Any known physical descriptions of Kidney?

[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.

[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

[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

[c.d.]

Indeed, Jeff - but you missed what I was saying. Kidney was neither charged nor held on suspicion, therefore the idea that Schwartz was brought in to ID him seems unlikely.

Hi Sam,

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.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

But even back then, didn't the police consider a husband or lover the number one suspect until proven otherwise?

Indeed, CD - but see my point to Jeff, namely that Kidney appears not to have been charged nor held on suspicion.

[Sam Flynn]

Your missing what I'm saying. The most obvious person to consider are the people closest to the victim especially if there is a histoy of violence.

Indeed, Jeff - but you missed what I was saying. Kidney was neither charged nor held on suspicion, therefore the idea that Schwartz was brought in to ID him seems unlikely.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, but these were extraordinary circumstances and no doubt the police were under enormous pressure by the time of the double event. Again, the papers - who naturally liked all killings to one murderer and constantly created hell for the police - had a lot do with this.
I believe the Metropoliotan Police and SCotland Yard had little experience in how to handle these circumstances and how to handle the pressure. In this respect I see them as quite inexperienced and almost virgins.

All the best

While this is true, it dosnt make a logical arguement for not checking out Kidney.........what if he were the Ripper? Surely by your own logic the police would have stuck with what they new and understood...which leaves Kidney number one suspect whether they thought it a Ripper crime or not.

Pirate

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

That may be true but all it took was one question -- "where were you last night, Michael?"

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Sam,

But even back then, didn't the police consider a husband or lover the number one suspect until proven otherwise?

c.d.

Yes, but these were extraordinary circumstances and no doubt the police were under enormous pressure by the time of the double event. Again, the papers - who naturally liked all killings to one murderer and constantly created hell for the police - had a lot do with this.
I believe the Metropoliotan Police and SCotland Yard had little experience in how to handle these circumstances and how to handle the pressure. In this respect I see them as quite inexperienced and almost virgins.

All the best

[c.d.]

. His status was that of a bereaved lover, not a suspect.

Hi Sam,

But even back then, didn't the police consider a husband or lover the number one suspect until proven otherwise?

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Kidney wasn't charged or even held on suspicion, Jeff - I very much doubt that the police would have subjected him to an ID under such circumstances. His status was that of a bereaved lover, not a suspect.

Your missing what I'm saying. The most obvious person to consider are the people closest to the victim especially if there is a histoy of violence.

The police had a witness which they choose not to use, and logic deictates to me that they choose not to because they were fairly certain it wasn't Kidney.

Perhaps his alibi simply checked out.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

This has been said many times, but I'll say it again. The police very early on linked the Stride murder to the Ripper, most certainly because of the discovery of a typcial Ripper murder fortyfive minutes later the same night. The press treated the Stride murder as a Ripper crime, which in turn can't have made it easier for the police to look in other directions.

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?

Although Swanson initially - and very vaguely - mentions that people in her personal circuits was checked out, it doesn't exclude the possibility that any trail involving Kidney was dropped prematurely because of the Eddowes murder and that they focused their investigation on the Ripper, not a domestic crime. On that basis I think the police made an error of judgment.

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

It shall also be noted that the reason for Schwartz not being called at the inquest was most likely language difficulties, and they probably figured it was enough that he signed his written statement.

Futhermore, there is no reason to assume that Schwartz was ther witness brought in to ID 'Kosminski'. Apart from Paul Begg's theorizing we have no credible indication pointing in this direction.
Most likely it was Lawende who best 'saw the Ripper' and we also know that he was brought in to identify Sadler in connection with the Frances Coles murder, which was interpreted as a possible Ripper crime.

All the best

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.

Pirate

PS Happy Xmas Glenn, hope you are well

[Ben]

Hi Glenn,

I think my position on this issue can be summed up as follows:

Does the sketch of Kidney match Schwartz's description of the broad-shouldered attacker? No, the age and facial hair don't match at all.

Does that mean that Kidney was not the man seem by Schwartz? No, it doesn't entitle us to conclude that with confidence because witness statements can vary in reliability for reasons that you outline.

Notwithstaning other variables - including the possibility that Schwartz invented it - all I was really doing was addressing the original question raised by thewastelandr.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

If they had any doubt that Kidney may have committed the murder then they would have used [Schwartz] for an ID at that time.

Kidney wasn't charged or even held on suspicion, Jeff - I very much doubt that the police would have subjected him to an ID under such circumstances. His status was that of a bereaved lover, not a suspect.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It seems logical to me Ben...

I am of course aware that Schwartz was not called at the inquest..

However the police on the ground were noones fools, the first thing they would have done was check kidney, who incidently claimed he new the identity of JtR.

The police had a witness, who saw something, who was most probably eventually used to ID Kosminski. If they had any doubt that Kidney may have committed the murder then they would have used him for an ID at that time.

Why if you had any doubt would you not use Schwartz? Are you saying the police were incompetent?

Pirate

This has been said many times, but I'll say it again.
The police very early on linked the Stride murder to the Ripper, most certainly because of the discovery of a typcial Ripper murder fortyfive minutes later the same night. The press treated the Stride murder as a Ripper crime, which in turn can't have made it easier for the police to look in other directions.
Although Swanson initially - and very vaguely - mentions that people in her personal circuits was checked out, it doesn't exclude the possibility that any trail involving Kidney was dropped prematurely because of the Eddowes murder and that they focused their investigation on the Ripper, not a domestic crime. On that basis I think the police made an error of judgment.

It shall also be noted that the reason for Schwartz not being called at the inquest was most likely language difficulties, and they probably figured it was enough that he signed his written statement.

Futhermore, there is no reason to assume that Schwartz was ther witness brought in to ID 'Kosminski'. Apart from Paul Begg's theorizing we have no credible indication pointing in this direction.
Most likely it was Lawende who best 'saw the Ripper' and we also know that he was brought in to identify Sadler in connection with the Frances Coles murder, which was interpreted as a possible Ripper crime.

All the best