Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not calling on your friends, Fish, just wanting to see if anyone else buys into your Kidney nonsense at this point. If not, why should I bother posting about it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Well, Tom, if you can´t figure that out on your own, I fear it is time lost for me to try and explain it to you. A hint: It has to do with upbringing, sharing, common use and such. And I don´t lay claim to putting Kidney forth as a viable suspect - that has been done by others than me, and long before I entered Casebook.

And while you are chewing away at that - are you still of the meaning that Stride was intentionally left with no abdominal cuts and eviscerations? If so, how do you defend such a claim? Or was it just a shot in the dark?

Oh, and stop being such a child, Tom. The rest of us are here to discuss the case, since it is what the boards are for. We bother, in other words. You should try it.

The best, my learned friend!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh, and stop being such a child, Tom. The rest of us are here to discuss the case, since it is what the boards are for. We bother, in other words. You should try it.

You've been posting here for what, a few months? I've been posting since 1998, so at this point I'm pretty much just repeating myself ad nauseum for the benefit of others. For people who are wanting to learn I'm more than happy to. For people who just want to fight and are only interested in their theories and not the truth, I tend to be a bit snippy. I told you that in the first week we met on here and it holds true now, so don't say you weren't warned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

" For people who just want to fight and are only interested in their theories and not the truth, I tend to be a bit snippy"

It´s pretty obvious that I have made a mistake here, Tom. If I had known that you were in possesion of the truth, I would of course have given you the treatment apt for such prominence!

Meanwhile, are you still of the meaning that Stride was intentionally left with no abdominal cuts and eviscerations? If so, how do you defend such a claim? Or was it just a shot in the dark?

And yes, I have been posting here for less than a year. But I have been interested in criminal cases since before your parents had to spend any of their wages on diapers.

Im going to bed now, Tom. It would be nice to wake up to an answer to my question tomorrow. If you can be bothered, that is.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Stop it, you're turning me on.

And yes, I have been posting here for less than a year. But I have been interested in criminal cases since before your parents had to spend any of their wages on diapers.

I told you I've been posting here for 10 years simply to illustrate why I'm such a flippant prick and not to compare my credentials to yours or to suggest that I'm "too good" to discuss the case. Merely that I've discussed it until I'm blue in the face and don't enjoy repeating myself and quashing the same old myths and half-truths as I once did. I do however enjoy helping sincere, interested parties. And I love learning and exploring the new avenues of thought that occassionally find their way onto these boards. '

Regarding Kidney, there's only one scenario in which I could imagine him as Stride's killer, and I'm having trouble convincing myself of that one as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

We seem to be forming a pattern here, you post guesses, I post facts and you try to defocus the issue by going off on tangents.


“It now seems that "the key point" that you bolster is that I have done Ripperology an unjustice by not accepting the widespread view that Stride was not the victim of a domestic dispute.”

Since you mention it … yes!

"I don´t find it likely that you are unaware of the fact that numerous contemporary authorities on the case see it as a very possible domestic slaying? On these threads I have quoted Stewart Evans, who in the documentary "To kill and kill again" expresses it "It bears all the hallmarks of a domestic killing", to mention only one."

The fact that you ignore all the “Victorian” evidence for something you saw on a DVD explains a lot.

“I have also pointed out, in response to Tom Wescott, that trying to use a drawing from a newspaper does not go to ensure all of us that Kidney in no way resembled Schwartz description of BS man. I am baffled to see you giving it a new try."

I haven’t read that thread so I cannot comment on what you or he wrote previously.

I do know, however, that the drawing of Kidney is likely to be an exceptionally good likeness. This particular artist always signed his/her work, T.R., so we can trace their ability to capture an accurate likeness of a sitter from some of their more famous subjects, like President Harrison. Their observations of hairline, nose, ears, eyes etc are demonstrated to be uncannily accurate. There is no reason to doubt the depiction of Kidney is not as extraordinarily correct as their other depictions.

As to how accurate Schwartz’s description was, I have no idea but we can positively say the description does not match the drawing.

The drawing depicts a rather skinny man, check other drawings to see how the artist depicts stoutish men. Kidney has a longish face, again see how the artist depicts rounder profiles. As for shoulders look at how the artist draws Mr Langham’s broad shoulders on the opposite page. And of course, Kidney has a beast of a moustache that would be the envy of any rutting bull walrus.

There is no reason to suppose that the police did not in fact eliminate Kidney from there investigation because Schwartz failed to I.D. him. It would explain why the police and the coroner were so certain Kidney was not their man.


“When a man like Swanson says the there was not "the slightest pretext for a motive on behalf of friends or associates or anybody who had known her", he is of course wrong. For we KNOW that Stride had left Kidney, do we not."


Yes we do.
We also know that she left him on several occasions. Do we not?
We also know he did not murder her on each of those occasions, do we not?

"And we also know that many a woman who has left a man with a vindictive disposition, prone to violence and with a drunk and disorderly judgement having been passed on him, have ended up the worse for it."

Huh?
One D+D makes him a murderer? Elizabeth Stride had 8 possibly 9 D+D convictions, does that mean she was a serial killer?

We have no idea whether Kidney had a vindictive disposition. We DO know that Stride was prone to making up dramatic stories and we do know that she expressed no fear of Kidney.

In fact in your own dissertation you postulate that Stride was so UN-afraid of Kidney that she dragged him away from witnesses into a pitch black area.

Knock, knock. Who’s there?
Reality! Can I come in?


"For Swanson not to pick up on that thread was bad policework, something that I think that anybody with any form of insight into how domestic violence works will admit."

Who says the thread was not picked up?
Who says it was not thoroughly investigated, then dismissed?
Are you seriously suggesting ALL the investigators, and they were legion, were not as smart as you?

"Ask yourself, if there had been no Tabram, no Nichols, no Chapman - then would the police have been equally inclined to ascribe a single sweep of a knife in a dark backyard to a killing maniac? Would they have interpretated it as a swift, professional, calculated murder? Or would they have concentrated their search to a narrow circuit of aquaintances …"


Nobody has to ask themselves anything.
Once again, just check the facts.
Annie Milkwood: suspects confined to “to a narrow circuit of acquaintances”?
Ada Wison: suspects confined to “to a narrow circuit of acquaintances”?
Emma smith: suspects confined to “to a narrow circuit of acquaintances”?
Martha Tabram: suspects confined to “to a narrow circuit of acquaintances”?

I don’t understand your fixation for making guesses, when a quick check of reality
gives you the answers you seek.

This brings up a point Michael made that I may as well answer here.

The press had a vested interest in beating up the Ripper scare.
The police had a vested interest playing down the Ripper scare.
If the police could have proven or even hinted that Elizabeth Stride was a domestic killing, it would taken the political and public pressure off them and cast doubt over the whole idea of a single killer. To suggest the police were actively looking to increase the level criticism against them is plainly nonsense.

You seem to be getting further and further out of your depth here so I might pass this debate for a while as it is giving me nothing constructive back. Could you point me to thread you and Tom discussed the Kidney picture?

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Dusty!

"you post guesses, I post facts" is how you start out a post where you a little bit later ONCE AGAIN return to comparing a newspaper drawing with no picture at all. Can we please, please bring some sanity into this issue. I have been over it time and time again, but it seems you just won´t listen.
You ask me "Could you point me to thread you and Tom discussed the Kidney picture?", and yes I can - it is this very thread, Dusty. It all starts at post 77. And if you feel that someone - anyone - actually can produce binding proof from comparing drawings to no drawings at all, be my guest.

You write "look at how the artist draws Mr Langham’s broad shoulders on the opposite page", but why on earth would I do that? Am I to believe that is how the artist did broad-shouldered men, and if Kidney had been broad-shouldered, the drawing of him would have made him look like a twin brother of Langham? Is it not true, Dusty, that the picture we have of Kidney depicts him from THE SIDE - making every effort on your behalf to estimate the width of his shoulders utterly useless? And making every assertion of yours that he could not have been full-faced just as futile?

And at the end of the day, Dusty, even I I was to allow you to make deductions about the front of a man from a drawing of his side, what you need to do afterwards is to compare this frail, skinny, straw-like excuse for a waterside labourer to a verbal description of a man, seen in a dark street by a frightened by-passer.
What if BS man WAS a skinny guy, Dusty - with a thick sweater worn under a likewise thick jacket? What impression would that give? Any thoughts? Or am I just guessing again?
There is no way that you are going to get this comparison of yours afloat, Dusty. Reality holds so many a possibility that will drill through your hull, that it will look at a swiss cheese as it sinks to the bottom of the ocean of logic.

Now, let´s return to the beginning of your post! You start out by admitting that I am doing Ripperology an unjustice by not accepting that Stride could not have been a domestic victim. That goes a long way to show how openminded you are.
Next, you write "The fact that you ignore all the “Victorian” evidence for something you saw on a DVD explains a lot."
That, of course, is sidestepping the fact that I said that there are MANY contemporary theorists that believe Stride WAS a domestic kill. I chose Evans as an example, but you know very well that there are others. And there is no much harm in disbelieving Victorian authorities if you believe in human progress, is there; Linnaeus, the great 18:th century taxonomist, admittedly one of the most renowned authorities on flora and fauna, believed that the swallows spent the winters sleeping at the bottoms of lakes. He was the top authority on nature a hundred years before the Ripper got on stage. If you move a hundred years and more beyond the Ripper, you will find yourself in our time. I think that says a lot about why why should perhaps not cling to the Victorians all too nervously. They knew very much less than we do about the nature of serial killers to begin with - and there is no blaming them for it. It all lies in the small word progress.
They did not have to be right, Dusty, just as Linneaus did not have to be, authorities of their day though they were.

As the rest of your post - claiming to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - goes very much along the same lines, I will only pick one more sample of how you shape that truth of yours - for mine it is NOT - and that lies in your punch line
"We also know that she left him on several occasions. Do we not?
We also know that he did not murder her on each of those occasions, do we not?"

Only the fewest murderers grow so pissed about their spouses, as to murder them repeatedly, Dusty. I freely admit that Kidney does not seem to have been of the type.

The best, Dusty! Let´s bring the swallows up from the bottom of the lakes the next time over, shall we?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"I told you I've been posting here for 10 years simply to illustrate why I'm such a flippant prick and not to compare my credentials to yours or to suggest that I'm "too good" to discuss the case. Merely that I've discussed it until I'm blue in the face and don't enjoy repeating myself and quashing the same old myths and half-truths as I once did. I do however enjoy helping sincere, interested parties. And I love learning and exploring the new avenues of thought that occassionally find their way onto these boards. '

Regarding Kidney, there's only one scenario in which I could imagine him as Stride's killer, and I'm having trouble convincing myself of that one as well."

It won´t do, Tom. You can´t on the one hand state that you dont compare credentials, and on the other call people "pompous newbies" like you did when I first set foot here. And I don´t mind if you try to push yourself as THE authority on Stride. Perhaps you are. Still does not mean that you cant be wrong or that it gives you the privilege to state that you can´t be bothered. If you have an interest in the matter, use the boards to discuss it. If not, fare thee well.

Now, I suggest you show a little something for your assertion that you love to explore new avenues of the case, and
A/ Develop your thoughts about in which scenario you may see Kidney as Strides killer, and
B/ Grace me with an answer to your theory about Stride never having been meant for mutilation, if that is something you still hold on to.

Oh, and of course; PLEASE, mr Wescott...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Dusty,

Bravo. You have a way of saying in a handful of words what it takes me a paragraph to say.

Fisherman,

The reason I don't reply to your constant requests for an explanation of why I'm convinced that Stride was not meant for mutilation is simply because I'm convinced of no such thing. Do I think it was possible? Absolutely, and here's why.

I think we can all agree that Eddowes was a Ripper victim, can we not? Meaning that she was killed by the same hand that previously fell Nichols and Chapman. That being the case, it's curious that she was killed so much earlier in the night than the earlier two and Mary Kelly. On the one night the Ripper killed early, an identical victim is murdered in an identical fashion within the same hour and only minutes away. This alone makes it rather likely they were killed by the same person, and in any event, that's the line of speculation we're following here. The difference is, this woman (Stride) was not mutilated.

The only two likely explanations for why Stride wasn't mutilated are: 1) The killer was interrupted/felt pressured to abandon, and 2) He hadn't planned to mutilate Stride in the first place. The former has been discussed, debated, and written about ad infinitum. But what about the second?

In the immediate aftermath of Chapman's murder, two popular myths were that two women were murdered on the same night and the killer left a chalk graffiti. Less than a month later, two women are murdered on the same night and a chalk graffiti is left that is supposed to have come from the murderer. The Ripper himself waited until the inquests on Nichols and Chapman had ended before going out to kill again. He no doubt followed them intently in the papers and must have been elated at how impressed Dr. Phillips and others were with his 'skill' and daring. He intended to top himself and live up to his reputation. So, I don't think it's preposterous at all that when he left home that night he intended to do exactly what he did - kill two women and create an even bigger sensation than he had before.

If I had previously killed two women on separate nights and now intended to kill two women on the same night, I would make preparations. For starters, I'd plan to leave earlier in the night to give myself ample time to kill the first woman, escape to a different area, find another woman, and then escape to where I wouldn't be caught while the whole city errupts around me. To allow this to happen, I would consider it in my best interests to make quick work of the first woman so that I save time and limit exposure, but most importantly, I CANNOT GET ANY BLOOD ON MYSELF since I'm not going straight home but must treverse the city and meet with another woman, with no time to clean myself. I can then have all the 'fun' I want with my second victim.

It's all very simple really. In short terms, since we know the Ripper killed two women that night, it's not a big leap to suppose he planned in advance to do the job he carried out. Anyone planning such a thing would not have the option of wallowing in the blood of the first victim. So it makes perfect sense why Stride was murdered but not mutilated.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dusty,

Within 18 hours of the double-event the name Jack the Ripper was on everyone's lips. He'd been linked to both murders (letter and postcard) and the biggest scare/panic the world had ever known got underway, complete with colour posters.

The police would never have dared hint that [whoops!] Stride turned out to be a domestic killing because doing so would have made them look even bigger fools than they had already shown themselves to be.

The police could only ride out a situation of their own creation. No wonder things went quiet in October.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

I think that you could also argue that making it known that Liz was a victim of domestic violence would have gone a long way in calming the fears of the general population that a madman was on the loose.

c.d.

[paul emmett]

If I had previously killed two women on separate nights and now intended to kill two women on the same night, I would make preparations. For starters, I'd plan to leave earlier in the night to give myself ample time to kill the first woman, escape to a different area, find another woman, and then escape to where I wouldn't be caught while the whole city errupts around me. To allow this to happen, I would consider it in my best interests to make quick work of the first woman so that I save time and limit exposure, but most importantly, I CANNOT GET ANY BLOOD ON MYSELF since I'm not going straight home but must treverse the city and meet with another woman, with no time to clean myself. I can then have all the 'fun' I want with my second victim.

Hello, Tom, all.

I've always had a hunch that Stride was "foreplay." Might not the preperations for a double event include a prearranged meeting with #2, which, in turn, would necessitate hanging around with #1 before the kill longer than usual--a risk worth taking in order to make sure the interval between kills was not too dangerously long.

Where does the rumor that two were killed on the Chapman night come from??
Thanks, Paul

[Simon Wood]

Hi C.D.,

The only problem I see with that argument is that the police had invested too much (either by design or through incompetence) in stoking the fears of the general population that a madman was on the loose.

The Ripper scare was unstoppable.

There would have been no way out for the police—not with their professional integrity intact—and when you're between a rock and a hard place you stay quiet and keep your head down.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

I don't believe the meeting with Eddowes was prearranged. As for the rumor of a Chapman 'double event', it was going around the crowd outside 29 Hanbury Street later on the day of the murder and it was reported in the papers. I would imagine the Ripper was in that crowd and he certainly read the papers. I brought this to Dan Norder's attention and he included it in a very provocative essay called 'Heartless' in the new Ripper Notes. You should check it out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

Tom, I just read Dan's article, and, indeed, I found it most prvocative. I particularly liked the conclusion with Dan's presentation of a calculating JTR, struggling to live up to his own legend. When arguing for a calculating Jack here on the Casebook, I've always felt myself in a not so vast minority.

Be that as it may, I think that if, as you suggest, he is calculating a double event, the problem is the second one. If he can't find #1, he just goes home and tries tomorrow--early as you suggested. But if he finds #1, and then can't find #2, which in the furor of the discovery of #1 becomes even more complicated, all is lost. So it would certianly behoove him to have an Eddowes waiting. But THEN he would have to be sure of #1: she couldn't be a last minute pick-up. He would have to start even earlier, find her, and then stay with her 'til the time was right to kill and move on to #2.