Kidney - for and against

[Sam Flynn]

As the "Cut Throat" thread is morphing into a discussion around Michael Kidney's possible role in Stride's murder, I thought it better to open up the discussion here.

One of the difficulties I face with Kidney's candidacy as the killer of Liz Stride is this: how on earth did he find her? Note the green circles at top left and bottom right of this map:



With the multiplicity of possible locations that separated Kidney's lodging house [top left] and the scene of the murder [bottom right], how on earth did he manage to track her down in Dutfield's Yard?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn asks:
"With the multiplicity of possible locations that separated Kidney's lodging house [top left] and the scene of the murder [bottom right], how on earth did he manage to track her down in Dutfield's Yard?"

That is, Sam, IF he really set out to track her down! There are always the haphazard possibilities offered by pure chance, and if we read the Star´s take on Schwartz walk down Berner Street, we get this picture:

"As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alleyway where the body was found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her."

No mentioning of a purposeful walk on B S mans behalf here. It seems a lot more like sheer coincidence; he is tipsyly strolling along, and there she is, all of a sudden.

The other possibility would of course be that somebody in Kidneys circuit of aquaintances had seen Stride, appearing to be soliciting outside the yard. At the inquest, he gave the impression of having a number of friends, perhaps with a slightly questionable character, just as he would have done thousands of work-hours on the docks, gaining lots of aquaintances. Any of these aquaintances may of course have reported to Kidney having seen his ex-companion, and there you are.

If we are to elaborate on it, Kidney may even have told his friends to keep an eye out for Stride, along the lines: "I´ll be at the Ringer´s in the evenings. Make sure you tell me if you find her!". There was ample opportunity for him to make his mind up and do the walk to Berner Street, since Stride was there for a lengthy time. That would dissolve your mystery to a significant extent, I feel, just as it would put pressure on Kidney to show his friends that he was not going to take the insult of Stride leaving him light-heartedly.

With no proof, it is a realm of opportunities...

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, on the old boards I did find a very similar case - in the same time period and locality - to the Stride murder where an ex-boyfriend had followed the victim for most of the night, and as she stopped to talk to someone, he, in a fit of temper, walked past her and cut her throat with a single sweep, she collapsed into the gutter, and he walked on his way.
Now that is simple ain't it?

Another scenario is of course that Stride came under the protection of another pimp or bully after leaving Kidney, and that Kidney hearing of this went out that night to specifically threaten or harm Stride and her new pimp.
The altercation that took place in Berner Street that night does have more elements of this than a lone killer suprising his victim in the dead of night.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Chapman/Stride Connection

The altercation that took place in Berner Street that night does have more elements of this than a lone killer suprising his victim in the dead of night.

I would have to disagree. Schwartz reported following a man from Commercial Street into Berner Street. So this man was NOT following Stride. As the man reach the gates of Dutfield's Yard, he turned to talk to Stride. Either she initiated this, he was turning into the yard and found her in the way, or he happened to notice her standing in the dark and initiated the discussion. It was not a loud or angry discussion. There's absolutely nothing about this scenario that suggests an acquaintance of Stride's. Quite the opposite exactly, especially when one considers that the club and the street were not regular (or even semi-regular) haunts of hers. Moving on...we find Stride dead but otherwise not damaged. There was absolutely no sound of struggle or angry yelling heard by anyone nearby - and there were lots of people nearby. In short, there is absolutely nothing about the affair that suggests a domestic homicide.

The fact that BS Man manhandled Stride and she fell to the ground softly saying 'no' is used by many to figure in a person familiar with her. Let's consider a few facts:

* an enclosed yard overlooked by windows behind which people are living.
* a brief struggle in which the victim does not yell but only offers the softest of resistance.
* said woman found dead of a throat wound a while later.

The above not only describes the circumstances of the Stride murder, but also the crime previous to hers...Annie Chapman. Let's not forget that Albert Cadosche heard two people talking, someone softly saying 'no', and a thump against the fence. Transplant that scenario onto the pavement outside Dutfield's Yard and you have Schwartz's statement.

So, is the behavior described by Schwartz really as conflicting with Jack's as we've always believed? Another woman, Eddowes, was found murdered in a similar fashion only 45 minutes later and a hop and skip away. Unless Michael Kidney committed that murder as well, is there really any reason to suppose him more likely than the Ripper to have killed Stride?

Kidney was investigated, Kidney was cleared. Kidney was far too old to have been BS Man and would have looked it. Kidney had a very prominent moustache that would have been an identifying characteristic. BS Man did not have such a moustache. In order to put Kidney in frame, his supporters (or would that be detractors since they're accusing him of murder?) conclude that the police were inept and Schwartz got everything wrong. Lord knows this does happen a lot, but is there anything tangible to suggest that was the case here? No.

It is assumed by many that Kidney was regularly violently abusive towards Liz, but there's no evidence of this. None of her friends...not a one...is on record anywhere supporting this. Quite the contrary exactly.

In short, Kidney is very, very unlikely to have been the killer of Stride. Jack the Ripper, on the other hand...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Apart from Kidney's own drunken visit to the police station there is not a shred of material or evidence to show that Kidney was ever interviewed by the police, or cleared of complicity in the crime.
In fact even at inquest a senior police officer in the investigation appeals to Kidney to give his reasons for his drunken visit to the police station, but Kidney refuses to do so, even when hard pressed by the officer and court.
If Kidney had been interviewed by the police prior to the inquest then this officer would have had absolutely no need to question Kidney at inquest.
This does show conclusively that the police had not interviewed Kidney at any stage of their investigation prior to inquest.

The fact that Stride is witnessed rebuffing the advances of a client at 12.45 that night by saying 'No, not to-night; some other night', strongly indicates that she was meeting someone else in an arrangement made earlier.
I would suggest this is Kidney.

[Tom_Wescott]

Apart from Kidney's own drunken visit to the police station there is not a shred of material or evidence to show that Kidney was ever interviewed by the police, or cleared of complicity in the crime.

In the police reports still available to us it makes quite clear that her close associates were investigated and their alibis confirmed. Also, Kidney was a scheduled participant at the inquest and was therefore questioned by the police prior.

In fact even at inquest a senior police officer in the investigation appeals to Kidney to give his reasons for his drunken visit to the police station, but Kidney refuses to do so, even when hard pressed by the officer and court.

This is not correct. His reason for his drunken outburst at the police station was already known - his girlfriend had been killed. He was encouraged to share any information about the murderer he might have at the inquest. When it was clear he had no information - just a theory - the matter was dropped.

If Kidney had been interviewed by the police prior to the inquest then this officer would have had absolutely no need to question Kidney at inquest.
This does show conclusively that the police had not interviewed Kidney at any stage of their investigation prior to inquest.

It does nothing of the kind. The officer asked Kidney if he had any NEW evidence to share. When it became clear that Kidney was merely sharing a theory (probably one he'd learned following his interrogation), all interest was lost.

The fact that Stride is witnessed rebuffing the advances of a client at 12.45 that night by saying 'No, not to-night; some other night', strongly indicates that she was meeting someone else in an arrangement made earlier.
I would suggest this is Kidney.

You're referring to the evidence of James Brown, who was not certain he saw Stride. The description of the man he gave fit neither BS Man nor Kidney, but resembled Pipeman. And her words 'not tonight, some other night' mean only what they say. Any other interpretation is mere guesswork.

No offense, Cap'n, but this illustrates my point that any argument for Kidney as Stride's killer relies on a series of misinterpreted data, questionable interpretations, and a casual regard for the facts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes both:

"Kidney was cleared" and, on the topic of the meaning of Strides words "Not to-night; some other night", "Any other interpretation is mere guesswork".

Fun stuff, Tom! And as good an illustration an any to how that mind of yours works; things that you need to rule out to enhance your own view on the matter is ruled out as guesswork, whereas your own guesswork is ruled in as proof! Clever, clever tactics! And so SUBTLE!

I will put you to the test, to clear this thing up once and for all. It is easy enough - if you answer. I have noticed that you avoid to answer the question I have asked you on Stride´s cut on another thread.

This is how we will do it: I will provide you with two statements. One of them is correct. The other may be either correct or false; we do not know since it is unsubstantiable. All you have to do, Tom, is to point out which is which.

Here goes:

A. There is reason to believe that the police would have interested themselves for Kidney, and thus they probably questioned him. The outcome of this interrogation, if it took place, is something we have no records of, and thus he may either have been cleared, just as he may have provided the police with a false alibi or simply stated that he slept through his former fiancées murder.

B. Kidney was investigated, Kidney was cleared.

To those listening in, I will endeavour to guess the outcome; Tom will avoid to answer. And if he does, though all of us KNOW for a fact that alternative A is the correct one, Tom will be physically hindered to admit it. He will not be able to utter those words, the pain will overcome him.

Just a guess. But an educated one, believe me!

The best, all!
Fisherman

Pssst, Tom! We are waiting...?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Before I [and others] slip into a light coma regarding Kidney and many other similar pointless arguments, may I suggest that, following the digital tsunami which has overwhelmed Casebook, we all work together in a spirit of cooperation?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

Anyone following the Stride follies on here already knows I more or less ignore your crap, so suggesting I'm 'avoiding' your arguments is just you manipulating the situation. My posts speak for themselves, as do yours. Whether or not one or both of us is onto something good, or we're both raving lunatics, is up for everyone else to decide. But from this point forward I'd appreciate you no longer making this about me or you. There are others participating in the discussion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

No answer! And why, oh why, Tom, am I not surprised? When up against the wall you resort to your normal tactics, and call your opponents posts "crap", but I think that you are right on one point: the other posters WILL see who is pressing unpressable points.

I will admit that my post was an unconventional one, but over time I have come to the conclusion that it takes unconventional methods to get answers from you. And in all fairness, why is it that you are so annoyed by the two questions I have put to you, and that you have left unanswered? They are both of much the same character. You claim:
a/ that evidence shows that the person that cut Strides throat was an experienced knife-wielder with knowledge of exactly where to cut so as to cause a fatality.
b/ that Kidney was interrogated, and subsequentially cleared.

I mean that this is going too far, considering the evidence available to us, and therefore I ask you to provide us with substantiation. There is nothing strange about that, Tom - that is something that is very much standard procedure on these boards: when you sense a bluff, you call it, and that´s what I have done. Moreover, next time over you try the same scheme, I will do so again. We owe it to each other on these boards to do so. And no matter how sensitive a creature you are, if you want to play, you will be asked to play by the rules. And that is no issue between just you and me, Tom. It is everybodys responsibility, the reason being that in the end, it ensures a healthy clearing of false and/or unsubstantiable statements put forward as facts.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Supe]

Tom,

Whether or not one or both of us is onto something good, or we're both raving lunatics, is up for everyone else to decide.

I vote for the latter option!

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

A few points:

* Regarding Stride in specific and Ripperology in general, I've never, ever been 'backed into a wall'. Nor is that likely to happen. That might be your experience, but it's not mine.

* I did not call your posts crap, I called the behavior evinced in them crap, namely your crusade against me.

* The unpleasant truth is that I stand on much firmer ground than you. Accept it. If what you're looking for is a fight, go find a weaker opponent. You can't win against me. That's the simple truth. But I'm not looking for a fight, so leave me be. I don't respond to your crap because I don't consider your input or attitude to be worthy of my time.

* Stride was not killed by Kidney. If she were, Kidney was a brilliant man who managed to fool everyone from Stride to her friends to his own friends to Schwartz to the police. Is that easier to accept than his innocence?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Simon Wood writes:

"Before I [and others] slip into a light coma regarding Kidney and many other similar pointless arguments, may I suggest that, following the digital tsunami which has overwhelmed Casebook, we all work together in a spirit of cooperation?"

Hmmm, Simon; I did not read your suggestion until I had answered Toms post. And since I just delivered a verbal trashing in my last post, it may of course sound strange to you when I say that I like what you are throwing forward. But really, I do! It´s just that I have a very hard time to have my posts called crap by somebody who ducks perfectly reasonable demands for substantiation on points like those Tom has put forward as universal truths.

I am a firm believer in exchanging in a cordial and civilized tone, and when such an exchange is offered, I will readily and happily accept it. But being told by another poster that he "more or less ignores my crap", I find such an attitude very offensive, and I am much less inclined to exchange on a friendly level.
My first posts on the boards were on the topic of Strides bloodied right hand, and they came about as I found that Tom had published a lengthy essay in Ripper Notes based on a false assumption. To me, that explains why he feels that he needs to speak about crap and rambling on my behalf. To those who think me rude in my exchanges with him, I hope it explains why I won´t buy unsubstantiable suggestions as facts from the hands of Mr Wescott.

The very best, Simon. And thanks for caring.
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi folks,

I think Kidney, by his recent split and bizarre comments at the inquest is a potential suspect, but I dont believe he matches Broadshouldered Mans description. And personally I see him as the primary suspect, assuming Schwartz was telling the truth.

Kidney might be interesting in this respect though, there must have been lots of ground level talk about Jack on the streets, people who thought they knew him, people that saw something they found suspicious but never told police about...maybe Kidney thought he knew something, something he heard in that way. Maybe from Liz. As a matter of fact, Kate might well have heard something also.

Interesting possible link from kill One to kill Two if so. Were women silenced that night?

My best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

I see you talk to EVERYONE like they're an idiot and not just me. I suppose I should feel comforted by that, but for some reason, I don't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S Don, that's a point I'm sure won't see much debate!!!