Stride..a victim?

[Astatine211]

In my opinion she was killed by Michael Kidney. There are two possible explanations for this:

A (the simple one): He was drunk and killed her during and argument.

B (the crazy insane one): Michael Kidney was, besides being Strides lover, also her pimp who was under the employment of a gang which could've been the High Rip Gang. Around September 30th they decided they were going to execute prostitutes who weren't considered of use or value to them. In the Schwartz sighting, Pipeman was an innocent bystander (backed up by the fact he was cleared by police after an interview), however, Broad Shoulders was a member of the High Rip Gang who Schwartz heard should Lipski. Upon realising this, Kidney the High Rip Gang were going to kill Stride and later on, not wanting her to suffer at their hands, quickly slit her throat before they could get to her. Two reasons for this could be either that he felt cutting her throat could be the quickest and least painful option available to him and that it would be considered a Ripper murder therefore removing suspetion from the gang that he killed her which could of caused him to be kill by them.

Two days later on October 2nd, the Whitechapel Mystery appears with the torso being found opposite where the attack on Stride happened. In this theories version of events this was another prostitute executed by the gang hence the gangland style killing. And would've been the fate of Stride if Kidney hadn't killed her. Stide would've ended up dismembered after being executed and would be considered a torso killer victim rather than JtR. To add to this theory further, Lipski was written in chalk above the Whitechapel Torso which shows some connection to Broad Shoulders who attacked Stride. Out of guilt of killing Stride, Kidney got drunk which led to the incident at Leman Street police as in his drunken state he requested for detective. A possibility for this was that he was going to accuse his employers of being JtR as it would lead the police into investigating their other illegal activities however once sobered, he realised it would likely have fatal repacussion for himself if he snitched on the gang. To add possible link of Kidney to the gang activity was at Leman Street police station when Kidney also mentioned "The parties I obtained my information from know me" when requesting the detective which could be a reference to the gang who he had ties with.

I'm fully aware the second theory is a huge reach and almost definitely not the case but I'm still feel that Stride was probably a victim of Kidney rather than JtR and I feel like the first scenario is simple and an effective explanation for all the inconsistencies in Strides Murder compared to the others. And I also feel like the link between Stide and the Whitechapel mystery needs to be explored more especially with the word Lipski appearing in connection to both cases. All this said I definitely do not discard the possibility that she was a victim of JtR as there is still a great chance she was. In conclusion, I feel Michael Kidney killed her but should could also be a victim of JtR.

[Scott Nelson]

I'm sure glad I wear a watch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

I suppose you read this as him saying he waited 25 minutes from 12:30 outside the Beehive when he saw Jews running. He does say when that 25 minutes began....and that is punctuated by his remark that "I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." The 25 minutes they were outside the beehive had begun before 12:30 after arriving there from the pub, a 10 minutes saunter at best, and his belief was that when he saw the Jews it was closer to 12:30 than it was to 1am, let alone after 1am, when Louis and Issacs actually leave for help. Clearly, 2 unidentified jews ran for help long before Louis and Issacs did. And Issac K spoke for himself and stated he went out alone, at Louis or some members request, around 12:40. Why this has to be constantly repeated is because the actual facts are so often misinterpreted or misrepresented.

I hope scratchin your head helps with your blood flow there.

You appear to have forgotten that he also said that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb so your 12.35 crumbles.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. How is it you seem so convinced that even though she gave specific times she had no clock to base those on?

Im glad you said this because it’s a perfect example of the difference between us. You state as fact that she owned a clock despite there being no evidence of this. You then accuse me of saying that she didn’t own a clock when all that I said is that we can’t be certain or assume that she owned a clock and that most of the lower class locals wouldn’t have owned one.

That is the difference between a provable fact and a possibility.

[Michael W Richards]

Sadly it doesn’t explain why Spooner, a) said that he was outside a pub from 12.30 until 1.00, and b) said that he arrived in Dutfield’s Yard 5 minutes before Lamb.

Of course you will dismiss the 2 in favour a time that he apparently guessed via pub closing times. It’s ok Michael, I know how this conspiracy game works by now.

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

I suppose you read this as him saying he waited 25 minutes from 12:30 outside the Beehive when he saw Jews running. He does say when that 25 minutes began....and that is punctuated by his remark that "I believe it was twenty-five minutes to one o'clock when I arrived in the yard." The 25 minutes they were outside the beehive had begun before 12:30 after arriving there from the pub, a 10 minutes saunter at best, and his belief was that when he saw the Jews it was closer to 12:30 than it was to 1am, let alone after 1am, when Louis and Issacs actually leave for help. Clearly, 2 unidentified jews ran for help long before Louis and Issacs did. And Issac K spoke for himself and stated he went out alone, at Louis or some members request, around 12:40. Why this has to be constantly repeated is because the actual facts are so often misinterpreted or misrepresented.

I hope scratchin your head helps with your blood flow there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Point of fact Herlock, this murder does not have any Ripping at all, so the bias is by people who see that kind of killer despite the evidence.

No matter how many times that this is explained. No matter how obvious that this is to everyone. You still keep trotting this one out! Why? The fact that she wasn’t mutilated is NOT proof that she wasn’t killed by the ripper as the killer might have been mutilated. This isn’t conjecture Michael. This is a cold, hard, indisputable FACT. We can neither prove nor disprove interruption. This is a FACT.

You are clear about what the evidence actually says and what you try to read into it, right?

No I’m not actually. You are the one that’s deducing the conspiracy. When there is discrepancy you are the one continually proposing the sinister explanation. You are the one that can’t seem to accept the very simple possibility of witness error purely because it doesn’t agree with the script.

It says that no killer or anyone else arrived at or left from that passageway from 12:50 until 1,

Ok I’ll take this slowly. We have Constable Smith on his regulated beat. A police officer who, when dealing with incidents, often has to make additions in his notebook so that he can make reports that are as accurate as possible and so it’s a necessary part of his job to be as aware of the time as accurately as possible. He does he make sure that he’s as aware of the time as he can be? He checks any clocks that he passes. He makes mental notes of clocks striking. Sound reasonable. On this particular night Smith has just passed the clock that Diemschutz had seen. And everything, and I mean everything, is in favour of Smith being more likely to have been correct than Mortimer. Even if Mortimer owned a clock (which you’ve repeatedly claimed as a truth when it’s no such thing) she still had no reason to log the time as, up until she heard about the body, this was just another normal night.

And so if Smith was correct and Mortimer was wrong then she went onto her doorstep between 12.30 and 12.35 for around 10 minutes which places her back inside the house at just before 12.45.

no people were seen on the street except the young couple and Goldstein as he passed from 12:35 until 1, there is 1 Inquest witness for 12:45 and he certainly only saw the young couple Fanny saw, and that a 2 second 1 cut murder was an act unto itself, with nothing less or more planned or anticipated.

Delusion mixed with hopeless bias.

The storyline you seem to desire isnt in the evidence, its your own bias.

Its time to wake up I’m afraid Michael and look around you and ask yourself: “why is it only me that believes all of this?” I know that you’ll go for the “everyone else is a lesser Ripperologist than myself,” or “everyone else is just so attached to the idea of a Jack the Ripper,” explanation but you must know by now that this won’t do. Most people have no dogmatic belief in how many victims the ripper had. Most admit the element of the unknown or even unknowable so it’s hardly a point to defend at all costs but that’s not the case with you is it? The FACT (and it is a fact) is that you have a suspect for Nichols and Chapman. Unfortunately though this suspect can’t possibly have killed on the 30th of September and so Stride and Eddowes are out. You needed a plan B. So you took a few discrepancies (the kind that are found with witnesses) and you wove a scenario in an attempt to keep your theory alive. Sadly it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The police’s alleged loss of faith in Schwartz is a complete non-starter utterly disproven by written evidence and the police’s action. Your 4 witnesses are about as weak as they come. Two of whom can be instantly dismissed whilst the other two are simply making mistaken estimates on times. And Mortimer is hardly rock solid is she. And as for you “there’s no evidence of interruption” point, well, I think the less said about that obvious nonsense the better.

Your cover-up exists in your own mind Michael and it appears that that’s where it will stay as you still haven’t produced that list of ‘great thinkers’ that agree with you. My guess is that the list is so small that you can’t find it?

Merry Christmas.

[Michael W Richards]

She heard boots which, if Smith was correct, she got her time wrong on.

This may seem like complex science but Fanny’s ability to hear or not hear could have been affected by distance and the amount of walls. What I mean, of course, is that she didn’t always stay in the same room. If she was in a room at the rear of the house she might not have heard anything. Unless you can prove that an impossibility then the argument about what she could or couldn’t hear is a non-starter.

Ah...so she is wrong too? The only people we should believe are the ones youd like to believe..thats it? Is this like Trump claiming factual new is Fake? how do you know where she was indoors? How is it you seem so convinced that even though she gave specific times she had no clock to base those on? I cited that she heard footsteps in the house, now youd like to assume she was in the cellar and couldnt hear anything, nor could she tell time apparently. Enough of the crap, if you have a problem with any of the actual evidence I listed before, go ahead...make your claim. But stop pretending that you know what happened when no-one knows. There is reason and rational thought you can bring to figure out the evidence, bending it to suit you should stop now. Stop making false claims. Last call for bs......

[Michael W Richards]

Or you would have to accept that the proposer of this evidence-free theory has a suspect who cannot have killed Stride and so he desperately conjures up cover up in a desperate attempt to prove that Stride was killed by a different killer. It’s called bias.

Point of fact Herlock, this murder does not have any Ripping at all, so the bias is by people who see that kind of killer despite the evidence. You are clear about what the evidence actually says and what you try to read into it, right? It says that no killer or anyone else arrived at or left from that passageway from 12:50 until 1, no people were seen on the street except the young couple and Goldstein as he passed from 12:35 until 1, there is 1 Inquest witness for 12:45 and he certainly only saw the young couple Fanny saw, and that a 2 second 1 cut murder was an act unto itself, with nothing less or more planned or anticipated.

The storyline you seem to desire isnt in the evidence, its your own bias.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I realize that to accept something like this means you have to accept that anarchists would lie to protect themselves from the law...the same lawmen they attack with clubs in a few months, and you would have to accept that if the killer was on the property when Liz arrives he is likely a member or attendee that night, and that this clandestine Ripper entry and egress nonsense didnt happen and the lack of mutilations is therefore intentionally so....far too reasonable and rational, I know,...very easy to understand, uncomplicated and explains a lot of the unknowns here, ...but to accept that an anarchist operating a club that the police wanted to close before this night might FIB....too much

Or you would have to accept that the proposer of this evidence-free theory has a suspect who cannot have killed Stride and so he desperately conjures up cover up in a desperate attempt to prove that Stride was killed by a different killer. It’s called bias.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. However there is evidence that while inside during that period she heard boots. Which establishes her ability to hear events like the yell of Lipski and men running on cobblestones. She doesnt hear that though, does she

She heard boots which, if Smith was correct, she got her time wrong on.

This may seem like complex science but Fanny’s ability to hear or not hear could have been affected by distance and the amount of walls. What I mean, of course, is that she didn’t always stay in the same room. If she was in a room at the rear of the house she might not have heard anything. Unless you can prove that an impossibility then the argument about what she could or couldn’t hear is a non-starter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That would explain Spooners belief he saw 2 jews running around sometime around 12:35-45, and Issac going out alone unseen.

Sadly it doesn’t explain why Spooner, a) said that he was outside a pub from 12.30 until 1.00, and b) said that he arrived in Dutfield’s Yard 5 minutes before Lamb.

Of course you will dismiss the 2 in favour a time that he apparently guessed via pub closing times. It’s ok Michael, I know how this conspiracy game works by now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On whether you’ve suggested that Schwartz non-attendance must have been down to a lack of faith in his evidence. You said:


“Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious.

If he is called to the inquest - which he surely was - he is legally obliged to attend.

If there were concerns over safety, there is a mechanism for dealing with this - appearance in camera.

There is no evidence that this mechanism was used, and therefore it is highly likely that Israel Schwartz dodged the inquest.

If every witness called to an inquest or court case could simply refuse to turn up on safety grounds, the entire legal system would pretty much collapse.

Given that Schwartz was happy to give an anonymous interview to the Star, the day after the murder, Schwartz himself could hardly have too many concerns about his or his family's (assuming there was one) safety - an anonymous daytime interview by a newspaper reporter, on a Whitechapel street, is hardly a high-security arrangement - either physically or in privacy terms. Compare that to an in camera appearance at an inquest, with the sort of protection available as was placed around Lawende, and any excuse for Schwartz' non-attendance simply evaporates.”

So you’re clearly dismissing all other reasons for Schwartz non-attendance.

ok, one more try. No response NBFN?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Discussions about what Schwartz's claim contained are not evidence of official support. Dismiss what you want, I didnt mean to suggest you have to believe anything, just that its best not to make things up or dismiss a majority of evidence. As of the Inquest opening, no official support or endorsement of Israel Schwartz existed. Investigations into his story or characters within it prove nothing about the veracity of his story.

As you consistently prove here, people will believe anything they choose to.

You’ve tried to use Schwartz non-attendance at the Inquest as proof that the police had no faith in Schwartz evidence. The fact that the police put Schwartz description on the front page of the Police Gazette 2 weeks after the Inquest dismisses that suggestion conclusively. Though no doubt you’ll go on repeating this fallacy.

[Michael W Richards]

Your point about Schwartz possibly not having been able to identify Stride is an interesting one and one that hadn’t occurred to me. Chris Scott in a Casebook dissertation said that he later identified the body but I’m unsure where he got this from. I never knew Chris Scott but he appears to have been very well respected as a researcher.

I just had a quick glance at Sugden on the subject of Michael’s claim that Schwartz wasn’t called to the Inquest because the police had no faith in his evidence. Apparently the Police circulated a description of BS Man on the front page of The Police Gazette on October 19th. I really think that we can dismiss this claim now as the evidence shows.

Discussions about what Schwartz's claim contained are not evidence of official support. Dismiss what you want, I didnt mean to suggest you have to believe anything, just that its best not to make things up or dismiss a majority of evidence. As of the Inquest opening, no official support or endorsement of Israel Schwartz existed. Investigations into his story or characters within it prove nothing about the veracity of his story.

As you consistently prove here, people will believe anything they choose to.

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock, if I remember well, Michael suggested that the sound of the pony cart might have been Eagle returning with PC’s Lamb & 426H. And he suggested that the heavy, measured tramp might have been that of Kozebrodski.

Actually neither are true Franko, I suggested that Fanny may have heard a cart and horse leaving and I only suggest that at least 2 people plus Issac K must have left for help at around the same time. That would explain Spooners belief he saw 2 jews running around sometime around 12:35-45, and Issac going out alone unseen.


Even though we can be fairly sure that Kozebrodski didn’t pass Mortimer’s house looking for a copper. After all, he said he went for a policeman in the direction of Grove Street and the shortest way to Grove Street was via Fairclough Street, not up Berner Street (and passed Mortimer’s house) to Commercial Road. Had that been the case, the logical thing for him to have said would have been that he went to look for one in the direction of Commercial Road.

Thanks for weighing in on what you feel is an acceptable argument, however your just extrapolating on something I didnt say and still referencing me for some reason..


[FONT=Calibri]I’m sure Michael is going to stick to his interpretations, Herlock. He thinks that Mortimer should have heard the whole Schwarz incident, if it had really taken place. But this can’t mean anything, as with the alternative that he suggests as the truth (i.e. Diemshutz arrived around 12:39 on his pony cart and discovered the body then, etc.), Mortimer didn’t hear anything, either, other than the heavy, measured tramp of a policeman, which, according to Michael may have been Kozebrodski, who didn’t pass her house.[/FONT]

I see that its not been plain enough, this statement of Fannys suggests that her most vigilant period of the street during the half hour was the last 10 minutes. Being at her door off and on before that time, she may have missed something, sure...however it is during that time that she hears boots. She hears boots. She sees no-one...which means? Yeah, she is indoors at that time.

In the alternative situation Mortimer didn’t hear Kozebrodski leave the yard at about 12:40 in search of a policeman. That, however, is possible, as he didn’t say that he ran, nor that he shouted while running in search of a copper. But she didn’t hear 2 other Jews (the ones who would bring back Spooner) leave the yard a little later, either, and we know that they sure weren’t silent, as they were shouting out "Murder" and "Police." while running down the street.

When exactly did they begin yelling? Where were they? You dont know specifically.

As I stated again more plainly, there is room for acceptance of Fanny missing seeing things before 12:50. However there is evidence that while inside during that period she heard boots. Which establishes her ability to hear events like the yell of Lipski and men running on cobblestones. She doesnt hear that though, does she?.. none of that. At the window of time the first senior medical expert onsite says Liz gets her throat cut, Fanny is at her door. No-one arrives, no-one leaves. Eagle, Louis and Issacs leave just after 1. A cart and horse leave. Theres no problem with that. Its only a problem when Louis says he arrived at 1 and 4 witnesses say they saw him at 12:40-12:45 by the woman lying there. If he arrived when the majority of witnesses say he must have, then it might not have been seen or heard by Fanny. The initial men running for help,... 3 men, Issac k and 2 other Jews no-one identifies. Only Spooner sees those 2 Jews, and he sees them when he says he does, around 12:40. Louis leaves after 1 with a man called Issacs, it is not Kozebrodski because he says she went alone around 12:40. He returns with Eagle, as he says.

That means A) Liz was killed slightly earlier than originally estimated, B) Louis lied about his arrival time, C) Eagle and Lave lied about what they saw at 12:40, D) a member named Issacs accompanied Louis, and E) the 4 witnesses that were in agreement with every important detail about what they saw and when establish a rough discovery time. She's is found just after being seen at 12:35 by Smith. Fanny has gone inside for a moment, Louis arrives and the rest transpires as the majority of witnesses describe.

The only real impact of this deception is the arrival and discovery time. Since Louis doesnt act before 1, it seems they wanted to play that down. Israel provides a further buffer for the clubs continued operations, an off site gentile attack.

I realize that to accept something like this means you have to accept that anarchists would lie to protect themselves from the law...the same lawmen they attack with clubs in a few months, and you would have to accept that if the killer was on the property when Liz arrives he is likely a member or attendee that night, and that this clandestine Ripper entry and egress nonsense didnt happen and the lack of mutilations is therefore intentionally so....far too reasonable and rational, I know,...very easy to understand, uncomplicated and explains a lot of the unknowns here, ...but to accept that an anarchist operating a club that the police wanted to close before this night might FIB....too much?