None
Apr-Jun: John in Builth
Jul-Sep: Stephen in Milton and Thomas in Leeds
Oct-Dec: John in Wigan and Joseph in Nottingham
1853:
Jan-Mar: George William in Milton, Henry Ernest in Newington, William in Hendon
Apr-Jun: George in Hendon and James in Uttoxeter
Jul-Sep: Robert Edward in Medway
Oct-Dec: David in Manchester
So, there was no birth registered under the name Michael Kidney in 1851,52 or 53.
Indeed when I did a search of all available data from 1837 onwards, there was only one birth entry for a Michael Kidney but this was for 1862, not 1852.
This birth was registered in the April to June quarter of 1862 in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales.
Looking at all available marriage records, again I only found one which involved a Michael Kidney. IN the July to September quarter of 1884 a marriage was registered in Cardiff between Michael Kidney and Julia McCarthy.
Looking in the 1891 census for the whole of the UK, ther were only two entries for individuals named Michael Kidney.
1) 53 Inverness Road, Roath, Glamorgan.
Head: Michael Kidney aged 28
Coal Trimmer
Born in Merthyr Tydfil
Wife: Julia aged 27
Born in Merthyr Tydfil
Others:
Mary Roach aged 10
Adopted child
Born in Cardiff
All the details show this to be the same as the 1862 birth entry shown above.
and
2) 26 Iron Row, Bedwellty, Monmouthshire
Michael Kidney aged 56
Boarder
Labourer in Steel Works
Born in Tredegar
Ellen Kidney aged 54
Boarder
Born in Tredegar
Kidney No2 would have been born in 1835 or 1836 which would account for his name not being on the general BMD register as this did not start until 1837.
I hope this information is of interest
Chris S |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 402
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
A Welsh connection and a McCarthy connection!
When I went on the Free BMD just now it seemed to be telling me that a Michael Kidney died in Cardiff Dec 1891 aged 45. I don't understand.
Help!
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 292
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
yes I see the record on Free BMD and have confirmed it on the main register
That means a birth in 1846.
I have checked the main register for all four quarters of 1846 and no Michael Kidney is registered
To be safe I have also checked the last quarter of 1845 and the first quarter of 1847 but with no result.
There are any number of reasons which could account for this - the most obvious errors being that either the age was misreported or it may have been an input error when the Free BMD database was being compiled
Regards
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 293
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Robert
Just in confirmation, here is the entry from the main register - MK is fourth down in the middle column
regards
Chris
Ps Ignore my comment about an input error - they obviously transcribed correctly- well it is late!!! |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 294
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
This gets even more complicated. Ihave just looked at the 1901 census to see if the 1862 MK survived to show on there.
There are only two Michael Kidneys on the 1901 data and, indeed, one of them is listed as born in Merthyr and living in Roath, as "our" MK is listed for 1891. However, this one is given as being 55 years old.
The other MK is 50 but was born in Ireland so his birth record would not appear on the BMD register for UK.
So this 1901 MK living in Roath and born in Merthyr, if he was 55, would have been born in.... 1846! But the only one we found possible born in 1846 was the one who died in 1891!
I think I'm goin to bed...it's been a long day!
Chris |
Gordon Rowland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Hi Chris, Michael Kidney appears in the 1881 British Census serving in the 2/18th Regiment of the Royal Irish Infantry. Like the welsh Kidney he is also born 1862 making him 10 years younger than the inquest/police/newspaper reports.
You will find him in this listing.
Institution: "North Camp" Huts D F G & H Lines
Census Place: Farnborough, Hampshire, England
Source: FHL Film 1341306 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 1252 Folio 97 Page 25
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Edward KENNAY U 24 M Ireland
Charles KENNEDY U 18 M Ireland
Joseph KENNEDY U 22 M Ireland
John KENT U 21 M Ireland
Martin KERWIN U 22 M Ireland
Michael KIDNEY U 19 M Ireland
John KILCOYNE U 22 M Ireland
John KILDAY U 19 M Ireland
John KING U 18 M Hertford, England
Maurice KINSILLA U 22 M Ireland
Thomas KITSON U 24 M Ireland
William KENNEDEY U 22 M Ireland
|
JACK'S BACK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 5:43 pm: |
|
I WAS WONDERNG IF SEARCH IS IS PROGRESS FOR ANY EXISTING POLICE RECORDS/FILES OF MICHAEL KIDNEY. IN VIEW OF TH PECULIAR STATEMENTS HE MADE AT THE INQUEST I THINK HE MAKES A STRONGLY PLAUSIBLE SUSPECT. |
John Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 7:50 am: |
|
Jack's Back:
I agree, especially since the man Israel Schwartz saw attacking Liz Stride was obviously drunk (weaving down Berner St., shoving Lizzie about in public, throwing her down, etc.) Definitely not the cool, cunning, silent M.O. of Jack the Ripper.
Also, Stride's throat wounds indicate a much smaller knife than had been used on previous victims.
Then, the day after Stride's murder, Kidney appears at the police station drunk, bellowing about how he would kill himself if he'd been the constable on duty that night, etc. and etc. Sounds like a remorseful, drunken lout to me. Whether he actually murdered Liz Stride or not, he does make a viable suspect.
As to the coincidence of Stride being murdered 45 minutes before Eddowes's slaughter (definitely a JTR killing) in Mitre Square, there was another killing in the East End that night involving a throat-slashing. A man in Stepney killed his wife out of jealousy, cutting her throat with a kitchen knife. Obviously, this was not JTR, but it shows how dangerous it is for us to link Stride and Eddowes simply because they were murdered on the same evening.
Still....
I've always agreed with the police at the time, that Stride was, in all likelihood, slain by JTR. It's just possible that he even came to her rescue and chased Kidney (or Kaminsky/Kosminsky) away, only to lure her into the alley and slash her throat. There are simply too many "ifs" and "buts" about this case to decide conclusively one way or t'other.
Does anyone posting to this board have any other info regarding Kidney's whereabouts or behavior that night or shortly thereafter? And why didn't the Met take a closer look at him? Or maybe they did, who knows?
Ciao for now,
John F.
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy)
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Going way back to Gordon's posting from December (!) I think he may be on to something.
The Times account of the inquest on Stride contains the following:
From The Times, Oct 24th 1888
For the last two years the deceased had been living at a common lodging house in Dorset street, Spitalfields, with Michael Kidney, a waterside labourer who belonged to the Army Reserve.
The Michael Kidney listed in the info that Gordon gave was, in 1881, a 19 year old private born in Ireland. The barracks address is given as Huts D,F,G and H, North Camp, Farnborough, Hampshire.
Those huts in 1881 housed soldiers of the 2/18 Royal Infantry Regiment, which at the time was under the command of Lieut. Colonel Charles Gregorie, aged 46. |
Estiban
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Hello,
I was just wondering if there is any motive for Kidney to kill Stride. Was there domestic disputes or a falling out between them.Did the police at the time consider him to be a suspect? |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 485
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Estiban - there was a history of domestic violence. Liz had once sought to prosecute Kidney, but did not go through with it. Shortly before her murder she had left him, and there appears to be some indication that she was seeing another man romantically.
If you look around this site I think you'll find AP Wolf's book in e-form. that is the best single source I can direct you to on this subject.
Does that help?
Phil |
Estiban
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Thank you Phil,
It seems strange to me that there seems to be alot of interest on these message boards with Joseph Barnett as he was linked romantically with Mary Kelly.If this is the same scenario with Stride and Kidney, than why does there seem to be little or no interest in Kidney as a suspect. I find it a little odd. Is it because that people think that Jack the Ripper did kill Stride along with the other whores?
I must say, with a month iether side of this double event, and both being killed within 45 minutes, it looks like the same man has struck both of them.Is there any reason for Kidney to kill all of the others? |
Estiban
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Thank you Phil,
It seems strange to me that there seems to be alot of interest on these message boards with Joseph Barnett as he was linked romantically with Mary Kelly.If this is the same scenario with Stride and Kidney, than why does there seem to be little or no interest in Kidney as a suspect. I find it a little odd. Is it because that people think that Jack the Ripper did kill Stride along with the other whores?
I must say, with a month iether side of this double event, and both being killed within 45 minutes, it looks like the same man has struck both of them.Is there any reason for Kidney to kill all of the others? |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
G'day,
There is no evidence to suggest that Micheal Kidney was ever violent towards Liz in public. I feel that he was likely Schwartz's '1st-man', who merely pushed Stride to the ground, causing her to scream but not very loudly. He could have caught her with '2nd-man', or perhaps '2nd-man' hadn't yet reached her across the road.
I am surprized that no one was/is interested in '2nd-man', who could have atleast verified what Schwartz said happened. Schwartz told police that '2nd-man' followed him only as far as the railway arch. Perhaps '2nd-man' was merely making sure that Schwartz wasn't fetching the police after seeing Stride thrown to the ground by Kidney.
Once it was clear that Schwartz wasn't fetching the police, '2nd-man' may have went back to Dutfield's Yard to comfort Elizabeth Stride!
Thoughts?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
G'day,
On the 3rd day of Elizabeth Stride's inquest, (Wednesday 3rd October), the Coroner asked:" Do you know of anyone that was likely to have run foul of her?"
KIDNEY: "On Monday night I went to Leman Street Police Station for a detective to act on my information, but I could not get one." After being told by the Coroner that it was not too late to give his information,
KIDNEY: "I have heard something said, [to him by Elizabeth?], that leads me to believe that had I been able to act the same as a detective I could have got a lot more information. When I went to the station I was intoxicated......."
He said that on Monday night he was intoxicated, not at the inquest, but everyone chose/choses to dismiss his statement as the mere ramblings of a drunken man!
Perhaps Michael Kidney, the WATERSIDE LABOURER who lived on DORSET STREET did see/hear something to make him suspicious. Perhaps Elizabeth Stride did know something, threatened to tell and had to be killed!
Later in his testimoney, Kidney said: "I BELIEVE I could catch the man..." not: "I BELIEVED I could catch the man.."
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
He also said in his inquest testimony that Liz did see other men, but 'she liked him best.'
This was weeks after they parted, but she liked him best.
That should give you a clue. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 7:15 am: |
|
G'day,
I think Kidney was more-or-less saying that she'd left him before and he wasn't worried because she always returned. Which is why I believe he may have been '1st-man', who parted the scene after merely pushing her in the street, and she was likely 'rescued' by another man.
All Michael Kidney had to do if he wanted to exert his authority over her, was to wait for a more private moment.
LEANNE |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 899
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
A.P.
What do you think about the fact that Kidney, who may have been involved with that shoving match prior to the death of Long Liz, made no attempt to alter his appearance for the inquest?
The caricature of Kidney found in the Ultimate shows a pretty distinguished moustache. Kidney doesn't seem to be too squeamish about admitting he liked to hit the bottle and in fact,as shown above in Leanne's post, had no qualms about owning up to being intoxicated.
Avoiding any attempt at "profiling" but rather,from a "common sense" approach...don't you think that this indifference to his appearance [ had he been seen with that distinguished upper lip..] and character [ the admitted imbibing ]shows an ease on his part and guilt-free attitude,as he was undoubtedly aware that he would be questioned and perhaps put in a police lineup [ identity parade..] for perusal ??
Thanks........ |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4918
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
How, do you mean a sketch of Kidney? I can't find one in my Ultimate.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 900
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Robert Chas:
I meant the A-Z...Sorry about that. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Good thought, How.
Given the timing of the encounter I would best guess that all parties involved had been drinking heavily - we know that Long Liz had, and we also know that Kidney had a reputation for drunken violence and behaviour; others involved in the fracas were probably inebriated to a certain extent, simply because of the hour the event occurred.
Although Kidney did his very best to come across at the police station and inquest as a caring and devoted individual; when one peers into his statements the cracks appear, as does the bully boy who thought he could get away with anything - including murder - and the entire façade he attempts to build just sort of crumbles away and we are left with the wreck and ruin of his life with Long Liz.
Kidney thought he could get away with it, and he did.
I still stand by my original statement that Kidney’s early appearance at the police station - where he rebuked the officers for their failure to catch the killer, and claimed that he could do the job himself - is the prime indicator of his guilt in the matter.
Compare his two statements, the one to the police that day, and then his later to the court.
Which is the real Michael Kidney?
The drunken blaggard who rants and raves at the police?
Or the calm and composed man at court who loves Long Liz?
I would suggest neither. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 906
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
A.P.
"Which is the real Michael Kidney?
The drunken blaggard who rants and raves at the police?
Or the calm and composed man at court who loves Long Liz? "
Perhaps a composite of both at these two times. The former,who has his "beer balls" in full swing....and the latter sweating major league bullets and mumbling novenas under his breath that the police will consider this murder part of the WM...
I know of the inconsistencies in his deposition and I understand fully your position. Its a good position and one well thought out.
The only counter that I can make is the one about appearance, not for the police, but for the identity parade and maybe a surprise witness.
It would certainly be terrible if he did "get away" with it. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 814
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
As he probably did.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
How, you just said that I swerved the question, but you said it so nicely that I have to admit I did.
I have always felt that if Kidney was dogging the movements of Stride that night - which I think he was - then he would have employed some simple ruse or disguise to do so... a change of hat, coat and a scarf would have been enough.
That sounds simplistic perhaps, but perhaps even simpler is the notion that such Whitechapel roughs as Kidney would not even accept Juwes as human witness... they viewed them much like the horses that pulled the carts.
They were just not there for them.
And it does almost seem as if the British legal system proved him right.
My feeling is that racial intolerance in the LVP excluded Juwes to a certain extent as serious material witness in serious criminal cases. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 910
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 9:01 pm: |
|
A.P.
Thanks for your explanation. If Kidney was dogging Stride, and was drinking prior, I'd tend to think his "beer balls" started doing his thinking and since he may have been in "bully-mode",may not have disguised himself.
But as always,I enjoy the possibility and scenario you offered. You may well be right,my dear...
Sorry to have wormed my way into asking you that the way you think I did...A Hungarian is a person who can enter a revolving door behind you and come out in front of you...
Phil... "As he probably did"...This looks pretty definitive to be posted so quickly after A.P.'s post.... Do you mean 60/40 probably or 100 percent now ?
Because,Phil, you asked me why I was asking you so vehemently on another thread for merely questioning you and now you come on as some sort of determinator based on an opinion.
Is this liberal thinking? Is this the modus operandi we in Philly should alter our ways to ?
Hey....Don't sweat it homes....Over on that other thread where I mentioned the awful anti-liberal concept of tolerance...you said.."How Crass !".
You know what,pal?
I still will maintain that position. You may be right. I'll still be tolerant enough to digest your ideas.
Try it with the other proles too....
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 816
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 1:36 am: |
|
My view is to incline 60:40 to the view that kidney did it. The contention is far from being proved, but IMHO it fits the evidence we have better than the assumption that Stride was killed by JtR.
Again, the odds are that in 1888 at least one of the women usually ascribed to JtR was murdered by another hand - maybe more. It wasn't the case that in other years when jack was not "operating" there were no murders.
Phil |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 914
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
Thanks for the clarification.
A.P. provided a very important thread,entitled, "Shadows" and gives cause for reassessment of all of the crimes being of one hand.
The most atrocious murder,the one on November 9th, has some factors to it that make a regular guy-rank and file poster like me, rethink things.
The only murders to me,Phil,that are close to a certainty by the hands of the Ripper are Nichols,Chapman,and Eddowes.
Some feel that there was no interruption, due to Diemschutz and his horse or passerby,regarding a mutilation in Dutfield's Yard and yet it was a Ripper murder. Unlike the three mutilated victims,perhaps Stride offered a resistance that the other three didn't have the capacity for and that instead of interruption,there was no possibility of an intended mutilation. Long Liz may have put up a "better" fight than the others..her killer may have panicked in this first ever show of resistence to his actions. Chapman,of course,allegedly said "No.." according to the wimpy Cadosch,but may not have provided the physical resistence that Long Liz did. Just a thought....
Certainly,and you'll get no disagreement from me [ if that matters ] here, Berner Street as a killsite, does stink like week old fish,more so due to the location of the yard to the building,not necessarily because it was below Whitechapel HS/Road..at least to me.
Thats why I asked you if the location being below the specific streets and not in proximity to an open club was what you based some of your judgments on. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 819
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
I think both points create a locational difficulty for Berner St. I don't disagree at all, How.
As to the victims - I only now think of the three you mention as relatively certain. Recently, I have begun to requestion Tabram - whom I had tended to class as maybe transitional victim for Jack. I think she may just have been the victim of an isolated murder that Bank Holiday night. No Ripper connection at all (like Smith).
But that's not hard and fast by any means. I have no one fixed picture.
But the three would allow us to consider Donovan (the deputy lodging house manager) as a suspect. especially if he is the Donovan who died in Nov 1888.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4927
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Long Liz may have put up a "better" fight
Or, for those who favour a Jewish Ripper, said something to him? In Yiddish?
Robert |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 916
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Good idea,Robert. A little post with a little one sentence concept or idea.
These are the little posts with the little concepts that keep popping up that further expand the list of possibilities and ideas as to what,as in this case of Stride and her killer,could have happened that night.
Stride brushing herself off after the first altercation...here comes another solicitor for sex...she tells him to put that putz in his own backside..this simple insult results in her death. Could it have been as simple as just that?
Thanks a lot for continuing to provide good ideas,old bean. You've been on a roll lately !!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4928
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Hi How
As long as I'm not rolling downhill!
The other possibility is that she said something to him which deprived him of any desire to mutilate beyond cutting her throat. I don't know, maybe something that hit home, as it were.
For those who believe Liz was a JTR victim, it's an interesting coincidence that she was the only one not mutilated and she was the only Yiddish speaker.
I know my dear chum and fellow Goon AP favours Kidney, but (and here we go again) what about the cachous?
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
It wasn't the case that in other years when jack was not "operating" there were no murders.
But what about prostitute murders on the streets of Whitechapel? I thought the indefatigable AP had failed to find more than perhaps one prostitute murder in 1887 in the whole of London, and he is still looking at other years.
How many have you managed to find then, that allows you to conclude:
...the odds are that in 1888 at least one of the women usually ascribed to JtR was murdered by another hand - maybe more ?
We know about Emma Smith, and most people agree that she was a prostitute murdered in 1888 and not by the ripper. Many people exclude Tabram too. So you need to have found more than two prostitute murders by other hands in the surrounding years to support your statement about the odds.
But the three would allow us to consider Donovan (the deputy lodging house manager) as a suspect. especially if he is the Donovan who died in Nov 1888.
Ah. I trust that Donovan in no way influenced your view that challenging Kelly's inclusion equals making progress in the case. I know you are very much against including or excluding a victim on the basis of how it would affect a particular suspect's chances of being the ripper.
We have to have clear evidence of another hand at work first - then we may start to consider names that couldn't be on the ripper suspect list otherwise.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 822
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
I have said before, Caz, I am not so simplistic (for about 20 years) to pursue one solution to this case.
My interest in Donovan opned up when it beca,e plain that Kelly and Stride MIGHT not be JtR victims.
I play with ideas. Don't try to straigh-jacket me. And as for your contention about exclusions - I am only against special pleading. Play all the intellectual games you want.
We have to have clear evidence of another hand at work first...
How restricting for you!! I disagree, so long as the games don't become "solutioneering".
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Hi Robert, How,
I can certainly see Jack reacting negatively and swiftly to anything one of these women said which upset his precious little apple-cart. There is some circumstantial evidence that Liz may not have been as accommodating that night to strangers as all the other murder victims appear to have been. We just don't know what would have sparked Jack off. He had killed at least two women already, so the act itself (where not followed by mutilations for whatever reason) would not have been too much of a departure from previous behaviour.
But if he encountered Stride, he may have been provoked by her in a different way, conjuring up a different set of emotions.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Fair enough - points taken. I will try to remember that you are just playing with ideas if you express more strong opinions about Kidney and Barnett.
Now what about those odds?
Do you still maintain that a serial killer must be restricted to three victims in 1888 because otherwise there wouldn't have been enough 'normal' prostitute murders?
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 825
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
I am open to that possibility. Certainly Jack wasn't the only potentially homicidal man around Whitechapel at the time - there were further murders in 1889 and after; and there had been attacks before, for which no one was caught.
As I don't believe that Jack was the only murderer in London in the 1880/90s, it follows that I must be open to that possibility.
And again you try to interpret mne too simplistically. The word MUST, in that context is not one I would use. Jack MAY have done all the murders, but I suspect that statistically and realistically it is unlikely. However, I am no statistician.
Although I do not accept the thesis overall - because I believe there is enough to suggest that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes died by the same hand - I found the book that suggested that there was no single jack and that all the murders were by different hands, refreshing and thought-provoking.
Do I take it, Caz, that you dislike playing with ideas, and prefer to focus on just one solution at a time?
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Indeed no - I have absolutely no objection to playing with ideas, I do it all the time and often get criticised for it!
It's just that one minute you say things like 'Kidney probably killed Stride', and that 'progress' will only be made on the case if we challenge stuff like Stride and Kelly's inclusion (as though you are certain Jack didn't kill them), and the next minute, when others challenge you to provide evidence for your strong views, you say you are merely playing with ideas. Or you claim that others should prove you wrong.
But merely playing with ideas, while fun and stimulating, is not likely to progress the case too much, because someone else will have other ideas and will think our own ideas suck.
And all the while the few facts we have sit back and grin unhelpfully at everyone.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 05, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 830
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
But that's the whole point of debate, to me at least, Caz: proposing and rebutting ideas. It's the academic method.
And with a case like the Ripper, I see no reason why discussion should not and does not lead to progress. Did you ever read the thread about a house near Cheyne Walk (I forget the exact address, which arose from a postcard bought on e-bay. That to me was a fascinating combination of detailed and expert fact-finding, and good honest discussion. And it took us forward. I don't necessarily expect conclusions - but I don't see that as being the sole determinant of progress. clarifying ideas and sorting options into some sort of order can be illuninating too - and for me illumination is progress. none of this is exclusive - all these things (to me) work together.
The "facts" (as you call them - though I am not sure what constitutes the facts) are there, but in some cases questionably so; in other cases we need discussion and "playing with ideas" to explore their meaning.
After all, each generation find their own "Jack" - in the 30s it was the doctor; in the 60s the middle class professional; post-Watergate conspiracy theories abounded. In the 80s/90s it was the poor Jew's turn, a working class Ripper. In the early 21st Century perhaps we have the deconstructed Ripper - he did not exist/was only responsible for some of the murders.
It all comes from discussion and playing with ideas.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I agree with your first sentence - except that most academics appear to have far better things to do with their precious time than to debate the ripper! I just don't agree with you regarding what specific progress can be made with the same old evidence in this case, when we argue over victim numbers.
You said it yourself - different eras produce different ideas of the type of man Jack was. So how do you know that each one is an improvement, and that we are not going backwards or round in circles?
I admire your optimistic approach, but of course that reflects your view on the way forward, which is by no means everyone's. What if you are totally wrong, and Jack in fact claimed many more victims than the traditional five? You would be standing still, while others would be streets ahead of you. But we wouldn't know it, unless new evidence emerged to tell us where we stood. And then we would all take a leap forward together.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
What if you are totally wrong, and Jack in fact claimed many more victims than the traditional five? You would be standing still, while others would be streets ahead of you. But we wouldn't know it, unless new evidence emerged to tell us where we stood.
Have you really got nothing better to do than spout such drivel?
All this amounts to is:
"But if what you're suggesting is wrong, then you would be wrong to suggest it."
This could be said about any idea in the history of human thought, and it would be just as ludicrous.
Why don't you actually put forward some arguments about the facts of the case, pro or con, rather than indulging in these endless nonsensical arguments about argument? (Or is it arguments about arguments about argument? I've lost count.)
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
The point is that Phil was claiming that challenging Jack's huge body count is a way of making real progress, as opposed to - well, I'm not sure what.
And all I'm saying is that progress is as progress does.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3992
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
I don't know if challenging Jack's huge (?) body count is progress - personally I think it might be. In any case, after several years of interesting results from new research, it at least still appears to be quite controversial. And I still fail to see why.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
And all I'm saying is that progress is as progress does.
Whatever that means!
What you really seem to be doing is trying to block discussion of the possibility that Stride wasn't a victim of the Ripper, without actually producing any counter-arguments of your own.
To this end, we get these endless rambling disquisitions about what you perceive to be the philosophical shortcomings of Phil's approach, together with the usual kind of specious, slanted innuendo.
For example, you want the statistical argument to be based on "prostitute murders on the streets of Whitechapel".
But this is completely bogus. For one thing, Kelly wasn't killed "on the streets", and for another, only one of the canonical five victims was actually killed in Whitechapel! (And that only about 200 yards from the parish boundary.) And come to think of it, the direct evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute is distinctly thin, isn't it?
Suppose you tell us what leads you to think Stride was a Ripper victim. Surely it can't be that you find it difficult to swallow a coincidence ...
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 844
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Cas - you wrote:
...most academics appear to have far better things to do with their precious time than to debate the ripper!
25 years ago the same was true of historians and Richard III. The late C15th was an academic desert. Now it's a fertile field full of thrusting and serious young scholars, debating with passion. Why? In part because the Richard III Society, by its attitude and actions, made it respectable.
That is why I would like to see higher standards of discussion and academic methods encouraged here, and Casebook become the catalyst for such a revolution in Ripperology!!
I just don't agree with you regarding what specific progress can be made with the same old evidence in this case, when we argue over victim numbers.
Glenn has challenged you on your obsession with numbers elsewhere, Caz. For my part, I can live without your agreement.
You said it yourself - different eras produce different ideas of the type of man Jack was. So how do you know that each one is an improvement, and that we are not going backwards or round in circles?
By looking at the subject as a whole, and recognising a difference between intellectual progress and insights, and simply factual accretion. Both have their place, of course. But understanding how time changes perceptions of Jack, can put us on our guard against false trails. Or we can understand how themes and issues inter-relate.
I admire your optimistic approach, but of course that reflects your view on the way forward, which is by no means everyone's.
I was expressing my views? I am not necessarily seeking endorsement, nor do I care what everyone thinks of what I say. There are posters who's approbation means much, but that is based on the consistent quality of their posts and contributions, their insights and approach. They are the ones I aspire to understand what I try to say. For the rest, argument can be fun.
What if you are totally wrong, and Jack in fact claimed many more victims than the traditional five? You would be standing still, while others would be streets ahead of you.
I would be very foolish to claim any such thing. And indeed, I have never done so. I am currently inclined to perceive three victims only, but I have never rejected other views - look at the posts (I think in my Back to Basics series) where I suggest earlier victims.
I don't think you can actually READ (in the sense of take in) my posts caz, for all your replies to them. I have been striving to get you to understand that i keep many ideas in flight at the same time, and find no problem with that. I offer no one solution.
But we wouldn't know it, unless new evidence emerged to tell us where we stood. And then we would all take a leap forward together.
I don't think so. Look at the "Maybrick diary", the Swanson marginalia, the Littlechild letter - have they led us to take a leap forward together? Actually the so-called "diary" probably disrupted an emerging concensus which was prevalent in the late 80s.
I have argued elsewhere, that even if undeniable documentary evidence emerged indicating a culprit - not everyone would accept it. Some would argue, as Simon is currently doing about the conspiracy - that it was a cover-up or fraudulent. No proof, but they'd allege it, all the same.
Phil
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Phil,
....I have been striving to get you to understand that i keep many ideas in flight at the same time, and find no problem with that. I offer no one solution.
As long as these ideas are within the realms of exsisting evidence, I see no problem with that.
Infact, its something I preach to newcomers and practice myself.
Its the only thing that can be done until that shread of conclusive proof appears....if it ever does.
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
OK. Let me say right up front that I absolutely do not understand the whole Michael Kidney as Liz's killer thing. Unless the police back then were complete idiots, the first place they would go to would be Liz's lodgings. There they question her neighbors and find out that she was living with one Michael Kidney. They would also find out that Michael Kidney drank a lot and had a violent temper. Neighbors would also tell of loud drunken arguments. They would tell how Liz appeared numerous times with bruises on her face. They would relate how Liz told them that she was afraid of Kidney and had tried to leave him on more than one occasion. OK. Now Kidney is the prime suspect in this case. So the police ask him "Michael, where were you on this day between the hours of such and such. Michael replies "I was working or I was in a pub drinking." Either way he has a number of people to verify his story. So the police check out his alibi. Or maybe he says he was at home sleeping or reading his Bible. OK. "Well Michael, we are going to look at your hands and face to see if you have any scratches." "We are also going to examine your clothes and your lodgings." Then poor Michael is taken in handcuffs to be identified by Schwartz. "Mr. Schwartz, is this the man you saw pulling Liz to the ground?" Schwartz says no. OK. So maybe the scenario is that all the detectives confer. One says "hey, do you think that drunken, bad tempered girlfriend beating boyfriend had anything to do with this?" "Naw, it had to be a Ripper murder." "Let's just send him on his way and forget about him so we can concentrate on catching the Ripper."
We never hear of Kidney again in this case. Folks, Kidney had an alibi. The police checked it out and let him go. So should we.
c.d.
|
Matfelon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Phil,
But the three would allow us to consider Donovan (the deputy lodging house manager) as a suspect. especially if he is the Donovan who died in Nov 1888.
and if you re-canonize Martha Tabram, you'll have at least a good explaination why Pearly Poll, who also used to live at 35 Dorset Street, stayed away two days and two nights.
Maybe she was afraid of someone there...? just my two cents.
Mat |
Gee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Well Phil, you are the one who insists upon concrete evidence anytime someone else is playing with ideas. Your favorite saying, "Where is the evidence to support what you are saying?"
Its only fair for it to be thrown back at you. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
c.d. wrote:
Unless the police back then were complete idiots, the first place they would go to would be Liz's lodgings. There they question her neighbors and find out that she was living with one Michael Kidney. They would also find out that Michael Kidney drank a lot and had a violent temper. Neighbors would also tell of loud drunken arguments. They would tell how Liz appeared numerous times with bruises on her face. They would relate how Liz told them that she was afraid of Kidney and had tried to leave him on more than one occasion. OK. Now Kidney is the prime suspect in this case.
Interesting as a piece of imaginative writing, but ... it's perfectly clear that nothing like this actually happened, as Swanson wrote:
"the inquiry into her history did not disclose the slightest pretext for a motive on behalf of friends or associates or anybody who had known her."
Chris Phillips
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Chris,
I am glad to hear that you found my post to be interesting and imaginitive. I try hard to work those elements into my posts. After reading your response however, it appears that I was in error. I am quite prepared to fall on my sword (if necessary) but could you provide an answer to these questions first... Do we know the details of the police inquiry? Did they question Stride's neighbors? You only site Swanson's conclusion. Do you know why the police would have made such an outlandish statement like that given Kidney's background and his history of domestic violence?
Thank you for your response in advance.
c.d. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
