Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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."

[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...

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

How,

I think you totally miss the importance of the official summary reports, since they would naturally include any information that would be considered vital. Fact remains that the complete lack of mentioning of Kidney's name in Swanson's report is quite remarkable even for its time, considering that
a) he was the spouse of the victim
b) she had just recently left him, and that at least one witness close to Stride gave evidence of that the relationship weren't that cosy
c) his aggressive and drunken behaviour at the police station didn't display a man with exactly pleasant character traits, that would make any alarm bells ring.

Apart from the very small passage (only a short sentence, which in itself is quite telling) from Swanson about her 'close associates' being investigated (although we don't know who or to which extent), there is nothing in his report or the other police files concerning the murder that indicates that it was treated as anything else than a Ripper murder. And again - most likely it was the Eddowes murder the same night that brought on this focus on the investigation.

Now, I seriously doubt that any suspect in 1888 would be ruled out based on a witness description. We don't even know if Schwartz was presented to a suspect parade, since there is no such indication in any internal memo that this ever happened (as far as I know, but I could be wrong).
Secondly, we have no idea what Kidney really looked like. All we have is a sketch from a newspaper artist. Sure, The Penny Illustrated Paper appears to have made rather high quality sketches, though, if we compare to the awful illustrations made by the Illustrated Police News where people look quite demented. But it is still only a newspaper sketch and not even close to evidence of any kind.

And as you know, witness descriptions are far from reliable anyway. I know from experience how even the most obvious and striking details in a face can be viewed totally different depending on who the witness is.
So I'm sorry, I don't think any suspect would be ruled out on grounds of witness descriptions and judging from other incidents in the Ripper case it appears as the police at least on those issues were fairly open-minded and didn't exclude any important suspect on such grounds.

Once again, if Kidney was investigated and dismissed we don't know WHY. There is no mentioning of any alibi in the police report, so of course his dismissal could be explained by other factors, like that there was no evidence against him and the authorities thus decided to push the Ripper angle more seriously since they were under immense pressure from the news media and the general public to catch the Ripper. Too many people are not taking this into account to the extent they should. The police had since the Chapman murder been under enormous pressure and now all of the sudden there were two murders the same night, one of them witout a doubt a Ripper crime.

But again - let me once again make myself clear on the matter that I am not in any way prepared to totally dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim. What I am saying is, that if the Ripper didn't kill her, then the most likely suspect has to be Kidney.
But as I said, the possibility that the Ripper did kill her, stands and falls with Schwartz's story, as far as I am concerned. That his story may have been complete bollocks must be seriously considered since his story is not supported by any other witness statement and also creates a lot of problems with the timings of incidents.

All the best

[harry]

I tend to believe that perhaps a majority of people approach the Stride situation with a false assumption.It is that the person who encountered her at the entrance to the yard,did immediately and without provocation,begin a vicious assault to her person.This I am sure is fostered by the police interpretation as a result of an interview with Schwartz.
While we do not have the contents of the interview to peruse,we do have two slightly different accounts of what Schwartz said,one by the police and one by a newspaper.
While I side with neither as to which is the more accurate and truthfull,both institutions have a known tendency to pad and suggest answers given by a person interviewed.Such I am sure happened with Schwartz,a person who could speak little or no english,but did so through an interpreter,whose mastery of both languages is unknown.
I do believe however that there is a famework of information we can accept,and on which we can build our own intrpretation,and if that differs from the official accepted version,it will not mean that it should be discarded because of that fact.
What I accept is this.Schartz did follow a male person along Berner Street.He did see an altercation between that male person and a femal at the entrance to Duffield yard.He did see another male at the corner of Berner Street,and that person did ,in all probability,move towards him.That is it!
While we know a great deal about Stride,we know nothing of the man she encountered at Duffield's yard.So concentrating on Stride we know that she solicited men for sex,so it would not be out of character for her to have made the first approach at Duffield yard,by standing in his way,and he ,
rejecting her advances,perhaps unneccessarily forcibly,flung her away causing her to fall.A scenario one can see enacted even in these days.
Then he continued on his way.Who then approaches her?None other than the companion whom Brown saw her with,who had not departed the scene,but had stood at the corner of Berner street,and now saw an opportunity to move in once again.Such a person,having shown no ill will earlier.is,in my opinion,onewho would have a chance of attacking unexpectedly,either in or just outside the yard.
Could this person have been the Ripper?I believe so.

[Dan Norder]

Just for the sake of accuracy,you didn't mean that noises were heard at the Nichols murder did you,Dan ?

I meant exactly what I wrote: there were reports of noises heard at the Nichols murder, among the other reports of other sounds and sightings at multiple crime scenes that I listed. I also said some of them are probably inaccurate. The Nichols report probably was not correct. But there are certainly a lot of people how make arguments based solely upon their own wild speculations about what happened and didn't and use those speculations to try to back up other speculations. These people basically are in circular arguments that come down to "it was this way because I said so and will ignore all evidence to the contrary as well as the opinions of experts on the topic" -- and Glenn is one of the primary offenders.

[Jon Guy]

But as I said, the possibility that the Ripper did kill her, stands and falls with Schwartz's story, as far as I am concerned. That his story may have been complete bollocks must be seriously considered since his story is not supported by any other witness statement and also creates a lot of problems with the timings of incidents.

It may be bollocks, Glenn, but I have shown on the thread "Isreal Schwartz` Observation", that if the keffufle took place inside the gates, the timings and witness statements do fit.

[harry]

It might well be that there is rejection of the circumstances surrounding Strides death,because it appears too much of a coincidental nature occured in a short space of time,stretching coincidence to unacceptable limits.
One only has to read of 'The shark arm murder case' to understand that there should be no limit set,especially in murder cases.Coincidence,or chance,in it's multiple forms,is a fact of everyday life.It happens,and is unavoidable.
That is why I believe that the arrival of Diemschutz and his cart,coincided with the killing of Stride,and prevented the furtherance of any activity on the part of the murderer,except for flight.Unless the killer was stone deaf,the sound of wheels and hooves on cobled stones,would have signalled the arrival of a possible threat.
The real problem as I see it,is the lack of good information,on which to form a sound opinion.How far had the horse penetrated the yard before shieing?Had the horse at least passed the body?I doubt it would have been bothered by anything except in it's immediate path,and the body would have been lying to one side.The smell of blood?Well the gate was open,and if the sense of smell was that strong,it would have stopped before entering.?
Was Diemschutz on foot leading the horse into the yard,or on the cart.Nevertheless he says he had entered the yard when he saw a dark bundle,and on stricking a light saw the body.So the horse was in the yard,and probably the cart too,and as the body was just inside and against the wall,it wasn't the body that caused the horse to shie.( that's my opinion).
Which leaves something or someone else present.
I am not an expert on horse behaviour.but I have observed that the animals will shie away if a person stands too near,or pass too near, their head,and Stride we all know was in no condition to do that.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

You donīt have to tell us that you are not an expert when it comes to horses - it shows!
Horses are (of course with individual variations) very sensitive animals. My family is very much into horse-riding (with the exception of yours truly), and I have on numerous occasions seen how horses shy away from things that seem completely harmless. Once, when the horses in "our" riding school entered the paddock, a few of the commercial signs lining the sides had been changed for new ones. It sent two horses fleeing at full pace through the paddock, whereas a number of the rest shied every time the approached the signs on their way around the paddock.
Altering anything in a horses close environment will very often disturb the horse much, much more than you would think possible!

The best,

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Hold on there Nellie! I think this was a pony, first. Yet, I want to say that a pony that has been up and down the streets of the East End would have grown accustomed to obnoxious drunks, horrible smells, and loud noises. A dead body that didn't reek of decay would certainly pose no problem for the street-wise equine, unless it was in the way, perhaps. Swedish horses would not have this street sense as there are no proper cities in Sweden in which they could become inured.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jon Guy]

A dead body that didn't reek of decay would certainly pose no problem for the street-wise equine, unless it was in the way, perhaps. Swedish horses would not have this street sense as there are no proper cities in Sweden in which they could become inured.

Excellent point, Michael.

I have been studying Horse Behavioural Sciences for donkey`s years, and I can safely say that Diemschutz` pony was not an English pony, as English ponies are hard.