Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I have said before everything about the stride murder is different from all the other murders that suggests a different killer whether her killer was interrupted or not cannot be established

but of course those who want to believe that she was killed by the same killer as the rest will use the interruption angle to support their belief

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Or those that don’t want to believe that it was the same killer might ignore the possibility of interruption to promote their own idea. If interruption is possible and it most definitely was then there’s no point in stating the obvious differences because we have a plausible possible reason for them. I don’t see why some have an aversion to the very simple idea that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer. Not as interesting as a conspiracy of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you’re just ignoring out of hand the possibility that the killer might have been interrupted?

As I have said before everything about the stride murder is different from all the other murders that suggests a different killer whether her killer was interrupted or not cannot be established

but of course those who want to believe that she was killed by the same killer as the rest will use the interruption angle to support their belief

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

you are forgetting that witnesses don’t always tell the truth and there false statements can be misleading to police investigation

The topic is there any suspicion that can be levied against Kidney in the absence of anything to positively rule him out he has to be considered as a likely suspect in the murder of stride because everything about her murder is not in line with most of the other murders

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you’re just ignoring out of hand the possibility that the killer might have been interrupted?

[Trevor Marriott]

You of all members here should know that the coroner chooses his witnesses from the batch of statements given to him by police.

Therefore, regardless that no such witness statements have survived for this murder, Kidney did give the police a statement. In fact it is the statement of the witness that the coroner will use to begin his questioning at the inquest.
The length & depth of his statement, and of the subsequent investigation by police into what he said is purely unknown to all of us today. Which means you are in no position to suggest it didn't take place, or that it must have been limited in scope.
You're perpetual tendency towards guesswork is duly noted, but of little real consequence, except perhaps to yourself.

you are forgetting that witnesses don’t always tell the truth and there false statements can be misleading to police investigation

The topic is there any suspicion that can be levied against Kidney in the absence of anything to positively rule him out he has to be considered as a likely suspect in the murder of stride because everything about her murder is not in line with most of the other murders

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Despite this and the other conflicting witness testimony evidence, Kidney was never arrested or even interviewed at length and her murder remained unsolved, but even today her murder is still regarded by some as having been committed by Jack the Ripper, despite the overwhelming evidence to suggest it may have been domestically motivated and that Kidney could have been her killer.[/SIZE]

You are right when you say that the partner is usually the first suspect to be investigated, but there is no evidence to show that they did that, or if they did evidence to elminate him. The one question which seems to have been never asked of Kidney is where he was at the time of her murder?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk [/FONT]

You of all members here should know that the coroner chooses his witnesses from the batch of statements given to him by police.

Therefore, regardless that no such witness statements have survived for this murder, Kidney did give the police a statement. In fact it is the statement of the witness that the coroner will use to begin his questioning at the inquest.
The length & depth of his statement, and of the subsequent investigation by police into what he said is purely unknown to all of us today. Which means you are in no position to suggest it didn't take place, or that it must have been limited in scope.
You're perpetual tendency towards guesswork is duly noted, but of little real consequence, except perhaps to yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The torso found in October, 1888 was in the new police offices at Whitehall. Near the torso in the arch in Pinchin Street in September, 1889 the name "Lipski" was found chalked on a paling. In Frederick Street (adjacent to Pinchin) chalked on a wall was " John Cleary is a fool".

Cheers Jerry. I recalled the John Cleary part but not the Lipski one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no need to apologise Astatine. You weren’t claiming it anything as a fact you were just suggesting possibilities. You’ll always get a fair and reasoned answer from Wick. He’s corrected me on details many times. Keep asking, reading and thinking.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, so you are introducing character (Kidney) that according to other witnesses, was never even there?



Stride was robbed barely minutes before being murdered?



Right, but Kidney would not know that.
If you had murdered somebody, and been seen, you wouldn't go to an inquest. You would naturally assume that same witness will be there.



Not a sign of guilt.



Assault was very common between partners who lived together.



Why would he be hunted?, no-one saw him there, and he hadn't seen her since the previous Tuesday.
No-one came forward to say they had been seen together before the murder. I mean, there is totally nothing to make him a suspect, and the police knew that.
The partner of a victim is always the first on the list to be ruled out, even today.

It's one thing to use the evidence to identify a suspect, but quite another to create a story out of nothing.
There are plenty of witnesses in Berner St., yet none of them place Kidney anywhere near the scene.

I also find Michael Kidney a person of interest and just because no one names him as being in the location doesnt mean to say that he wasnt there after all how mnay people would know him by name if it was not an area that he frequented.

There is conflicting witness testimony in relation to his inquest testimony which is seems was never cleared up at the inquest given by witnesses, and by Michael Kidney himself, relating to when he stated he had last seen her alive, see below excerpts from inquest testimony of Kidney and other witnesses.

Michael Kidney inquest testimony Telegraph
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday? –
[Kidney] I did not see her on Thursday.
[Coroner] When did you last see her? –
[Kidney] On the Tuesday, and I then left her on friendly terms in Commercial- street. That was between nine and ten o'clock at night, as I was coming from work.
[Coroner] Do you know whether she had picked up with anyone?
[Kidney] I have seen the address of the brother of the gentleman with whom she lived as a servant, somewhere near Hyde Park, but I cannot find it now.
[Coroner] Did she have any reason for going away?
[Kidney] It was drink that made her go on previous occasions. She always came back again. I think she liked me better than any other man. I do not believe she left me on
Tuesday to take up with any other man.

That comment by Kidney shows she had a propensity to go with other men and could form a motive for him to have killed her!

Michael Kidney inquests testimony- The Times
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday?
[Kidney] No I last saw the deceased alive on Tuesday Week

Mary Malcolm Inquest testimony- Telegraph/Times
[MM]I last saw her alive last Thursday evening - Telegraph Inquest Report
[MM]I last saw her alive at 6.45 last Thursday Times Inquest Report

Catherine Lane - Telegraph Inquest report
[Coroner] Did you speak to her last week?
[CL] On Thursday and Saturday.
[Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday?
[CL] Between ten and eleven o'clock.
[Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back?
[CL] She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That statement may suggest an argument !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despite this and the other conflicting witness testimony evidence, Kidney was never arrested or even interviewed at length and her murder remained unsolved, but even today her murder is still regarded by some as having been committed by Jack the Ripper, despite the overwhelming evidence to suggest it may have been domestically motivated and that Kidney could have been her killer.

You are right when you say that the partner is usually the first suspect to be investigated, but there is no evidence to show that they did that, or if they did evidence to elminate him. The one question which seems to have been never asked of Kidney is where he was at the time of her murder?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Astatine211]

Ah, so you are introducing character (Kidney) that according to other witnesses, was never even there?



Stride was robbed barely minutes before being murdered?



Right, but Kidney would not know that.
If you had murdered somebody, and been seen, you wouldn't go to an inquest. You would naturally assume that same witness will be there.



Not a sign of guilt.



Assault was very common between partners who lived together.



Why would he be hunted?, no-one saw him there, and he hadn't seen her since the previous Tuesday.
No-one came forward to say they had been seen together before the murder. I mean, there is totally nothing to make him a suspect, and the police knew that.
The partner of a victim is always the first on the list to be ruled out, even today.

It's one thing to use the evidence to identify a suspect, but quite another to create a story out of nothing.
There are plenty of witnesses in Berner St., yet none of them place Kidney anywhere near the scene.

I'm sorry. I understand now.

Merry Christmas

[Wickerman]

I don't think in the assult Schwartz saw the attacker was Kidney and that broad shoulders was someone different.

Ah, so you are introducing character (Kidney) that according to other witnesses, was never even there?

I also thinks there's a chance Schwartz's whole sighting was an unrelated robbery.

Stride was robbed barely minutes before being murdered?

However, I would like to add that Schwartz was never called to the inquest and therefore never had any chance to identify Kidney as the person he saw.

Right, but Kidney would not know that.
If you had murdered somebody, and been seen, you wouldn't go to an inquest. You would naturally assume that same witness will be there.

Also the testimony Kidney gave at the inquest was described as rambling and bizarre.

Not a sign of guilt.

I feel that if Kidney had killed her during a drunken argument more suspetion would be cast on him if he didn't show up to the inquest as she had taken previously taken him to court in the past for assaulting her.

Assault was very common between partners who lived together.

Complying with the police and going along with the idea of it being a Ripper killing is probably safer than running away and having a manhunt start for you whilst hiding.

Why would he be hunted?, no-one saw him there, and he hadn't seen her since the previous Tuesday.
No-one came forward to say they had been seen together before the murder. I mean, there is totally nothing to make him a suspect, and the police knew that.
The partner of a victim is always the first on the list to be ruled out, even today.

It's one thing to use the evidence to identify a suspect, but quite another to create a story out of nothing.
There are plenty of witnesses in Berner St., yet none of them place Kidney anywhere near the scene.

[Astatine211]

Given that Michael Kidney first gave evidence at the inquest on 3rd Oct., and the papers from the 1st had been reporting the assault of the victim and the police looking for him. Why on earth would the killer (if Kidney), having been seen assaulting the victim, decide to show up in court where the witnesses & police could recognise him in an instant?

Does that make any sense to you?

I don't think in the assult Schwartz saw the attacker was Kidney and that broad shoulders was someone different. I also thinks there's a chance Schwartz's whole sighting was an unrelated robbery.

However, I would like to add that Schwartz was never called to the inquest and therefore never had any chance to identify Kidney as the person he saw.

Also the testimony Kidney gave at the inquest was described as rambling and bizarre.

I feel that if Kidney had killed her during a drunken argument more suspetion would be cast on him if he didn't show up to the inquest as she had taken previously taken him to court in the past for assaulting her. Complying with the police and going along with the idea of it being a Ripper killing is probably safer than running away and having a manhunt start for you whilst hiding.

[Wickerman]

In my opinion she was killed by Michael Kidney.

Given that Michael Kidney first gave evidence at the inquest on 3rd Oct., and the papers from the 1st had been reporting the assault of the victim and the police looking for him. Why on earth would the killer (if Kidney), having been seen assaulting the victim, decide to show up in court where the witnesses & police could recognise him in an instant?

Does that make any sense to you?

[Astatine211]

Which Torso murder happened on October 2nd? The torso murder that happened near to where Stride was killed (but not opposite) was in Pinchin Street, which is a couple of minutes away I believe, and that was discovered on September 10th. I also can’t recall any mention of Lipski being written in chalk?

I'm sorry. You're 100% right. I've got the Whitehall Mystery and Pinchin St. Torso mixed up. The Whitehall Mystery started to be found on October 2nd 1888.

Above the Pinchin St Torso when it was discovered in 1889 the word Lipski was written in chalk above it and due to the proximity to the Stride murder it was linked.

[jerryd]

The torso found in October, 1888 was in the new police offices at Whitehall. Near the torso in the arch in Pinchin Street in September, 1889 the name "Lipski" was found chalked on a paling. In Frederick Street (adjacent to Pinchin) chalked on a wall was " John Cleary is a fool".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which Torso murder happened on October 2nd? The torso murder that happened near to where Stride was killed (but not opposite) was in Pinchin Street, which is a couple of minutes away I believe, and that was discovered on September 10th. I also can’t recall any mention of Lipski being written in chalk?