Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Howard Brown]

Howie,
With all due respect, that is nonsense.- Glenn

We shall see, Glenn....

Firstly: as we know, John Pizer was eliminated from the line of suspects in the Chapman's murder because he had an alibi for the Polly Nichols murder. So, because the police connected the two murders together - and he had an alibi for the Nichols murder - he was ruled out.- Glenn

Uh..it might also have something to do with Pizer providing an ironclad corroborated alibi for Sept. 8th, when not only he,but several others, stated that he was on 22 Mulberry Street, on the very evening Chapman was killed...not because of the murders being connected together as mentioned in the October 19th memo from Swanson. Pizer's alibis for both evenings were accepted and thankfully so for him,considering the efforts to put an end to the Leather Apron scare.-How

Secondly, it is a misconception to state that numerous important files are lost. In fact, most of the official reports are complete. What's missing is the interview notes and internal letters, documents that may have further shed the light on the actual suspects and the personal thoughts of the police-Glenn.

Exactly what I mean. These internal documents which were for certain eyes only. Not ours,unfortunately.-How


But the official reports of each case are pretty much there and not much appears to be missing. And those we have related to the Stride murder don't mention any closer investigation of Kidney, nor is his name even mentioned in such a context.-Glenn

If the missing interview notes and communiques which have gone missing were found, we'd see that the police had good reason to dismiss Kidney. This might be where we really differ on the issue,Glenn...that the communiques would prove him innocent with their internal information.. to me, but not necessarily to you.-How

Considering his important status as her spouse, he should have been. To me this is an indication of that the police didn't treat this angle with the utmost priority.-Glenn

Maybe not with the utmost priority to some people, but sufficiently enough for the police at the time. He complied with the police, hell, he went to the police. What Kidney-as-Killer devotees need to do is reconcile the big bushy moustache he has in the caricature of him drawn at the Inquest and the small moustache Schwartz remembered the BS Man had on Berner Street that evening. Of course, I suppose we will see an argument made that Schwartz'es witnessing was not up to par.-How


Again, even a brief reading of the files of the Stride murder clearly shows that the police treated it as a Ripper murder and no doubt the murder of Eddowes the same night (which undoubtadly WAS a Ripper crime) was most likely the reason for this.-Glenn

So, because Kidney couldn't be linked to two prior murders, that he could provide alibis for August 31, and Sept. 8, then this was and is in effect some sort of viable reason for the police to dismiss him for a murder that occurred three weeks later without an investigation that is sadly bereft of tangible documentation in 2008,but evidently sufficient for the Metropolitan Police force in October 1888 ? I seriously doubt that Kidney could come up with an alibi for both nights so quickly since he had no reason to have one in the first place for a murder one month and one three weeks previously. Try it yourself. What did you do three weeks ago today,Glenn?

Again, the most likely reasons for Kidney not being pursued as some would like him to have been pursued... with documents to read ...written by the police, was that he did not match Schwartz'es description ( the moustache)...and the police communiques revealed,sadly not for our eyes, that Kidney's whereabouts were verifiable on the night in question.

Unless someone wants to say that within a few days a "small brown moustache" turned into the moustache Kidney had at the Inquest...or that they know that the police didn't take or make an effort to check out Kidney's whereabouts and "forgot" to think of us when they were writing all that information down back in the day.-How

Later amigo...

[Mitch Rowe]

"Sir..There been another Murder. It looks like the whitechapel fiend. What shall we do?"

"Well we shall do what we always do. If this isnt the work of the whitechapel fiend then there is no need to panic the public."

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Stephen,

As far as I know, Schwartz's account of walking behind BS is from the very dubious Star interview whcih shouldn't be given any credence whatsoever (and which also contains other erronous and dramatized elements). In the source we should consider to be more accurate - the police statement - BS is already standing by the gates, talking to Stride. Unless I recall incorrectly.

Among your numbered alternatives, I would definitely go for #1.
(#2 I tend to rule out as Schwartz is very clear in both statements that he saw BS stop and talking with Stride;
#3 I find totally unlikely.)

All the best

[Stephen Thomas]

Just for jolly here's the top of Berner Street today. Schwartz says he first saw Mr BS turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road. That would be at the bottom right of the photo where the bollards are. The murder scene is where the (blue?) car is parked near the bottom of the street on the right side of the road. It's not as far away as it looks because it's a wide angle photo. What puzzles me is that there seems to have been no interaction between Stride and Mr BS before the assault, which opens up just three possibilities....

1. They knew each other and Mr BS was punishing Stride.

2. Mr BS was staggering home from the pub and just pushed Stride out of his way.

3. Mr BS was Jack the Ripper.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

There is the suggestion here, and it is disturbing, that Kidney had uncorroborated alibis. I should think that this would be highly doubtful. The police didn't have to supply us with the details of this corroboration, but there had to have been at least someone who they went to in order to check Kidney's story, and probably several people.

Or else they just failed to find evidence against him, which even today is a common problem.
We must remeber that even if his alibi wouldn't hold up or was uncorroborated, it would - because of lack of forensic science - still be a big task in 1888 to frame someone for any murder unless the culprit hilself confessed to it. It's not like they could take Kidney's DNA.

If this is the case, and Kidney is the killer, then he has accessories after the fact or possibly even an accomplice.

Which of course has happened before - he could very well have had associates that gave him false alibis. This happens even today so why not?

As for any accomplice on the murder scene, well this is of course based on the premise that Schwartz's story about BS and Pipeman is true, which I don't regard as a fact at all. It could very well all have been fabricated nonsense all of it for reasons we do not know. But if Schwartz DID tell the truth, then we do actually have an indication of that the murder might have been a collaboration effort of two people, due to Pipeman's odd presence at the scene.

It shall also be noted, that my doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim to a large degree stands and falls with Scwartz's story. If the BS incident actually never happened, I would say that the chances would increase dramatically for the Ripper being the murderer.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Howie,

With all due respect, that is nonsense.

Firstly: as we know, John Pizer was eliminated from the line of suspects in the Chapman's murder becuase he had an alibi for the Polly Nichols murder. So, becuase the police connected the two murders together - and he had an alibi for the Nichols murder - he was ruled out.

Secondly, it is a misconception to state that numerous important files are lost. In fact, most of the official reports are complete. What's missing is the interview notes and internal letters, documents that may have further shed the light on the actual suspects and the personal thoughts of the police. But the official reports of each case are pretty much there and not much appears to be missing. And those we have related to the Stide murder don't mention any closer investigation of Kidney, nor is his name even mentioned in such a context. Considering his important status as her spouse, he should have been. To me this is a indication of that the police didn't treat this angle with the utmost priority.

Again, even a brief reading of the files of the Stride murder clearly shows that the police treated it as a Ripper murder and no doubt the murder of Eddowes the same night (which undoubtadly WAS a Ripper crime) was most likely the reason for this.

All the best

[The Good Michael]

There is the suggestion here, and it is disturbing, that Kidney had uncorroborated alibis. I should think that this would be highly doubtful. The police didn't have to supply us with the details of this corroboration, but there had to have been at least someone who they went to in order to check Kidney's story, and probably several people. If this is the case, and Kidney is the killer, then he has accessories after the fact or possibly even an accomplice in Pipe man. Is this the contention?

Cheers,

Mike

[Howard Brown]

All Kidney had to do - which probably also is what happened to Joe Barnett - was to provide alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman and he was off the hook.- G.A.

Isn't this proposing that each individual murder was investigated less for its uniqueness and on its own merits... and more how it could tie in with murders committed on different days ? There's a bit of time between the Chapman and Stride murders,as we know...21 days... and for it to be assumed that Kidney's innocence or guilt would rest squarely or at least, primarily, on the possible complicity of Kidney in the Hanbury Street murder and less on his whereabouts on the night in question seems a stretch, with all due respect. And with all due respect,I think the police undoubtedly did investigate the "domestic" angle as well as you personally think they should have despite the absence of a document which would satisfy your/our desires.

You're correct,Glenn...we don't have all the files or possible records on Kidney that were written. To consider Kidney more likely the killer without these crucial files or documents is overlooking the probability that the acceptance of what Kidney said or did to convince the police completely or at least satisfactorily did exist and we just don't have it.

If we had it, would you still hold the belief that the police "blew it" in regard to Kidney and how he was investigated or would the concept of a domestic murder override anything the police considered back in that period of time?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So - you may ask: do I think the police blew it?

Yes, I most certainly do.

However, like many others I hold the door open to Stride being a Ripper victim, because one can't get around the fact that there are some similarities to consider. But I don't think the 'conicidence' of the Mitre Square murder 45 minutes later should be as a valid argument for the Ripper being the perpetrator.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Roy,

That's a rather extensive issue that's been widely discussed here on numerous threads over the years and I hesitate to go through it all again. I am sure Fisherman - who usually have well thought out theories regarding this issue - have a lot to add further to that topic.

Yes, I see Kidney as the most likely killer of Stride for several reasons, and if the Ripper didn't kill her then I view the murder as a crime of jealousy or domestic/drunken rage.
And of course, like Fisherman says, it is of course possible that Liz knew more than one man (especillay considering that there are indications of that she may not have been out soliciting that night) but on the other hand it is a fact that Liz had left Kidney prior to the murder (and not on good terms) and that his character was not the one of the most pleasant ones.

You are absolutely right - Kidney wasn't arrested and tried for murder. In fact, there is no mentioning of him at all in the police files In SPITE of his important role in the drama. And no doubt the police right from the start viewed the Stride murder as a crime performed by the Ripper and simply closed down any domestic angle in their investigation rather quickly. Why?

Because
a) the pressure from the news media, the radical papers and the general public on the police to catch the Ripper ( and the papers certainly viewed it as a Ripper murder) had at this point become immense;
b) the discovery of the Eddowes murder just 45 minutes after Stride was found, which most likely forced the police to make the Ripper connection between the two.

All Kidney had to do - which probably also is what happened to Joe Barnett - was to provide alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman and he was off the hook.

There is much, much more to add to this, but all those points have been argued over and over again on these Boards, so in order not to create any unnecessary repetition of debates already been made, I suggest you seek those threads (and they are numerous), unless they of course belonged to those that disappeared during the crash of the site.

All the best

[Fisherman]

I donīt want to get in the way for Glenns answer here, Roy, but maybe we can allow ourselves to believe that Liz may have known more than one man. Such things happen.

The best, Roy!
Fisherman

[Roy Corduroy]

Just because she was murdered outdoors doesn't mean that she wasn't murdered by someone she knew...

Hi Glenn and all,

Then why wasn't Michael Kidney arrested and tried for murder, as Tom Sadler was? Surely you are naming Kidney as the killer. Why the theoretical discussion?

Roy

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Smon,

Well, besides the god points made by Fisherman here, you must remember that Stride had moved out of the home she shared with Michael Kidney some time prior to the murder. She did at the time live at a lodging house and probably spent most of her time outdoors, therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that she also was murdered outdoors.
Just because she was murdered outdoors doesn't mean that she wasn't murdered by someone she knew or someone else than the Ripper. In fact, we don't even know for sure that she was out soliciting that night (if some of the witnesses were right when they identified her, she appear to have turned down people's inites, which is an odd behaviour for any prostitute walking the street) so therefore we shouldn't even assume that she was killed by a client.

In any case it is erronous thinking to assume that the Ripper was the only one cutting throats outdoors at the time - unless you also want to ascribe McKenzie and Coles to the Ripper's tally.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Simon Owen writes:
"I bet throat cutting crimes committed outdoors are much less common "

Not when it comes to people who actually had no homes of their own, Simon. Donīt forget that we are speaking of women who lodged in doss houses - they never stood the chance of such luxury as having their necks cut by a cosy fireside...
The only canonical victim that DID have a home, actually was despatched there too, remember.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Owen]

Hi Glenn,

Here's another example of that: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...4-89#highlight

It's the case of 24 year old Harry Patrick, who cut the throat of his 19 year old girlfriend Rachel Bailey down to the vertebrae while she was lying in bed. This was on 23 November 1885 in Poplar, not too far away from Spitalfields/Whitechapel.

All the best,
Frank

Hi there Frank and Glen !

There is a fundamental difference between the John Browne & Harry Patrick cases and the Liz Stride case - the first two listed were crimes committed indoors. I bet throat cutting crimes committed outdoors are much less common ( though not impossible obviously ). It would be far easier however to have given Liz a couple of stabs in the guts and run away rather than trying to drag her around into a dark place and cut her throat ( also in the dark ) wouldn't it ? I think one would have to try and explain this discrepancy.