Kidney - for and against

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

You are not merely another terminally wrong crackpot, you are a liar. How's that for a deal. Now go find someone else to obsess over cuz my card's full.

Mr. Sparrow,

Did Fisherman recruit you into this mess? Because you're falling into the same traps as he. Yes, the police investigated Kidney. In the case of the inquest, Kidney commented that he thought he knew something about the murder. The policeman told him he could share his information now if he'd like. It turned out he had none...just a theory. There's nothing at all suspicious in any of this. He probably learned his theory from Charles Le Grand, in any event.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"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?"

Strange stuff, Tom. Why ask me a question when you have already stated that you canīt be bothered for time to read my posts?

And it gets stranger: You feel the need to write "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."

For that I pity you, Tom. Paranoia is a terrible thing, and there is more than a whiff of it here. If you feel the need, I will tell you once again what I have told you before, Tom:
I have no wish to compete in a who-knows-most competition with you. I fail to see what use it would be. I have never, not on the old threas and not now, had any trouble to accept and live with the fact that there are heaps of people who are better read up than me on the Ripper. You should try that same feeling; it is relieving, and it may take a lot of your chest. For securitys sake, and if you need me to, I will say it out loud: Tom Wescott probably knows more than I do about the death of Liz Stride. He has probably read more about if and he has definitely written more about it. There! Better?

Now, for the sad part of it. Your established superiority - and this may come as a shock to you, but I donīt know how to break it in a gentle way - does not make you unfallable! That was very much proven on the old boards, when I pointed out that the single piece of rock steady proof you used to establish that Johnston must have smeared Strides hand with blood was wrong!

I suggest that we work from this order fortwith; I have no trouble accepting you as an almighty authority on Stride, and you hve no trouble realizing that almighty authorities are sometimes wrong. Moreover, when they are wrong, they owe it to those less gifted, talented and knowledgeable than themselves to admit that they have made a mistake. if not, there is every chance that those on the ground will live on accepting that even the mistakes made by the experts were in fact truths, like it having been substantiated that Kidney was cleared on sound and watertight grounds, that the cut in Strides throat could only have been delivered by an expert knifesman and that the coroner asked P C Lamb whether he had seen anything in Strides right hand, whereupon he replied in the negative.

Deal, Tom?
Fisherman

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, I'd be interested to know of how many inquests you know where a senior police officer has stood up and questioned a witness in regard to his sworn testimony?
You see it is not a police matter, but a civil matter.
The only requirement of the police is to supply the coroner with witness statement, and then to react to the outcome of the coroner's inquest, which then makes it a police matter.
If a senior police officer feels the need to question a witness at inquest in regard to his sworn testimony, then it does seem to imply that the senior police officer has no prior knowledge of that testimony.
This then seems to imply to me that the senior police officer is attempting to make a police matter out of a civil matter; in other words his basic questioning of the witness at inquest is a clear indication of police interest in his testimony at civil proceedings.
I do believe the coroner was probably at fault for allowing this questioning of a witness in his civil court,as the inquest was convened for one purpose and one purpose alone, determining the cause of death and responsibilty for that death... but the rub is that cause had to be established prior to responsibilty.
And here we see responsibilty being questioned before cause.

[Dan Norder]

Fisherman, no offense, but when you demand that people either agree with you or repeat something that you insist must be wrong you shouldn't be surprised when that doesn't fly. 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. 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.

[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!!!

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.

[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! Itīs 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 wonīt buy unsubstantiable suggestions as facts from the hands of Mr Wescott.

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

[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

[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.

[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 thatīs 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

[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

[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

[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 Strideīs 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...?

[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

[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.