Michael Kidney's Theory

[lynn cates]

take 2

Hello Phil. I was thinking of "late" as in the music halls and pubs being closed.

My take on Michael comes solely from reading his inquest performance. He was likely violent by some standards--perhaps not LVP standards.

If you equate Kidney with BS man, what is your theory about an encounter with Liz? Random chance? Kidney worked to the south of Berner st. If he were getting off work, he would be headed north and west. BS man was traveling north to south.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Lynn

I am open to three possibilities:

a) that Kidney learned that Stride was seeing someone else, maybe seriously, and deliberately followed her and accosted her once he saw an opportunity - either her "date" had just bid her farewell or she was waiting for him. I don't believe Kidney intended to kill her - he wanted her back. But the nature of Liz's response triggered a murderous response in him. I am minded to interpret the shout recorded as "Lipski!" as "Lizzie!";

b) a friend who knew them both and had seen Stride that night, tipped Kidney off as to her whereabouts and that she was with a man. He went after her, angry and an encounter became a murder;

c) by sheer accident, their paths crossed that night, with fatal results.

Of course, Kidney may not have killed her. "Jack" might have done, or A N Other, but I tend towards the Kidney hypothesis these days.

If he were getting off work, he would be headed north and west. BS man was traveling north to south.

Can we be so precise about the direction in which any man walks in a town? A straight line can be drawn on a map (or a possible direct route traced) but there is no necessity for an individual to take in on a particular occasion or ever?

A man might deviate and go to a favorite pub - out of his way but where his friends go perhaps, or the beer is good, credit allowed? Or he might prefer to follow a street that reverses his direction for a time.

The answer to your question is I simply do not know!! Neither can one hypothesise or extrapolate on such a matter.

Finally, I never know what to make of Schwartz' testimony - not least given the differences in the press reports. I recall once seeing a theory (I think on these boards before the crash) to the effect that a translator had misheard the Hungarian(?) for "knife" as "pipe"!

On the other hand the testimony is full of wonderful circumstantial detail that I would love to be true but cannot trust.

There was once a billboard and TV advert for the "Guardian" newspaper in the UK which seemed to show a "punk" youth pushing an older man without cause. The film was then re-run from a different angle to show that the youth was selflessly (heroically?) pushing the man out of the way of a falling weight from above (building material falling from scaffolding).

I believe that Schwartz testimony may be accurate as far as it goes, except that he had no idea what he was seeing, and interpreted a partial perception of events, drawing erroneous conclusions as if he had seen all. I cannot prove that, its just my sense of the story he gave in both its forms.

Hope this answers your points,

Phil

[lynn cates]

Hello Phil. Thanks for taking the time for this.

I think your b works better than a or c. IF Schwartz is to be believed (I think that he is not), THEN Kidney required some time to get tipsy. On your scenario, if he knew where Liz was to be waiting, he would have had time to drink a bit for courage before the encounter.

"Can we be so precise about the direction in which any man walks in a town?"

I hope so--especially if we intend to give a plausible account. But notice that I am talking merely about general directions.

What I seek most is that plausible account I mentioned above. Notice, I am not necessarily asking that an account be correct, only that it not be contradictory or too strained.

"A man might deviate and go to a favorite pub - out of his way but where his friends go perhaps, or the beer is good, credit allowed? Or he might prefer to follow a street that reverses his direction for a time."

He might indeed. Kidney might get off work, head north and west, stop at a pub, and get tipsy. Now, indeed he may head south again. All that one needs here is a reason for doing so. Perhaps he forgot something at the docks? (Although this does not inspire me, it does provide a non-contradictory account--with medium strain.)

Finally, once one has a few plausible scenarios, one needs only to weigh them one against another to find the least implausible one.

Again, thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

If it was Kidney, wouldn't you expect some sort of loud argument between him and Liz? The club members heard nothing.

Would you expect Liz to be slapped around a little bit by him? There were no marks on her face.

If he were the BS man, he takes a big chance on being recognized by Schwartz and the Pipe Man after the fact. It must have occurred to him that he would be questioned by the police and that he could face a line up. Yet, he chooses to remain rather than flee.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Question for you. Where did little Socialists come from. Did the club members have to adopt? You don't see them as having any interest in sex whatsoever.

c.d.

[Phil H]

cd

If it was Kidney, wouldn't you expect some sort of loud argument between him and Liz? The club members heard nothing.

Wasn't there singing and entertainment going on? People can and do miss things. Wasn't there a thread on here about accoustics (maybe in Mitre Square) where a poster recounted a story in which he slept through a police raid at the next door house, or some such?

Maybe it was a quiet but fierce row.

Would you expect Liz to be slapped around a little bit by him? There were no marks on her face.

Maybe there wasn't any "slapping around". She said something or moved away, he grabbed her and used his knife to slit her throat. Whomever killed her, Liz ended up dead without much bruising it appears.

Phil

[lynn cates]

procreation

Hello CD.

"Where did little Socialists come from[?]"

Socialists/anarchists, like many with non-mainstream views, were propagated by propaganda (forgive the pun).

"You don't see them as having any interest in sex whatsoever [?]"

Actually, they did. Matter of fact, they wrote a great deal about "free love" and considered marriage a form of prostitution, of which they took an EXTREMELY dim view.

Simple fact is, the socialists/anarchists, as a group, were far too poor to afford prostitutes.

I have read reams recently (ooh, alliteration!) about anarchists and socialists--including an entire volume of William Morris' personal letters. If you are interested in pursuing this, I'd be delighted to send along a reading list.

Cheers.
LC

[drstrange169]

Why did the socialists drink camomile tea?

Because they thought all proper tea was theft.

[c.d.]

"Simple fact is, the socialists/anarchists, as a group, were far too poor to afford prostitutes."

Hi Lynn,

What do you base that on? Liz was not a high priced call girl. She operated in a very poor area frequented by very poor men. Don't we always assume that the price of her services was basically equal to the price of a drink? Why would the anarchists be any different than the rest of her customers?

c.d.

[Phil H]

Why do we assume that Liz Stride was soliciting outside the IWMC?

To me all the evidence suggests that she had been on a date well away from her usual haunts.

The flower she wore and the cashews (cashous?) she held seem to indicate (to me at least) that her evening had been a somewhat "romantic" one.

These women were undoubtedly "unfortunate" in every sense of the word, but let's not accuse Stride of something she may not have been guilty of on this occasion.

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

It's "cachous" not cashews. Cashews are nuts.

It is a reasonable assumption that a known prostitute standing outside a club for men by herself late at night is probably soliciting. It is certainly not the only possibility however.

As for the date scenario, we only have evidence as to how the evening started. We don't know what took place before her death. Dates can end.

c.d.

[Phil H]

I don't know why I started spelling Cashous as Cashews!! Maybe I'm nuts!!!

Would a woman probably in her "best" clothes and who had it seems taken considerable pains over her appearance that evening, resort to prostitution as soon as what seems a "romantic" evening had ended.

How can you tell at a glance if a woman is standing outside a Club waiting for someone who has gone inside and someone seeking trade? Surely there are times when even "shilling whores" (a phrase Michael Caine uses in the 1988 series) did not actively seek business.

I agree her being there may have been mistaken as soliciting and led to an assault when she refused; or that she may have been mistaken as a prostitute by "Jack" and killed by him. But somehow I don't find either scenario psychologically convincing.

Phil

[lynn cates]

solution

Hello Phil. Your last 2 posts show remarkable good sense. Too bad they do not fit the lurid stereotype of 5 quarters of a century.

So, thinking like that, sir, you might actually solve these cases.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I am logged in but when I attempt to post it bounces me out and I lose what I have written. Is anybody else having this problem?

Hi Phil,

There is no evidence that Liz had "best" clothes. I also think "considerable pains" is a stretch. We don't know her pre going out routine. Wasn't she know as someone who took pride in her appearance? It is also not unreasonable that she wanted to look good to attract customers. I don't see how we can say conclusively that she was preparing for a date.

If she was seen with any men that night, it does not necessarily imply that she was on a date. They might have been customers who were lonely and willing to pay a little more for her time.

She might have resorted to prostitution that night if she needed a drink and had no money to pay for it.

It is reasonable to assume that someone (Jack) could have assumed she was soliciting given her circumstances.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

research

Hello CD. Sorry, I missed your post. You asked, regarding the anarchist's penury:

"What do you base that on?"

My reply, rigourous research. And that is ALWAYS superior to mere theorising.

Cheers.
LC