Kidney - for and against

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

Just posted to aplogise to Sam

No worries, tji.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

First, let me say that I saw the cover of your book in the new Rip and it is AWESOME. Jumped off the page at me. Shame I can't read Swedish! Anyway, regarding your post, the report referred to Stride's 'closest associates', which certainly would refer to Michael Kidney. It also discussed alibis, despite your protestations to the contrary. Could Kidney have provided a false alibi? Of course he could have. But do we have proof he did? No. Is there any statement inferring as much? No. So I can't understand why you're willing to discredit actual statements by the police to the effect of their investigation into the whereabouts of Liz's close associates, but are perfectly willing to put forth completely unsupported scenarios as though they're likely. And I keep reading that Kidney was "violent". Why is this? Not one of Stride's associates felt that Kidney could have been her killer. There's absolutely no suspicion attached to the man, except what modern theorists want to make up. As I've said before, in the off-chance that JTR was not Stride's killer, it sure as heck wasn't Kidney.

Fisherman,

As you will have known from viewing my 'activity' on my profile, I haven't been on the Casebook since my last post, so my silence is obviously not one of 'cowardice'. You've lied about me many, many times and my 'substantiation' is simply to refer people to any one of your last 100 posts. And to see you call the likes of Dan Norder a coward is frickin' hilarious. We put our names in our posts, you hide behind nickname.

Cap'n Jack,

So, are you AP Wolf or just a reasonable facsimile?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Is there any single Kidney supporter out there who actually has a clue to the real facts and not just the same old moth-eaten mistakes that have been corrected a billion times? I don't think so, because those with a grasp of the facts see that there's absolutely no case for Kidney as Stride's killer. You're nice, lovable guy, TJI, and I like you, but this was a pathetic display.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Fisherman,

As you will have known from viewing my 'activity' on my profile, I haven't been on the Casebook since my last post, so my silence is obviously not one of 'cowardice'. You've lied about me many, many times and my 'substantiation' is simply to refer people to any one of your last 100 posts. And to see you call the likes of Dan Norder a coward is frickin' hilarious. We put our names in our posts, you hide behind nickname."

Christer Holmgren, Tom. Of Helsingborg, Sweden. Still not Clive Johnson, honestly. I prefer to write under the name Fisherman, but just so we are square here.
And now point out to me at what occasion I have lied about you, instead of just flinging unsubstantiated allegations around you. Referring to my "last 100 posts" will not do. Few of them were directed your way - although you nourish a strange belief that my life is largely devoted to your person - so I fail to see what you are after here.
It will be interesting to see you pointing out one single, clear cut piece, where I have lied about you or anybody else on these boards, just as it would have been interesting to hear that courageous mate of yours substantiate HIS allegations - which, by the way, he never did. Ïn my book, that spells coward. In capital letters.

I expect to have that substantiation of yours on my computer tomorrow. Do not disappoint me, Tom!

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Okay, Fisherman, I'll play. Every time you've stated that "Tom is wrong" was a lie, because I was not. Every time you've you've commented on my thought processes to others, you've intentionally misrepresented me, and in my book, that's a lie. This might be hard for you to swallow but you're the ONLY ONE on these boards who needs me or Dan to substantiate our claims. It's pretty well accepted gospel that you're a hell-bent crackpot with a boner for me. Something about the Berner Street murder seems to bring 'em out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Okay, Fisherman, I'll play. Every time you've stated that "Tom is wrong" was a lie, because I was not. Every time you've you've commented on my thought processes to others, you've intentionally misrepresented me, and in my book, that's a lie."

Right, Tom. Before I point this post of yours out for what it is, I will take the opportunity to thank you for at long last providing an answer.

And what does that answer amount to? It amounts to state that my opposing you on different points, automatically turns me into a liar.

Coupled with your former post, where you assert that you have never been backed up against a wall in any Ripper-related topic and that I can never win an argument against you, a very sad picture of a deeply troubled man emerges. If this is what Ripperology has done to you, Tom, I think that it is way past time for you to do something else. And that is not scorning, it is my honest advice.

Tom, there comes a time in anybodys life, when acceptance of your own shortcomings is of the essence. True knowledge lies not in telling the rest of the world that they can never be right against you. True knowledge lies in realizing that the most useful part you may pick up along the road, is the one telling you that as your gathered knowledge grows, so should the insight that it will never reach a point where it cannot be proven insufficient.

I will offer you one small thing that goes to show what I mean in our particular topic.
You stated on the old boards that you could not make heads or tails of what Blackwell testified on Strideīs position in the yard. I wrote an essay that showed that Blackwells testimony spoke of the exact same postion of the body as did the other main witnesses.
That, Tom, is an example where I had an answer, whereas you did not. Such things happen, cruel though it may seem to you. And if you use this snippet to test the specific weight of your suggestion that I lie whenever I state that you are wrong, you can see for yourself what happens:
I am telling you that you WERE wrong when you stated that Blackwells words on the matter were beyond comprehension. And that does not make me a liar.

Now, Tom, as far as I am concerned, you have made a fool of yourself on this matter. And by now the rest of the boards know as much too. You called me a liar, and you had nothing to show for it.
In the future, I suggest that you weigh your words on issues like this carefully. I will call your cards each and every time you fail to do so.

That, mind you, does NOT make me a hell-bent crackpot with a boner for you. The only thing it makes me is somebody who will not take unsubstantiated crap from rude posters who are careless with the truth.
The fact that you are the target here, Tom, shows not that I have any interest at all in your person. God forbid. It only shows that the rest of the posters have made far better use of their respective upbringings than you have.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Again, Fisherman, you are a boastful liar. Got any other tricks, cuz this one's getting old. Seriously. You approach the case from the perspective of your personal theories and biases and then try to fit the facts to those. It's no wonder that my more practical approach offends you so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah dear old Tom-Tom, bangs his drum and fully expects the world to march to his discord.
The fact that Kidney was actually questioned by a senior police officer in a civil inquest - where the police are either witness or silent observer - does seem to show that the police had not gained an opportunity to fully question Kidney to their satisfaction. This might well have transpired when Kidney actually presented himself to the police as the outraged and concerned partner of Stride when he was, on his own admission, as drunk as a skunk.
Obviously the police would not have been able to question Kidney until he was sober, this is, and was, the law of the land.
So it does appear that Kidney was never fully investigated by the police; and without a direct remit from the inquest to do so, the police would have had no reasonable cause to question Kidney after the inquest.
For my money, Kidney appeared to be well aware of the fact that the police would be unable to question him when drunk, so he went on a drunk, leaving the police with only one option, arrest him on suspicion and let him sober up in the cells for 24 hours. Given the fact that popular and police opinion dictated that the murder of Stride was part of a series committed by the Whitechapel Murderer, one can understand the reluctance of the police to arrest someone who might have had a solid alibi for the earlier murders, when the person who could provide that alibi had just been murdered herself.
Catch 22 just went to 23.

[c.d.]

Hi Cap'n Jack,

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.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott tries:

"Again, Fisherman, you are a boastful liar. Got any other tricks, cuz this one's getting old. Seriously. You approach the case from the perspective of your personal theories and biases and then try to fit the facts to those. It's no wonder that my more practical approach offends you so."

And this of course has nothing at all to do with the issue here (hands up, those of you who are surprised). What we were discussing, Tom, was whether you could substantiate your allegations of lying on my behalf. You could not, of course. For that I have called you a coward. Now you force me to do that again, for cowardice is what it amounts to.

You persist now, Tom, and itīs time for you to stop. If not, I will turn to the administrators of these boards and ask them to take whatever measures they fell appropriate to put an end to your ravings. Mind you, I would prefer NOT to, since I will stand by what I have always said; sensibly used, your knowledge is useful to the boards. But long as you refuse to shape up and do some good here, I for one would be more than happy to see you banned from the boards.

As for your "practical approach", I suggest to turn to one that is practical to Ripperology and your fellow boardsmen, and not only to your own purposes. But that is another story altogether, and one that I will not pursue until the issue between you and me is settled.


Oh, and one more thing. Donīt, Tom, call me boastful. In fact, donīt call anybody boastful, regardless of who we are speaking. Thatīs just too much, and I much sense you put yourself in peril of being ridiculed for it.

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

You're boastful. And you can call me coward all you want now, because you'll be calling me Uncle when I'm shoving a dog biscuit down your throat and a hungry chihuahua up your a$$.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Just a reminder, folks. Michael Kidney is innocent of the murder of Stride. There's no suspicion against him, except that which exists in the overactive imaginations of the very, very few.