Any known physical descriptions of Kidney?

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes but if they had a suspicion, which clearly they did not, they very simply could have double checked, which again, they did not..

And given the high profile nature of the crime is it not simplest to assume Kidney had a carst iron alibi so the police didnt need to check any further.

I simply can't except that they ignored the possibilty of Kidney, especially as he claimed to know who did it....

Pirate

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

A Good Xmas to you too, Jeff.

Surely the police in 1888 had little experience of serial killers. Just because they thought it was a ripper attack does not mean they ingored the obvious like those closest to the victim. Whether they thought it a ripper attack or not the obvious person to check was kidney..perhaps he was the Ripper. I cant beleive that Swanson over looke him because he was looking for a person of Jewish appearance?

Thats because you give the clumsy police of 1888 way too much credit.
As I said to cd, these were extraordinary circumstances and the murder of Catherine Eddowes probably added further the pressure from the papers and the general public to catch the Ripper.
It is possible that the Met might have kept other doors and scenarios opened if not the Eddowes murder had happened the same night and the two murders instantly were linked together. So the Eddowes murder here night be the key to how the Met and Scotland Yard handled the Stride investigation. No doubt they didn't think Kidney had any link to Eddowes ot the other victims, they were looking for other types of suspects.
If Eddowes hadn't been found murdered 45 minutes later the same night I think the whole thing might have turned out quite differently.
And remember - even if Kidney might have had an alibi, alibies can be faked.

The police may have had interviewed hundreds of police in connection with the Stride murder but personally I see the Stride investigation as terribly incompetent, even by 1880s standards.

As i have pointed out it would have been so easy to check, that the only conclusion is that they had already eliminated him.

No, that's nonsense. Once again, you miss the context in which it all happened.

I'm not assuming anything, mearly pointing out that given what is known Schwartz is the most logical witness, as Lawenda would not have been called to identify Sadler if he had already ID'd Kosminski....Lawende is not a logical chioce......its that simple.

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

[Sam Flynn]

If that was the case, we are pretty much left with just two conclusions: the polilce got an alibi from Kidney and verified it or they were complete idiots who couldn't pass policing 101.

...probably the former, although the latter is not beyond the bounds of possibility, and they might just have been "taken in" by Kidney's coming forward (albeit stroppily) without their having to go and look for him. It's not as if the police are immune to having the wool pulled over their eyes by plausible rogues.

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

The clumsy police you refer to were Scotland Yard detectives.

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 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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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"

[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

[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.

[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.

[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