Kidney - for and against

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If Stride was an occasional prostitute (although we may - note that I say 'may' - have some small indications of that she might not have been indulging in this this particular night), then she probably had used this street before as a spot. It is quite common for prostitutes to use the same spots repeteadly in order for some of their more regular customers to find them more easily.

If so, then Kidney might have been well aware of this spot from earlier occasions when she'd disappear from home for periods of time. It is even quite possible that he'd walked this street other nights after she left him the last time, but didn't find her there until this particular incident.
And of course, as others have said here, he could have found out about it from other people that he knew.

So I really don't see the problem.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

Blimey!
I wouldn't want to do that to you, Fisherman.

All the best

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Thanks for that, TJI. Perhaps all my research is wrong then. If you'd be so kind, please provide the name/source for the reputable author who wrote the following:

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.

And please also provide the source on Dr. Phillips where you learned the following:

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

And from the same post of yours, we also have:

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.

I'd love to learn the source for Kidney having been violent/possessive/jealous. Certainly a lone, abandoned complaint against him during a three year relationship isn't your evidence for this? And although we have no proof of his 'whereabouts', the fact that the police checked out the alibis of all of Stride's associates would surely suggest that THEY had an idea of his whereabouts, would it not? And how was his 'performance' at the inquest "questionable"? Pathetic, yes, but questionable? We're all here to learn, so I'd be most grateful if you'd share your unique sources with us. Thanks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

And your 'unique source', Tom, to absolutely show us that Kidney was questioned by the police?
And your explanation of why the police were still questioning Kidney at inquest?

[tji]

Hi Tom

Thanks for that, TJI. Perhaps all my research is wrong then. If you'd be so kind, please provide the name/source for the reputable author who wrote the following:

Oops

I, of course didn't mean anything of the sort. I respect your opinions and will admit all day long that you have more jtr knowledge than me.
My sources are The Sourcebook and also dissertations from Casebook.



And please also provide the source on Dr. Phillips where you learned the following:

The same place.





I'd love to learn the source for Kidney having been violent/possessive/jealous. Certainly a lone, abandoned complaint against him during a three year relationship isn't your evidence for this? And although we have no proof of his 'whereabouts', the fact that the police checked out the alibis of all of Stride's associates would surely suggest that THEY had an idea of his whereabouts, would it not? And how was his 'performance' at the inquest "questionable"? Pathetic, yes, but questionable? We're all here to learn, so I'd be most grateful if you'd share your unique sources with us. Thanks.

First off his violent nature. I would imagine tha Liz would not bother reporting a 'little beating' to the Police. So the fact that she reports this I would think means it would have been quite substantial. As for the frequency I don't think that really matters violence is violence no matter how often.

Jealousy/possesiveness could be the fact that he tried to keep her under lock and key. She also called during his absence and took away some things.



I hope you realise that this isn't about proving you wrong Tom, it is about me learning from the resources I have available - be it the dissertations, the books or the boards, yourself included.
Of course I am going to question what you say as it doesn't gel with my opinion.

Best I can do at the moment, Tom, let me know if anything sticks in your craw!!

[Tom_Wescott]

And your 'unique source', Tom, to absolutely show us that Kidney was questioned by the police?
And your explanation of why the police were still questioning Kidney at inquest?

AP, my source that absolutely shows Kidney was questioned by the police is the reference in the reports where it says all of her close associates were questioned. It did not say 'all of her close associates except for the crazy drunk in our police station who spend three years with her and recently broke up.' Unless you can show that all the investigators were retards, I'd say it's a simple matter of common sense that Kidney would have been questioned.

As for why the police were 'still questioning' Kidney at the inquest, it's simply because he mentioned his 'theory', which he probably had not concocted/learned at the time he was questioned by the police. I assume you're aware that witnesses are often interviewed a number of times over an extended period of time?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

TJI,

Thanks for the reply. Please consider if the following were true:

* Dr. Phillips stated that Eddowes, and not Stride, was from a hand different than that which slew Chapman.

* That Dr. Phillips saw absolutely no reason to suppose the knife used to kill Stride was different from the one the Ripper had used.

* That Kidney is not known to have kept Stride under lock and key.

If you were to find out the above were true, would it change your opinion regarding Kidney's guilt? Would you then agree there's little reason to suspect him, or are you married to the idea no matter what the truth is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Not at inquest by a police officer they ain't, Tom.
Exceptional circumstance and all that.
As I think you know, an inquest is there to establish cause of death, the questioning of a witness at that inquest by an investigating police officer does seem to suggest that the police were attempting to tamper with that due process by the suggestion - implicit and inherent in the questioning of Kidney at inquest - that this witness was somehow involved in the cause of death.
There is really no other explanation.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott tries:

"Dr. Phillips stated that Eddowes, and not Stride, was from a hand different than that which slew Chapman"

Dr Phillips asserted that there were great differences between Stride and Chapman, and you know that very well, Tom. What you are doing here, is to try to make some sort of statement that goes to show that Phillips meant that Strides and Chapmans deaths were more or less perfect parallels.
You really need to get Jack on stage in Dutfields Yard, don´t you, Tom? Thus you leave out what goes against your own opinion, whereas you count in what can support you.

Ergo, you leave out that Phillips comparison between Chapman and Eddowes was in all probability a comparison of the eviscerations, and not of the throat-cuts. This, of course, effectively rules out Phillips´possibility to make such a comparison between Stride and Chapman, since Stride was never eviscerated. You are, in other words, comparing apples to pears here, and that won´t do.

You are probably not unaware of another detail either; Phillips laid his reputation on the line by stating that Chapman evinced great medical skill. When Eddowes was found, he was faced with the choice of either admitting that the perpetrator was not Harley Street-experienced, or standing by his former evaluation. It would not be the first time that prestige got the better of sense.
This also goes to comment on your Phillips-saw-no-reason-to-believe-in-any-blade-difference-theory, as far as Stride contra Chapman is regarded. I myself am having trouble remembering Phillips asserting that the weapon that cut Strides throat would have been very sharp, narrow, pointed and six to eight inches long. If you give it some hard afterthought, I think you will be able to come up with the reason why - reluctantly, of course, since it does not fit the way you have chosen to lay out your arguments here. But there is no way around it, is there?

As for the lock and key bit, it pretty well tallies with the reoccurring chit-chat on Kidneys violence. You usually state that we have no evidence of anybody pointing Kidney out as violent – conveniently avoiding the event in 1887 when Stride reported that nice bloke of hers to the police, and then, for some reason, chose not to show up in court to follow it through.
Maybe it was just a mean joke on her behalf.
Maybe she had forgotten about the date and time.
...or maybe she was just to afraid to do it.
Take your pick, Tom. But tread carefully, for if you slip up in the slightest, you ar faced with a real mess, are you not? Best avoid it ...

This all of course leaves us with no absolute proof that he did abuse her physically – but a clear indication that he did! Now, since you want us believing that Kidney was thoroughly questioned and subsequently cleared by the police, relying on a paper giving some indication of it, I feel that it is strange that you pick that one paper out as absolute proof, whereas the indications of the other report are left disregarded by you.
Then again, it was not all that hard a choice for you to make, was it?

On the dead Stride, a padlock key was found, and it has been suggested that Kidney tried to padlock her into their room, to prevent her from leaving him. Since the implications of this combination would be very detrimental to your chosen reasoning, it is easy to see why you won´t have it. To you, Kidney was a broken old man, displaying no likeness at all - was that not how you put it and wanted us to believe? - with Strides BS man. Why, even the length of the moustache varied enormously, did it not?
And no worries, Tom, if that is your choice, you are entitled to it.
It does NOT go, however, to disallow others to make other interpretations than the one you do of the material existing. And though you have pointed Tji out as a loveable guy in your former posts, I see no need for her to be swayed by something as patently weak as this.

Fisherman

[tji]

Hi Tom

If you were to find out the above were true, would it change your opinion regarding Kidney's guilt? Would you then agree there's little reason to suspect him, or are you married to the idea no matter what the truth is?

How am I supposed to answer this one Tom, if I say that my opinion would still be the same then I would be classed as being obtuse. If i say I would change my opinion I would be classed as being fickle!!

As for finding the truth I think that is why the majority of people come to the boards. I'm not ashamed to say that if you could offer me proof to the contrary I would admit to being wrong - can you say the same.


Thanks
Tj

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Fisherman,

Excellent post, that.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

* Dr. Phillips stated that Eddowes, and not Stride, was from a hand different than that which slew Chapman.

From the inquest, day 4, Monday October 5:

[Coroner:] Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?
[Phillips:] There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.

All the best

[Jimi]

Differences

Hi All
Hi Tji

I just wondered if this would be of any interest to you regarding the differences in the knives used?
On 2nd October, 1888, at the inquest into the death of Liz Stride, Dr. George bagster phillips testified.........
" a short knife such as a shoemakers well-ground knife, would do the same thing".

The following is an extract from `The Times` 3rd September,1888.
Subject, Polly Nicholls inquest.
Mr. Henry LLewellyn,surgeon, of 152 Whitechapel Road stated that at 4 o`clock on Friday morning, he was called to Bucks Row.........That morning he made a post-mortem examination of the body, (during which ), the cuts must have been made by a long bladed knife, moderately sharp and with great violence.
Hope this is of use.
Keep Well
Jimi

[Tom_Wescott]

I see the Swedes (Glenn and Fish) are back to isolating quotes and injecting them with more importance than the words themselves demand. Oh well.

As for finding the truth I think that is why the majority of people come to the boards.

I would have to strongly disagree with that.

I'm not ashamed to say that if you could offer me proof to the contrary I would admit to being wrong - can you say the same.

I absolutely can say the same. I enjoy being wrong, because that means I've learned something. But then I actually bother to do my best to learn the truth before proclaiming I know it. That saves me much embarrassment. I've been waiting for someone else to come along and point out your rather screaming errors, but it's clear to me now none of the other current posters or readers to this thread have a flipping clue what they're talking about, and aren't capable of correcting the errors, so we'll just let the matter rest there. I've corrected the same errors on the Stride threads repeatedly, over and over. It doesn't do any good and if anyone actually gives two craps about the truth, they ain't talkin'. That's why I had to strongly disagree with your notion that everyone is 'looking for the truth'. I don't see ANY of that here and it frustrates the hell out of me. So one of these days I'll just put out a book and be done with the damned thing. Then all the crackpots like Fish who stalk me around, twisting my words and manipulating the facts, will have a much harder time doing so. That's something to look forward to. In the meantime I'm working on making a lot of money, which is why I'm not around the boards much any more. That and the fact that most of the current crop of posters are dumbasses, you (tji) not included.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

You got a way with words, Tom, gotta give you that:

'In the meantime I'm working on making a lot of money, which is why I'm not around the boards much any more. That and the fact that most of the current crop of posters are dumbasses, you (tji) not included.'

I would imagine the way you are 'working on making a lot of money' goes like this:

'Hands up, you dumbasses! This is a stick-up!'