Kidney - for and against

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Tom,

Firstly, thanks for the kind words about the book cover. I believe our own genius Jaako Lukkanen, however, should have the credit for most of it (the 3D-illustration) while the publisher's official designer added the rest, like the typography. But indeed, my thanks and appreciation for that.

As for Kidney, my point still stands. Kidney is of course not the only viable suspect for the Stride murder, but an important one, based on his character traits and the fact that he actually lied to the police about the situation when he last saw the victim alive. The latter would inded raise the suspicion of any investigator today. His boastful conduct also resembels quite well the behaviour I've come across with men who are typical abusers of women.

It is of course natural to conclude that Kidney had to be one of those 'personal associations' as referred to by Swanson, but again - since we have no further explanation in the files about why those people were cleared (and that, according to Swanson, 'no motive' was found) we can't ASSUME as a FACT that Kidney was investigated or if his alibi even were a matter of investigation. Again, we don't know why those poeple were dismissed, who those people were or if the matter of alibis even were discussed. Anyone with an open mind surely can't assume things based on things that aren't there.

It is perfectly clear from the files that the police rather quickly saw the murder as a work of the Ripper, and this was most likely because they linked it to the 'coincidence' with the Eddowes murder the same night. This has to be considered when evaluating which value the police actually placed in any domestic angle. And apart from Swanson's extremely short mentioning of and brushing off the subject, the police appears to have jumped to the conclusion that she was murdered by the Ripper.
Such circumstances could rather easily explain the lack of focus on Kidney or others.

Needless to say, there could be a number of valid reasons for why Kidney wasn't investigated more thoroughly, but the quick focus on the Ripper would be one of the strongest ones. Just because the police didn't suspect him, doesn't mean that we shouldn't. Because I certainly don't believe that they did everything right or always made the right judgements.

So in short - to state with such certainty that 'Kidney had nothing to do with it' or anything similar - just because Swanson only summoned up the domestic angle in one lousy sentence - is to lean heavily upon assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on our own personal agendas and theories.

All the best

[Tom_Wescott]

My compliment to you on the book cover still stands, since it was your good taste to ask Jaake to take part! Is there any original artwork from you inside the covers? If so, it could be worth the purchase for that alone. For those who don't know, Glenn is an ace pencil artist (or whatever the proper term is).

Regarding Kidney, I'm not merely 'assuming' Michael Kidney was investigated. It's an almost inescapable conclusion. Consider the following:

1) The police said that the statements and alibis of Stride's "closest associates" were looked into. She had no associate closer to her than Kidney.
2) He willingly took himself to the police station, so we have him standing in the police station.
3) He appeared as a witness at the inquest.
4) Abberline headed up the Berner Street murder inquiry, just as he did the Millers Court inquiry. We know that Joe Barnett was fully investigated and his alibi confirmed. Is there any reason to suspect the same care wouldn't have been taken by the same investigators in the Stride murder?

And what I said was that there was no suspicioun attached to Kidney, and that is true from a contemporary standpoint. Not a single one of Stride's friends suspected him. The policemen who came into contact suspected him. None of Kidney's own circle pointed the finger at him. Nothing. And no evidence has come forth since 1888 to allow for so many people to step forth and say 'Michael Kidney killed Stride'. It's just not good history.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

From Tom:

'P.S. Just a reminder, folks. Michael Kidney is innocent of the murder of Stride.'

P.S. Just a reminder, folks. That everyone is innocent of the murder of Stride, because nobody was ever tried or convincted of the murder.

[tji]

Hi all

Hi Tom

I have to say I have spent the day going over books and dissertations and I can't seem to find any info that can state definitivly that I am wrong. The authors are from what I understand quite respected members of the jtr circle so I would like to think they know what they are on about. I think the best outcome would have to be that there is as many pros for Kidney as there are cons.

One question I would like to ask though is why would the Inspector interrupt the coroner and the inquest to ask Kidney a specific question (what the info he had that he had taken to the police station) if he didn't already know the answer - shouldn't he have already been asked the basic questions?


thanks for your time

tj

[Ben]

Well it would appear that Kidney was one clever S.O.B. to come up with that ploy. It would seem to be right up there with Hutchinson insinuating himself into the investigation to throw the police off of the track.

Nah, CD, there was nothing especially clever about Koedatich, Ridgway, Huntley or Code, all of whom did pretty much that. Not that I favour Kidney for Stride's murder, but still...

[Ally]

Oh here we go again with unsupportable claims about serial killers who did nothing of the kind....How's about keeping it on ONE thread.

[Ben]

Errr...nope, they all most definitely "insinuated themselves into the investigation to throw the police off of the track". Rather than initiating another discussion on that topic, I was only responding to CD's suggestion that it required great intelligence to do so, but if anyone else wants to sart that ball rolling agan, I'm here. I'm playing.

If not, back to Kidney.

[c.d.]

Jeez, Ben. Enough with Hutchinson. Take a day off now and then. Just chill, bro. Just chill.

c.d.

[Ben]

Who said anything about Hutchinson?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Tom,

No, the book won't contain any of my artwork (thanks for the kind words). I had a tough deadline, and I also found it more relevant to inlcude as much contempoary pictures as possible, although it contains a number of newly taken photos by Robert Clack on the sites to use as comparions to the old photos.

1) The police said that the statements and alibis of Stride's "closest associates" were looked into. She had no associate closer to her than Kidney.

Actually, 'associates' could mean anyone in her circuits, like friends or other relatives, and for a woman like Stride her friends at the doss houses would make just as valid 'associates' since those were the ones that knew her best since she didn't have any family in England. No doubt, Kidney wouldn't have been the only one included in that line-up. But as I said, even if Kidney was investigated, it doesn't mean they found that line of inquiry imporatnt. I think Swanson brushing the domestic angle all off with one single sentence kind of speaks for itself.
To repeat: the fact that the police almost immediately decided that it was a Ripper murder (no doubt based on the apparence of the Eddowes murder the same night), and that they were subjected to a lot of pressure, indicates that the anyone close to the victim wouldn't be viable as a suspect since they were looking for Jack the Ripper. Needless to say, that angle appears to have been scrapped rather quickly.

To add, we must remember that this was 1888. Even if a person might have been investigated and suspected, they would have needed proof and evidence to nail him for the murder unless he confessed to it or anyone saw him do it - alibi or not. The same must also be considered in Barnett's case.

2) He willingly took himself to the police station, so we have him standing in the police station.
3) He appeared as a witness at the inquest.

Well, the fact that he ent off to the police station and made an *ss of himself is actually one of main reasons for why I suspect him. Because this is type A behaviour for domestic killers - in practically nine cases out of ten the offender contacts the police himself (but often lets someone else find the body). It doesn't take any intelligence, simply because it's self preservation and isn't very intelligent at all (does Bury ring a bell?) - when domestic offenders contacts the police themselves today it generally makes the modern police suspicious immediately because it's based on experience that domestic killers do this.

Nor do I understand why him appearing at the inquest would be a valid point. He was called at the inquest, but as a witness and of course that wouldn't stop him from being a suspect (Leather Apron was called at the Chapman inquest while still being a suspect). The purpose of an inquest is not to accuse a suspect, but to sort out the circumstances, identify the victim and establish the cause of death.

4) Abberline headed up the Berner Street murder inquiry, just as he did the Millers Court inquiry. We know that Joe Barnett was fully investigated and his alibi confirmed. Is there any reason to suspect the same care wouldn't have been taken by the same investigators in the Stride murder?

What care? How do we know that Abberline and the police didn't screw up both investigations?
Again - we don't know what happened or what was said during Barnett's or (if he even was questioned) Kidney's interviews, so therefore we can't speak of them being 'fully investigated'. Not until the content of those interviews pop up from some archive can we establish if they were 'fully' investigated by OUR standards.
We must remember that even if they would be satisfactory investigated in 1888 doesn't mean those investigations would fit that criteria for us in 2008 - the handling of the Hutchinson statement, for example, would hardly be considered satisfactory by modern standards.
As for the Kelly murder, that didn't happen within 45 minutes of an established Ripper murder the same night. This is what makes the Stride murder unique because the police linked it to the Eddowes murder and to the Ripper - this leaves room for the possibility that the domestic angle was crapped before it was fully investigated.

All the best

[Fisherman]

"Again - we don't know what happened or what was said during Barnett's or (if he even was questioned) Kidney's interviews, so therefore we can't speak of them being 'fully investigated'."

Amen, cadet Andersson!

"As for the Kelly murder, that didn't happen within 45 minutes of an established Ripper murder the same night. This is what makes the Stride murder unique because the police linked it to the Eddowes murder and to the Ripper - this leaves room for the possibility that the domestic angle was crapped before it was fully investigated."

And that makes Amen number two; you could get religious for less!

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Ally]

Ben, really,

Every time someone says something negative about Hutchinson's candidacy, you don't have to jump in and defend him like he's your date to the prom.

[c.d.]

Ben, really,

Every time someone says something negative about Hutchinson's candidacy, you don't have to jump in and defend him like he's your date to the prom.

That one made me laugh, Ally.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

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:

[ATTACH]474[/ATTACH]

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?

Hello

With regard to how Kidney may have attracted Stride`s location in Berner St.
His occupation is down as waterside labourer, and therefore, may have had reason to pass down Commercial Rd.

[Sam Flynn]

His occupation is down as waterside labourer, and therefore, may have had reason to pass down Commercial Rd.

Hi Jon,

Possibly - however he'd have to have glanced towards the southern half of a gloomy side-street heading off Commercial Road (Berner Street), and recognised Liz from a distance in the gloom. Alternatively, he would have to have passed nearer to Dutfield's Yard or its vicinity at precisely the time when Stride happened to be there.