Stride..a victim?

[c.d.]

Yes I do but lack of an alibi would not amount to proof of guilt.

True, but in that case I would have expected the police to have Schwartz take a look at him. Regardless, it seems that the police didn't believe that Kidney was involved.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

True, but in that case I would have expected the police to have Schwartz take a look at him. Regardless, it seems that the police didn't believe that Kidney was involved.

c.d.

didnt research and or a paper by tom wescott exonerate kidney pretty conclusively?

[c.d.]

didnt research and or a paper by tom wescott exonerate kidney pretty conclusively?

I don't know about "conclusively" but pretty damn close to it as I recall. I simply can't comprehend the police being so stupid and inept that they weren't all over Kidney as a serious suspect.

c.d.

[DJA]

didnt research and or a paper by tom wescott exonerate kidney pretty conclusively?

Exonerating Michael Kidney.

Guess where

[Herlock Sholmes]

The interruption need not have been of a physical nature. The general consensus is that this was a dangerous location for a murder. It is not unreasonable to think that that fact was not lost on Jack as well. He also would have been aware that the police were out looking for him and that if he is caught he is most likely hanged. I can't speak for others but that would make me a little paranoid. Maybe Stride gave out a little yell just before being killed or something we will never know spooked him. He decided that Stride was not the only woman in Whitechapel and the risk is just too great so he bolts. I agree that no numbers can be put on this.

I don't know how plausibility got such a bad rap. If we don't have hard evidence we are forced to speculate and consider possibilities. In doing so plausibility certainly beats the hell out of implausibility. The only trap I see is if we say well it is plausible so it must have happened that way. I don't see anybody saying that.

c.d.

Too right c.d. It's tough enough with so many unknowns and possible interpretations to start being wary of plausibility.

As you say, if this was the ripper then you'd assume he'd have been extra tuned in to danger so a light goes on or he hears a door bang shut nearby or a voice in the street and he might have stopped in his tracks. He waits, thinks "ok I'm good to go" then he hears the horses hooves and ducks behind the gate. It's plausible. It doesn't mean that it's what happened but it's plausible.

I also think it's plausible that this might have been a punter/prostitute argument which ended in a throat cutting. It might have been a bloke that had feelings for Liz and then found that she'd gone back onto the streets and in a fit of drunken temper?

Apart from discounting suicide I'd say that all bets are on.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So is implausibility. I genuinely can't see how you can apply numbers where so much is unknown? It just doesn't work.

Especially when the numbers are unfavorable to one's preferred story

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I used to be of the opinion that Stride was dispatched by the same killer and it's still a possibility. Given that there was a history of domestic abuse though, I think an attack by Michael Kidney is more likely.

I think Kidney did attack Stride that night. People, Oct 7:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

Just not on Berner street. Kidney was about 36 at the time.

Similar info was printed in other papers, possibly owing to a leak from the Leman street police.
The Star's description of the witnessing:

Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

An Interruptionist confronted with this, has no choice but to explain away or ignore.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Especially when the numbers are unfavorable to one's preferred story

What preferred story is this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Kidney did attack Stride that night. People, Oct 7:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

Just not on Berner street. Kidney was about 36 at the time.

Similar info was printed in other papers, possibly owing to a leak from the Leman street police.
The Star's description of the witnessing:

Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

An Interruptionist confronted with this, has no choice but to explain away or ignore.

'Interruptionist?' Come on. The interruption scenario is perfectly plausible and possible. Of course it's not a proven fact but it can't be dismissed.

We can't disprove Kidney of course but how do the 'numbers' stack up on the chances of Stride being killed by someone that would have been seen in her company before (increasing the chances of being recognised) and who then drew attention to himself by attacking her in the street before killing her in a high risk location?

Spur of the moment anger kill. Someone she knew angrily searching for her then killing her. Jack the Ripper killing her but being interrupted before continuing with mutilation. I'd say that all are possibles.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Consider someone who believes Stride's murderer was interrupted, coming across the story of the men who witnessed her with a man, at the Bricklayer's Arms.

J. Best: I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out. He was hugging her and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman, who was poorly dressed. We "chipped" him, but he paid no attention. As he stood in the doorway he always threw sidelong glances into the bar, but would look nobody in the face. I said to him, "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?" but he made no answer. If he had been a straight fellow he would have told us to mind our own business, or he would have gone away. I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman. When the man could not stand the chaffing any longer he and the woman went off like a shot soon after eleven.

So 2 hours before Stride's death, and Mr Best sees her in a situation so incongruous that he would have alerted a policeman, if one had been visible to him.
Having settled on interruption, there is no way this extraordinary evidence can even be considered as a clue - it just cannot be integrated into the story.

This example explains how bias originates - when later pieces of a story are decided on before earlier ones, and then those earlier pieces start conflicting with later ones, forcing the storyteller to explain them away, or just ignore.

That is what is occurring in the case of the anomalies, inconsistencies and oddities of Arbeter Fraint's take on the murder, and the highly problematic testimony of Edward Spooner.

[c.d.]

Interruptionist?' Come on.

Yeah, I have to agree here. "Come on" pretty much says it all. Let's get real clear. No one is stating with absolute certainty that an interruption took place. To claim or suggest otherwise is disingenuous and pretty much dishonest. All that is being suggested is that an interruption is a very reasonable explanation for why Stride was not mutilated as opposed to say an alien spaceship landing and melting Jack's knife. Don't try to make more out of this.

c.d.

[DJA]

'Interruptionist?'

Wish someone's parents had ......

[DJA]

All that is being suggested is that an interruption is a very reasonable explanation for why Stride was not mutilated as opposed to say an alien spaceship landing and melting Jack's knife.

c.d.

Geez,don't feed him any more ideas.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wish someone's parents had ......

[Herlock Sholmes]

Consider someone who believes Stride's murderer was interrupted, coming across the story of the men who witnessed her with a man, at the Bricklayer's Arms.

J. Best: I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out. He was hugging her and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman, who was poorly dressed. We "chipped" him, but he paid no attention. As he stood in the doorway he always threw sidelong glances into the bar, but would look nobody in the face. I said to him, "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?" but he made no answer. If he had been a straight fellow he would have told us to mind our own business, or he would have gone away. I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman. When the man could not stand the chaffing any longer he and the woman went off like a shot soon after eleven.

So 2 hours before Stride's death, and Mr Best sees her in a situation so incongruous that he would have alerted a policeman, if one had been visible to him.
Having settled on interruption, there is no way this extraordinary evidence can even be considered as a clue - it just cannot be integrated into the story.

This example explains how bias originates - when later pieces of a story are decided on before earlier ones, and then those earlier pieces start conflicting with later ones, forcing the storyteller to explain them away, or just ignore.

That is what is occurring in the case of the anomalies, inconsistencies and oddities of Arbeter Fraint's take on the murder, and the highly problematic testimony of Edward Spooner.

Why does this evidence have to be dismissed if someone believes that the Ripper was interrupted in Dutfield's Yard? The inference is that the man seen with Stride might have been her killer. How can any of us dismiss this? We might doubt it but we can't categorically dismiss it.

So this could have been:

Annie and the Ripper.
Annie and a punter who she parted company with sometime after Best.
Annie and a punter who continued drinking together which resulted in him killing her.
A case of mistaken identity.
A lie by Best.

Best's statement is there to be assessed by each of us as individuals like all witnesses. I haven't read all of this thread but are you saying that Stride couldn't have been killed by the Ripper?