Kidney - for and against

[tji]

hi all

Just posted to aplogise to Sam - got my threads - this and the one c.d started mixed up, and seems I have given himm the credit for starting this thread. Sorry.

[tji]

Hi all

hope you have all kept well?

cool thread c.d - basic and to the point no sidelining here just for or against - forget the bloody hand people just aim straight for the jugular

As you all probbaly already know I am for Michael Kidney killing Stride.

She was the only victim of the C5 to have been killed South of Whitechapel Road.

She was the only victim who was not subjected to stabbing or mutilation.

The Police Doctor suggested that a small knife with a round tip was used to kill Stride. In the earlier murders of Chapman and Nicholls and the later murders of Eddows and Kelly a long bladed knife was used.

The Police Doctor stated at the time he believed her murder to be unconnected to the previous murders.

Public altercation just 15 minutes before her death.

Seperatly these things may not seem to be important however I believe when you place them together they suggest a difference in the killings.

Add to that Kidney was reported to be of the violent/possesive/jealous disposition, we have no proof of his whereabouts, and the fact that he gave a questionable performance at the inquest then I believe his is a viable suspect.


Tj

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Havent all of us either erred or been less than accurate at times? Either purposefully or not. I cant solve your dispute for you, but I can say that neither Fisherman, Dan, Tom or anyone else chiming in.. including me, is 100% correct at all times. Ergo, no reason to cast stones with that perspective, we all live in glass houses. Ive had my run ins with members here when the treatment or the insinuation is such that I cant let it slide, but we return to civility afterwards.

Isnt that more productive?"

Yes it is, Michael. And if we are to have a contest on who dares to be the first to admit that he/she commits errors, then that would be a contest that I feel I could actually win. No problems there.

The problems I have, is that it has been stated that I am a liar, that I misunderstood the main argument about the coroner and Lamb in the bloody hand debate and then refused to admit my mistake, and that I have written an essay riddled with errors on Stride. Not a single thing of this has been substantiated. And though Ripperology is a science where many a question has hundreds of answers to it (which is where Capīn Jacks wet powder enters the picture), this is a totally different thing. For when you state that someone is in error, such a thing can (if correct) and should be backed up by hard evidence. And the same thing goes for stating that someone is lying - with the all important difference that such a thing also includes a malicious intent. I think most posters will be aware of that, since it is something that was picked up at Kindergarten.

So, Mike, this is not a battle of interpretations. It is a case of wilfully pointing me out as a liar and somebody who riddles his texts with faultyness, end of story. And that is where I draw the line, and call upon the responsible ones to make their case. One of them has ducked out by now, whereas the other one has failed to answer. If their silence is the only thing they offer on the matter, I will take that as an answer. And I will stand by my words that cowardness is what is displayed by such a silence.

To this, however, I will add insight that truly deplorable things like this is not what the boards were intended for, and I will gladly move on together with the rest of the participators here to discuss the different topics of the threads.
In this case it means that I will hail Glenns latest post. It carries lots of insight into both the character of the specific person dealt with on the thread, and the far too familiar background which is so often there when we are faced with domestic violence. And there are many factors pointing to Strides death being a domestic, both in background and witness testimony. And that is why I think that "Kidneys background was far from spotless, and he lied about his relationship with Stride - rejected spouses and lovers are, without comparison, the ones absolutely most lightly to inflict violence on their former companions" is an approach to the murder of Stride that is a lot more openminded and productive than the "Kidney was investigated, Kidney was cleared, end of story"-perspective.

The best, all of you!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

To get back to the initial topic of this thread (and to leave the bloody hand aside), it is perfectly reasonable to consider Kidney as the killer of Stride, if it wasn't the Ripper who killed her.
One reason is the fact that he was the victim's spouse (and as we know, cutting the throat of your wife or girlfriend wasn't that uncommon in Victorian days - we can only take the incident in Westminster the same night as the Double event as an example).

The other reason is the indications of his character, in spite of some people's attempts to paint him out as a saint and a poor broken man.
Not only did he lie about that he and Stride had parted on good terms the last time he saw her before the murder. He also had a prior court conviction for being drink and disorderly and using obscene language. Not to mention his rather pathetic and non-sympathetic behaviour at the police station and later at the inquest - a behaviour which shows a rather microscopical sympathy for his dead female companion, where he found it more important to boast and turn the inquest into a farce.
The fact that he also some years later was hospitalized at the infrimary for treatment of syphilis also indicates involvements with prostitutes.

In spite of Tom's rather moving reassurances, we do NOT know if Kidney had an alibi, or what that alibi would have consisted of. All we know is that Swanson stated that people in the victim's circuits had been questioned and that 'no motive could be found'. But it doesn't say anything about alibis, or the reasons for why those people were dismissed, and let's face it: Kidney could just as well have provided a false alibi. He wouldn't be the first and he wouldn't be the last. And surely, if the rather primitive police of 1888 didn't possess any evidence in order to arrest him, he wouldn't need an alibi anyway.
As long as we don't know the names of the people questioned, and what the so called alibies actually were, it is impossible to state things with such certainty.

Welcome to the world of Ripperology.

All the best

[Cap'n Jack]

Bless you Michael, for the world you live in.
In my world it comes down to who can load their guns quicker, but when the powder is damp, you might as well stroll the deck with a fine glass of rare rum in hand, and admire the setting of a Carib sun.
For we deal with wet powder here which will never fire.
My decks are cleared.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen,...

Havent all of us either erred or been less than accurate at times? Either purposefully or not. I cant solve your dispute for you, but I can say that neither Fisherman, Dan, Tom or anyone else chiming in.. including me, is 100% correct at all times. Ergo, no reason to cast stones with that perspective, we all live in glass houses. Ive had my run ins with members here when the treatment or the insinuation is such that I cant let it slide, but we return to civility afterwards.

Isnt that more productive?

My best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:
"The previous thread on the topic more than adequately explained why you were mistaken, and your attempt to pretend it never happened demonstrates either that you have a very selective memory or that you are purposefully trying to be deceptive. Either way, you aren't worth anyone's time"

Thus no substantiation. Shameful is the word for it. "The coroner asked if he had noticed anything in the right hand, and he replied in the negative". Yes, Dan Norder, that previous thread was very telling, just as your refusal to substantiate your allegations and accusations of errors. So go stick your tail between your legs and get lost - long lost! - if that is the way you choose to have it.

Well Tom, your honorable friend chose cowardness, but it at least amounted to showing something. All that is called for now to have this settled is a substantiation from you as to when and how I have lied on these boards. You see, the backside of the coin when you call somebody a liar is that when you can not substantiate it, you automatically become a liar yourself, something you should perhaps have pondered from the outset.

So itīs either substantiation, or I will sense that I am dealing with a ventriloquist and his dummy here. And I will leave it up to you to sort out the roles inbetween you.

Fisherman

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah, what lofty towers the likes of Dan and Tom occupy, and then throw their corrupted and rotten bread to us, the poor plebs who would beg for more of their manna from heaven... which is just stale old toast that sticks in the throat of those who are hungry, but never mind we'll slaughter sheep, cows and even manatees just to get a taste of their shared heaven.
Fisherman, if you want to approach these godly beings you must perform the required rituals, that is only publish stuff that is in Dan's rag, with the approval of Gideon - that's Tom to you - and accept the divine guidance of Dan and Tom that Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper, that Kidney was in Moscow when Stride was killed, and that Le Grand was hiding underneath Dimshits cart when he rolled into Dutfield's Yard and then sprang out with a bunch of grapes in his mouth and some sweetmeats up his asp and through lack of breath suffocated Stride through sheer bullshit.
Meanwhile I understand that Dan and Tom are to have an interview with Jeremy Paxman in an effort to see who actually owns the head that speaks.
Both deny it of course.
But hey, so would I.
Lucky I got a ship and can sail right outta 'ere.
A rum do is dead right, Sam.

[Dan Norder]

Hey Fisherman,

The previous thread on the topic more than adequately explained why you were mistaken, and your attempt to pretend it never happened demonstrates either that you have a very selective memory or that you are purposefully trying to be deceptive. Either way, you aren't worth anyone's time.

[Fisherman]

Cutting things short on this deplorable topic, I am still waiting for a reply from Tom Wescott explaining how he is going to substantiate calling me a liar, just as I am waiting for Dan Norder to explain why he claims that I misread Toms theory on the bloody hand and then refused to admit it. It should also be added that Dan Norder dubbed my essay on Stride here on the boards "error-filled" - and forgot to point out why.

It amounts to a cowardly behaviour to deliver such statements with no substantiation whatsoever. And as I am sure that neither gentleman would like to have such cowardness added to their cv:s, I have good hope to see their respective explanations on these boards shortly.

The best, Tom and Dan!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Mishter Sparrow only to the whores of old Jamaica town.

I went to a party in Jamaica once. It was a rum do.

[Fisherman]

Well, well, Capīn Jack; since boatswabber Wescott and handyman Norder seem to have gone missing, there is only you left to bid a good night. And that suits me just fine!

The best, Capīn!
Fisherman

[Cap'n Jack]

Cap'n Jack to you, Tom.
Mishter Sparrow only to the whores of old Jamaica town.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"you are a liar. How's that for a deal"

I must ask you to point out at what point and in what context you claim that I have lied. Accusations like these are not very nice to see on the boards, and this time around I think that you are going to have to substantiate your claim.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:
"You just set up a situation where you're going to try to claim that any answer just proves that you're right, despite never having provided a good reason why anyone should think you are in the first place."

No, Dan. I am not pressing the point that I would be right. I am pressing the point that Tom could very well be wrong when he writes that Kidney was interrogated and cleared by the police. Different thing, wouldnīt you agree?

As for "One error-filled essay on the Stride case doesn't make you the local expert on the topic, nor does insisting (as you did on the old boards) that Tom was intentionally misrepresenting evidence when it was more that you misread it and then refused to admit your mistake", would you please elaborate?
This is the focal point of that discussion, as it was published on these boards (my post):

"By the way, since you in your earlier post could not remember exactly how you phrased that exchange between Lamb and the coroner (in Ripper Notes), here it is, free of charge:

“Coroner Baxter asked if he had noticed anything in the right hand, and he replied in the negative”. Your exact wording, Tom. (Quoted from Ripper Notes)

And this is how you yourself quoted the source (Times) that led you to this embroidered version of the truth, “The Wescott truth” so to speak:
“Lamb: "...I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.
Coroner: "Did you do anything else to the body?
Lamb: I did not, and would not allow any one to get near the body. Deceased was lying on her side, and her left arm was lying under her.
Coroner: Did you examine her hands?
Lamb: I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast”


I used the excerpt from the Times, as Tom claimed that it was a more trustworthy source than the Daily Telegraph, that I originally used. After having satisfied him on the point, I found that Tom in a post to Howard Brown stated that the Times was a more unreliable source than the DT. That did not enhance my respect for Toms manner of treating sources - or posters - in any fashion.

You claim that I misread Tom and afterwards refused to admit my mistake. That is interesting, for as far as I can see, Tom WAS misleading big time here: The coroner NEVER asked specifically about the right hand and he NEVER received an answer specifically denying that Lamb had seen anything in Strides right hand. If you are of another opinion, it will be interesting to see how you reached it. The salient point here is of course that if it HAD been true that the coroner had asked that specific question and if Lamb HAD answered that question in the negative, then that would have pointed strongly to johnston having bloodied Strides hand. Therefore it was of the utmost importance to show that the question Tom claims was there, in fact never was asked, just as the specific answer claimed never was given.

As for the rest of your post, I am slightly baffled. You state that my "error-filled" essay on Stride does not make me the local expert on the topic, and I have to ask:what is the matter with you guys? When did I ever claim that I WAS? At what time was it stated that my inferior level of knowledge should prohibit me from writing an essay on Stride? Where do I try to pass the exams allowing me to have a view and to point out errors on your behalf? The last time around, when you entered the discussion between Tom and me on the old boards, you did so assuming that the blood was running profusely from Strides neck as Johnston arrived on the scene, remember? I had to point out to you that it had run away into the gutter before that and that it had begun to clot to some extent. So it seems that maybe you are not the local expert yourself, Mr Norder? To me, that is no big deal; I always thought that we must allow for mistakes, long as we admit them when called upon. Would you not agree?

The best,
Fisherman