The Absence Of Evidence

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

You are quite right that we cannot assume as fact that the police did in fact check out Kidney but I can only imagine three scenarios:

1. The police were complete idiots and it never occurred to them that he was a person of interest;

2. He had an alibi which they checked and confirmed;

3. He had no alibi and so they had Schwartz take a look at him.

There is no mention of scenario number 3 in any record and I simply cannot conceive of scenario number 1 so my money is on scenario number two.

c.d.

In my opinion at the risk of repeating myself much of what as to who saw what, and who did what, and how it was, and is now interpreted surrounding her murder is unsafe, and has been misinterpreted by those wanting ti link her murder to the others.

Can we really believe this killer (JTR) actually put himself out in a public street and allowed himself to be seen to physically interact with a female who would soon be found murdered, knowing he could have be seen and possibly identified, at a time not consistent with the other murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

Hello Trevor,

You are quite right that we cannot assume as fact that the police did in fact check out Kidney but I can only imagine three scenarios:

1. The police were complete idiots and it never occurred to them that he was a person of interest;

2. He had an alibi which they checked and confirmed;

3. He had no alibi and so they had Schwartz take a look at him.

There is no mention of scenario number 3 in any record and I simply cannot conceive of scenario number 1 so my money is on scenario number two.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well let's try a hypothetical:

You are a trained detective. Let's say you were with Scotland Yard at the time of Stride's death. You are informed that the deceased was previously living with a man named Michael Kidney. He is described to you as a man who drinks heavily, who is known to have been physically abusive to the deceased on more than one occasion in the past and that the deceased had recently left him. Your response would be what?

c.d.

Times are differnet now to what they were back in Victorian times.

There are clear conflicts in the inquest tetsimony which there appears to be nothing to show they were ever clarified.

But thats nothing new with the WM we see many exmaples of such conflict in other inquest whihc also seem to have never been cleared up.

There seems to be no alibi for Kidney for the time of the murder on record. Now it is quite possible that the police did check him out, but we cannot rightly assume that as fact.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You mention the word 'learn', Trev. If Stride's killer had never cut a throat before, he had to teach himself the best and safest way to do it in that busy location, and still he managed to kill her efficiently with a single slice, giving her no chance to scream or struggle. Would it really have been that easy for anyone to do?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, and you are forgetting the main cause of deaths by the use of as knife was throat cutting in Victorian times

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

Well let's try a hypothetical:

You are a trained detective. Let's say you were with Scotland Yard at the time of Stride's death. You are informed that the deceased was previously living with a man named Michael Kidney. He is described to you as a man who drinks heavily, who is known to have been physically abusive to the deceased on more than one occasion in the past and that the deceased had recently left him. Your response would be what?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Are we to believe that it never would have occurred to the police to ask Kidney for an alibi?

c.d.

Nothing should be taken for granted with regards to Victorian police investigations

The discrepancies are there for all to see in the inquest testimony which no one picked up on!

Don Rumbellow also subscribes to her being the victim of domestic violence!

And not forgetting all the diferneces in her murder compared to the rest of the murders. Clearly grounds to suggest a different killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

Hello Trevor,

Are we to believe that it never would have occurred to the police to ask Kidney for an alibi?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

And an investigation by the police attempting to find just such a connection to someone in her life turned up nothing. Could the police have missed it? Sure. So take it for what you think it is worth.

c.d.

We know nothing about the police investigation into Michael Kidney

Stride stated to two different people that she had left Kidney, after they had argued, on the Thursday before she was murdered. Kidney stated that he last saw her on the Tuesday and they had not been arguing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely fair enough, c.d.

But if the ripper got her, do we really need a reason why? We know for a fact that he went out with a knife that night with murder in mind, and we also know he achieved that aim at least once.

Whether or not he was BS man, I see several possible reasons why he didn't leave Stride alive.

What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Have you not considered a motive may have been domestic violence with Michael Kidney her b/f being responsible ?

In the heat of the moment it is not always to think about the consequences of ones actions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

And an investigation by the police attempting to find just such a connection to someone in her life turned up nothing. Could the police have missed it? Sure. So take it for what you think it is worth.

c.d.

[caz]

Why do you think Stride ended up with her throat cut?

I think she was killed by the Ripper. Why he killed I don't know but I don't think the B.S. man was the Ripper.

c.d.

Absolutely fair enough, c.d.

But if the ripper got her, do we really need a reason why? We know for a fact that he went out with a knife that night with murder in mind, and we also know he achieved that aim at least once.

Whether or not he was BS man, I see several possible reasons why he didn't leave Stride alive.

What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Why do you think Stride ended up with her throat cut?

I think she was killed by the Ripper. Why he killed I don't know but I don't think the B.S. man was the Ripper.

c.d.

[caz]

Sorry, but you are losing me here, Caz. You seem to be implying that the Ripper would have told Stride who he was, all of the women that he killed (along with the details) and where he kept their organs and other items he might have taken from them. So yes, in that instance, it is a no-brainer he has to kill her.

But if he simply had approached her for sex and/or pushed her I see no reason to kill her.

c.d.

Clearly I'm imagining a scenario, in this instance, in which the ripper might have a spent a little time in Stride's company, working on her and expecting to get somewhere - because he'd used a similar tactic on Nichols and Chapman and it had worked both times like a charm. I don't believe he first saw Nichols in Buck's Row, or Chapman in the Hanbury Street back yard. If Stride finally made it clear that she wasn't interested in what her killer claimed to want from her, and was refusing to budge from the club's premises, where she may have walked to try and get shot of him, that's when he could have decided to kill her and move on.

Clearly I'm not imagining a scenario in which the ripper saw Stride for the first time standing by Dutfield's Yard, and killed her in case she could have related his life story to the cops.

Alternatively, BS man could be a red herring, who saw Stride standing there [either waiting for, or trying to avoid someone] and gave her a shove before leaving the scene to the man who killed her. The killer's 'powers of persuasion' could then have been attempted, unwitnessed, between BS man's departure and Louis D's arrival - but could still have begun earlier that evening, if he followed her to the club and then had to wait for BS man to sling his hook.

Many possibilities here that I wouldn't rule out.

Why do you think Stride ended up with her throat cut?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I must be like Jesus. He was very good at walking on water.

Firstly, the theory of pulling Stride back via her scarf was Blackwell's theory. You know I enjoy a jolly good theory like the next man.

Secondly, Bagster Phillips did write what you wrote, but it is not a declaration that the bruising was connected to the attack. It was recent, and he would have known himself it could have happened independently of the attack. Medically, it simply was an aknowledgement that the bruises were recent. It might be relevant, it might not. He did not directly connect them to the attack. You have decided to append that medical fact yourself to the official report.

Schwartz's statement has never stood up well for me:

1) Can't speak English but recognises the local derogatory anti-semitic insult of 'Lipski' perfectly
2) None of his story correlates with other witness reports. Unlike Fanny Mortimer who did see Leon Goldstein, heard footsteps on the cobbles (assuming it to be police) and also heard then the horse and cart entering the yard
3) Stride would have had ample time to scream blue murder if she was just thrown to the ground. Nosey Fanny Mortimer most likely would have heard that like the other things she did see and hear. Schwartz didn't claim to see the suspect commit murder, so she was alive at the point of the so-called throw down. If she banged her head and was unconcious would such an injury not show post-mortem? Maybe swelling or a cut?
4) He claimed to have run towards a railway arch to shake off the men he believed to be chasing him. What railway arch exactly? Where is this railway arch on Berner Street?
5) How can he an ID a woman he barely saw if she was thrown to the ground as he was crossing the street?

Schwartz may have seen an attack similar to this, but I doubt very much it was where he thought it was. Red herring witness in my view.

yes you really are flailing ero

Firstly, the theory of pulling Stride back via her scarf was Blackwell's theory. You know I enjoy a jolly good theory like the next man.

her scarf was pulled tight, it dosnt matter what or who noted it. its perfectly in line with what happened during the bs man attack. he probably used it to grab a hold of her and or choke/drag her with it.

1) Can't speak English but recognises the local derogatory anti-semitic insult of 'Lipski' perfectly

nothing could be further from the truth. there was total confusion on this and schwartz thought he might have been yelling someones name and or directed at pipeman. it took abberlines astute knowledge of the local community to sort it out.

2) None of his story correlates with other witness reports. Unlike Fanny Mortimer who did see Leon Goldstein, heard footsteps on the cobbles (assuming it to be police) and also heard then the horse and cart entering the yard

wrong. his description of b-man including the peaked cap matches well not only with other witnesses at the stride murder but also of the eddowes murder.

3) Stride would have had ample time to scream blue murder if she was just thrown to the ground. Nosey Fanny Mortimer most likely would have heard that like the other things she did see and hear. Schwartz didn't claim to see the suspect commit murder, so she was alive at the point of the so-called throw down. If she banged her head and was unconcious would such an injury not show post-mortem? Maybe swelling or a cu

she did yell out though not very loudly-she probably wasnt aware of how much damger she was actually in. or perhaps she had already had her throat cut at that point. and your constant reference s to useless busybody witness mortimer is telling. shes trinket.

4) He claimed to have run towards a railway arch to shake off the men he believed to be chasing him. What railway arch exactly? Where is this railway arch on Berner Street?

who cares its a minor non important point. he may have run to any arch/bridge and possibly took a round about way to home if he thought people were following him.

5) How can he an ID a woman he barely saw if she was thrown to the ground as he was crossing the street?

ummm. because he saw her?

[caz]

Personally, I am of the opinion that Schwartz witnessed Stride's murder, but was confused about what he had seen, which is exceedingly common when someone sees a violent confrontation.

All the best.

But it wouldn't get us anywhere, RJ, because if Schwartz didn't believe he was witnessing the actual murder, he effectively didn't witness it, and we are back to square one. It's 50/50 at best, isn't it?

What seems clear is that BS man became aware at some point that he had an audience while he was manhandling Stride, causing him to call out "Lipski". I'm not sure I can buy the idea that he would have proceeded to cut her throat while Schwartz was in a position to have witnessed this too. It's one thing for Schwartz to have been confused about what he was seeing, but quite another for the killer to go ahead regardless of this man's presence. BS man couldn't have trusted to luck that Schwartz would not see precisely what was happening.

On balance I do think Stride was alive when Schwartz left the scene, but who knows for how much longer?