Any known physical descriptions of Kidney?

[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

[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

[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

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,
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

"That Swanson was actually present at the identification might also be suggested by other comments, such as the observation that the suspect knew he’d been identified, which on the face of it seems a very daft remark to have made. If the suspect was in a line-up or on his own when confronted with the witness and the witness did something like touching him on the shoulder or pointing a finger at him and saying “that’s the bloke I saw” then the suspect could hardly have failed to know he’d been identified and one can only wonder why Swanson bothered to say something so obvious. But he did say it and he said it twice, so it seems to have had an importance for him which is not apparent. A nice idea is that the suspect reacted to the witness with mutual recognition, which would in turn have added weight to the value of the witness’s testimony, if not ultimately in court then certainly in the eyes of those present. But whatever the remark means, it may indicate that it was something Swanson witnessed"

[Ben]

A nice idea is that the suspect reacted to the witness with mutual recognition, which would in turn have added weight to the value of the witness’s testimony

Possibly, but I'm not sure that's quite what was meant, Jeff.

"He knew he was identified" could simply mean that it was put to the suspect directly: "You have been identified by the witness" so as to eradicate any doubt over the matter. In that scenario, it could simply have been reported to Swanson that that had occured, rather than Swanson himself being there personally and registering a a look of "Bummer, it's that fella from the Imperial Club again!" on the countenance of the suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Jeff Leahy]

Possibly Ben, but then Anderson says "Not speaking as an expert in crime, but as a man who investigated the facts" and Anderson did do some hands on investigation in the Alice Mckenzie murder...

Sounds to me like both Swanson and Anderson were present

But I'm straying off topic better leave for later

Pirate

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

Would I expect the Scotland Yard of 1888 to be able to do a sophisticated DNA analysis like they can in 2008? No. Would they be capable of asking someone where they were the night of a murder? Yeah, I think the boys could handle that but then again I may just be naive.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

And remember - even if Kidney might have had an alibi, alibies can be faked.

Hello Glenn

As you will know Kidney stayed in a common Lodging House so if he was at "home" after midnight he may well have signed a register and numerous lodgers and a deputy could have vouched for him.

[Jon Guy]

Would I expect the Scotland Yard of 1888 to be able to do a sophisticated DNA analysis like they can in 2008? No. Would they be capable of asking someone where they were the night of a murder? Yeah, I think the boys could handle that but then again I may just be naive.

Totally agree, C.D.

If there is one thing that we should have full confidence in the H Div boys and the `tecs was their ability to check out alibis, and looking people like Kidney in the eye.

If only Sgt Badham had initially interviewed Colin Stagg.

[Sam Flynn]

As you will know Kidney stayed in a common Lodging House so if he was at "home" after midnight he may well have signed a register and numerous lodgers and a deputy could have vouched for him.

Again, we're assuming that the police went so far as to check, Jon. However, there's no suggestion that they did so - anymore than there is a suggestion that they thoroughly checked up on John Kelly's whereabouts at the time of Eddowes' murder.

[c.d.]

Again, we're assuming that the police went so far as to check, Jon. However, there's no suggestion that they did so - anymore than there is a suggestion that they thoroughly checked up on John Kelly's whereabouts at the time of Eddowes' murder.

Agreed, Sam. If we had evidence, we wouldn't be speculating. It comes down to a question of what is more probable. I also think it is unfair to compare Kidney and Kelly and the respective police suspicion. Lawende's description of what he saw could certainly be seen in the light of a domestic dispute. Kate's mutilation bore the earmarks of the Ripper.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

You're right [OMG, I never thought I'd say that! It must be Christmas].

The LVP cops appeared to believe everybody—Kelly, Schwartz, Kidney, Hutchinson et al.

It makes sense. Think of all the paperwork they avoided.

Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda.

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Hello Sam

My assumptions are based upon the police reports that are available, such as interviewing the blind boy Dixon, and Sadler`s landlady from years previous, to name two examples from many. So it would be reasonable to assume they followed up the line of enquiry in the case of Kidney.

But yes, an assumption on my part.

[Jon Guy]

anymore than there is a suggestion that they thoroughly checked up on John Kelly's whereabouts at the time of Eddowes' murder.

Deputy Keeper, Wilkinson was asked to present the register for the Lodging House at the Eddowes inquest.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

Would I expect the Scotland Yard of 1888 to be able to do a sophisticated DNA analysis like they can in 2008? No. Would they be capable of asking someone where they were the night of a murder? Yeah, I think the boys could handle that but then again I may just be naive.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Well - AGAIN - that was NOT the point or the problem I addressed. I just tried to explain to you about the serial context killer and that this happened the same night as a Ripper murder and was treated as one. Although what Schwartz saw definitely could be viewed as a dolestic dispute, fact remains that it was almost immediately connected with the Eddowes murder. This was NOT the context of an ordinary domestic murder.
But once you missed the whole point I addressed and I have to admit I have lost all hope of getting it across to you.