Stride..a victim?

[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.

[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.

[Scott Nelson]

I'm sure glad I wear a watch.

[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.

[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?

[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".

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.