Any known physical descriptions of Kidney?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

yes we've heard the Sadler mix up theory before and unless you beleive the marginalia is a fake, which it is NOT, then your wrong.

I don't believe the marginalia to be a fake, only written by an retired older police officer with a vague memory. Like most of the other more or less incorrect documents written by other retired men in the police force as far as the ripper case is concerned.

The Sadler misup theory works because it mentions a witness from the Ripper murders (and a witness who undoubtedly saw the murderer, according to the police), it fits some of the circumstances as well as fits the timing quite nicely.
We are of course all welcome to have an opinion but that is the best 'solution' to the ID problem as far as I am concerned.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

Well let me turn your argument around. If the police had no experience with serial murders how were they supposed to proceed? Well for starters, go with basic police procedure and question the lover of one of the victims..

Because they didn't do that in connection with Eddowes, for example. They certainly never investigated John Kelly as a suspect, and this was because they were looking for the Ripper, not a murdering husband.
Look, even today it is VERY difficult for any investigator to handle a domestic murder that happens in a context where serial murders of similar character occur. I have this first hand from people who works with this on a daily basis. Today, these crimes are often solved anyway towards the end, but in 1888 this situation must have been extremely confusing.
Scotland Yard wasn't looking for a murdering husband - they were looking for Jack the Ripper and were under immense pressure. Again - it is the Eddowes murder that is the key here, and it is my firm belief that the Stride investigation would have looked very different if the Eddowes murder hadn't happened the same night. I simply don't understand why you don't see this situation. Nor do I understand why you continue to miss my point again and again.

You want us to believe they were all running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are we to believe that not one single person involved in the investigation thought to question Kidney? Now that's naive...

Well, I am afraid that's what they did, and it's understandable considering it's 1888. You seem to think that Scotland Yard in the 1880s were of the same caliber and had the same expeience as modern Metropolitan Police or the FBI. Yes, I am afraid that is totally naive and unfortunately miles away from the reality.

All the best

[Ben]

Hi Jeff,

Glen why would Schwartz be used to identify Sadler when a few weeks before he had already identified Kosminski?

That's only if the witness had positively identified Kosminski, and I don't believe he did, or else he wouldn't have been allowed to get away with refusing to swear to the identification on the grounds that the suspect was a fellow Jew. If Lawende was asked to attend subsequent suspect IDs, it was because the Kosminski ID attempt was not successful.

Cheers,
Ben

[Jeff Leahy]

No, it's not. I am afraid Lawende is the most logical witness since he no doubt was the only man who ever saw the real murderer, maybe with the exception of Elizabeth Long. Schwartz's witness testimony is the only one that hasn't been doubted and in 1888 it was taken very seriously. And if Schwartz was such a good witness why wasn't he brought in to identify Sadler while in fact Lawende was?

For the record, I actually believe that the Sadler and Kosminski ID was one and the same - not two different occasions - and that some of the police officials simply mixed things up.

All the best

Glen why would Schwartz be used to identify Sadler when a few weeks before he had already identified Kosminski?: Your just not using logic.

yes we've heard the Sadler mix up theory before and unless you beleive the marginalia is a fake, which it is NOT, then your wrong.

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

I, who have no police training whatsoever, would have asked ol' Michael where he had been.

I'm not denying that they might well have done, CD - but that doesn't mean that they pursued things any further. It certainly doesn't mean that it was probable that they brought in Schwartz to ID Kidney, which is the point that prompted me to chip into this thread.

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

Well let me turn your argument around. If the police had no experience with serial murders how were they supposed to proceed? Well for starters, go with basic police procedure and question the lover of one of the victims. You want us to believe they were all running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are we to believe that not one single person involved in the investigation thought to question Kidney? Now that's naive.

And in the future, I can do without being spoken down to, thank you.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Chris,

Kind of confirms the feeling that we're dealing with a brute here and it pretty much confirms his behaviour as described in other papers.
Considering the "sulky manner and in speech very difficult to understand to explain", I wonder if he might have been drunk (we know he probably was drunk when he visited the police station and made a fool out himself there as well) at the time? In Sweden it was common in those days to serve beer or alcohol in the breaks between witness testimonies.

All the best

[Chris Scott]

Not a physical description but...

Michael Kidney

The report in the Daily News about the Stride inquest includes these phrases about Kidney:
a morose and rough spoken man
the witness began in a most incoherent manner to complain
asked by the Coroner whether he had any reason to believe that any person was likely to run foul of her, he commenced in a sulky manner and in speech very difficult to understand to explain...
He was an Army Reserve man and drawing a pension; he was also a "lover of discipline"

[c.d.]

I stand corrected, Sam. But even I, who have no police training whatsoever, would have asked ol' Michael where he had been. It ain't rocket science.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi cd,

Again, you just don't get it, do you?
OK, I'll try again: yes, the police of 1888 would have been just as aware of domestic murders and murdering spouses as they are today. But NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF A SERIAL KILLER AND A TYPCIAL RIPPER MURDER BEING PERPETRATED THE SAME NIGHT!
The circumstances during the double event in 1888 was certainly not those of an ordinary domestic murder. And - again - the press and the general public was on their backs since the Nichols murder.
Now this can easily influence any modern police force in negative direction - and if that can happen today, who can seriously claim that a police force in 1888 - with no experience at all of serial murder and those very demanding circumstances - wouldn't make this mistake? I am sorry, but that is totally naive.

Again - this was 1888, cd and although they may have had vast experience of domestic murder, this was not such a context!

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

The clumsy police you refer to were Scotland Yard detectives.

...only some of them were, CD. The vast majority of those involved in the enquiry would have been local bobbies, although one might be forgiven for thinking that the 19th Century London equivalent of the FBI was swarming all over Whitechapel

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

1888 or 2008 it doesn't matter. Basic police training should tell them that the husband/lover is always a suspect. Again, all it took was one question.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

I suppose it is possible that the police were fooled but I really doubt it. Where I live (and I imagine it is the same everywhere) you hear some horrible tale of murder or abduction on the tv and in a few days they always announce that the police are now seeking the husband/lover/ex boyfriend etc. Some things never change.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

The clumsy police you refer to were Scotland Yard detectives.

c.d.

Yes, and they were living and operating in 1888 - with absolutely no tools or expereince in how to handle these types of circumstances. Stop romanticising them.

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

The clumsy police you refer to were Scotland Yard detectives.

c.d.