Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

You seem to be avoiding the central posting points about Blackwell with the determination of a hypochondriac in a leper colony. The definition of “box” and “maniac” are all very nice but if you ever want to discuss the key points I’m more than happy to oblige.

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Dusty Miller writes:
"The definition of “box” and “maniac” are all very nice but if you ever want to discuss the key points I’m more than happy to oblige."

You brought the points up yourself, Dusty. I answered them.

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.

You bring up a number of qoutations that all go to point to this view, and I can only state that I am aware of it all.
But I donīt 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.

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.
Broad-shouldered, full-faced, caucasian middle-aged man of average height, sporting a moustache - that is just about what Schwartz said. And Kidney is a caucasian, middle-aged man, sporting a moustache. From the drawing, there is no telling if he could be described as full-faced, since it is not an en-face drawing. And "drooping shoulders", Dusty? Did Schartz speak of the position over the ground when he described the shoulders? I think not. I think he said broad-shouldered.
My own father, who was a blacksmith and a wielder with a firm of his own, had drooping shoulders. But they were not narrow! He could lift a car from the road onto the pavement singlehandedly, and he handled steel plates weighing somewhere between 300 and 400 kilograms. With sloping shoulders.
Kidney was a waterside labourer. That is not an occupation chosen by frail, weak men. It is an occupation that aquires great physical strength!

There is no way you are going to prove that Kidneys shoulders were not broad from looking at that picture, Dusty. Moreover, if THAT is what you are going to pass off as evidence, while at the same time telling me that I cannot stray from the road proposed by a coroner who was well aware of the Tabram, Nichols and Chapman slayings, well then I would not hesitate to say that you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

Such a stance would, however, put you in renowned company. 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? 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. 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.

You read the evidence in your way, Dusty. That is all very well. But instead of claiming that those who read it in another way try to avoid the central points, maybe you should open up for the possibility that your take on it actually could be wrong.
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 to Stride, only turning to the possibility of her having been cut by somebody totally unknown to her as a last resort, after they had emptied all other possibilities?

That is the statistically underbuilt, common procedure of policework. I donīt see that applying in Dutfieldīs Yard. What I see is everybody involved in the case opting for the simple solution called Jack the Ripper - and after that I see 120 years of failing to provide a single shred of evidence that they were right.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

But I donīt 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.

Stewart Evans was born in 1889, so by the standards of the A-Z, he'd be a 'near contemporaneous authority'. Sorry to interrupt, Fisherman, please continue making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Since Ive been mostly sideline here, I feel I can interject a bit here to see if we can agree to disagree,....

Although I believe Fisherman is essentially correct when he makes a case for Liz Strides murder to have actually been something far less controversial than a Jack the Ripper kill, and I think he is correct pointing out that there were Police pressure factors and influence by Club members in their initial categorization of the murdered woman found in their yard..."another woman has been murdered"...that caused the Canonization of Liz.......but.........I dont think there is any evidence that Broadshouldered Man and Kidney are a fit physically...or is that incorrect?.....and it raises the question if Schwartz attended any of the Inquest quietly, maybe sitting by Police, wouldn't he have recognized Kidney? Because the only way Kidney is on site there is as Broadshouldered Man, there is no-one else on the street or in the yard but him and Liz when Schwartz leaves...and Liz might have been cut as early as 12:46...by medical estimate, but not later than 12:56. So where was Kidney, if not BS?

Im not saying he did attend, but I wonder if Police had him sit through some of that.

My best regards....and hopes for peace among the flock.

Cheers all.

[Fisherman]

Tom!

Thanks for helping out; I knew I could always rely on you!
Could I ask you for one more favour? It relates to the old threads. Somewhere out there, you stated that Stride was never supposed to be mutilated - she was just finished off in order for the killer to ensure that he reached the goal he had set for himself on the night - to kill two women.
I was kind of hoping that you would take the time to elaborate on this. And do correct me if I am wrong!

Michael!

Your point on Kidney is of course a good one, and one that I have recognized many a time. I am not saying that Kidney is the only possible BS man, far from it. My interpretation of Dutfields Yard is that Stride was killed by somebody aquainted to her, be that Kidney OR some other guy, perhaps a man who had taken over Kidneys role as her lover, or wanted to do so.
On the likeness between Kidney and BS man, the issue has become slightly ridiculous. What we are trying to do here is to see if there is any likeness or not between a man of whom we have no picture and a man of whom we have only a newspaper drawing. I mean, how silly can it get??
What I am trying to say on the topic is that stating that there was no likeness at all between Kidney and the description given by Schwartz is simply wrong. Thailands King Bhumibol, Eddie Murphy and ayatollah Khomeiny, now there are a few characters that I could accept passed of as having no likeness at all with BS man, more or less. But to say that two men who were both of average height, who both were caucasian white males, who both sported moustaches, who were both middle age, to say that two such men display no likeness at all, that is just plain ridiculous. In fact, there is not one point in the description of BS man and the drawing of Kidney, that decidedly points away from the possibility that the two men may have been one and the same, is there?
And again, it is a drawing people are trying to use to draw conclusions from. Have a look at the different drawings of dr Phillips, for example. They give you a rough estimation of what the man looked like, but not much more. There are clear discrepancies inbetween them, telling us not to rely too much on them. Thereīs the drawing of Phillips in a high hat, displaying a distinctly semitic, dramatically curved nose, and there is the drawing of him tending to the corpse of Chapman, this time with an almost straight noseline.
Not to mention, of course, what The Illustrated Police News put forth as likenesses of the victims!
If we did have a set of good photos of Kidney, we could have decided whether he could be described as having a full face or not, and whether he fit the description "broad-shouldered". But what were we to compare it all too? There is no footage of BS man, is there? And a frightened Schwartz may have perceived a more physically strongly built man than what was the case.
In short, everybody who can rule Kidney out, based on true evidence, is welcome to do so - but nobody can do it using a comparison between a drawing and no picture at all!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the way; there are two drawings of Barnett somewhere out there too, that are totally incomparable inbetween them. On one of them, he looks something along the lines of "broad-shouldered" and "full-faced", whereas on the other, he looks like a twin brother of Diemschutz, the way the latter was drawn on the picture combo showing him, Wess and Eagle.
I am not sure of what to make of it. But then again, others may be...?

Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi Fisherman,

I particularly like this one....used a lot as a representative JTR.

Cheers Fisherman.

[FrankO]

Hi Fisherman,

On the likeness between Kidney and BS man, the issue has become slightly ridiculous. What we are trying to do here is to see if there is any likeness or not between a man of whom we have no picture and a man of whom we have only a newspaper drawing. I mean, how silly can it get??

I couldn't agree more. What reason do we have to trust Schwartz's description to begin with? Why should we think it was any accurate? So indeed, what value should be attached to the comparison between a questionable description and a drawing of only a man's head and shoulders?

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

I couldn't agree more. What reason do we have to trust Schwartz's description to begin with? Why should we think it was any accurate? So indeed, what value should be attached to the comparison between a questionable description and a drawing of only a man's head and shoulders?

Hi Frank. My argument took for granted that Schwartz was telling the truth (I'm not entirely convinced either, but for the sake of argument...). The reason we might think the drawing is accurate is because the same artist made very accurate renditions of other people at the inquest. He was there and drew from life. The description Schwart gave is so drastically different from Kidney (in appearance and age) that you'd have to really go out on a limb to argue that BS Man and Kidney were one in the same. Especially given the fact that ALL the evidence in the case points AWAY from Kidney being the killer. I'm well aware that witness descriptions aren't the most reliable, but it's yet another weak link in the paper chain of argument supporting Kidney as Stride's killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I have to wonder if Schwartz would have seen Kidney at the inquest.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have to wonder if Schwartz would have seen Kidney at the inquest.

c.d.

Schwartz didn't go to the inquest, but Kidney didn't know that would be the case. If he were BS Man, do you think he would have gone to the police station on his own accord and agreed to appear at the inquest? Of course not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Schwartz didn't go to the inquest, but Kidney didn't know that would be the case. If he were BS Man, do you think he would have gone to the police station on his own accord and agreed to appear at the inquest? Of course not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, that is a good point.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom!

As for killers injecting themselves into police investigations, ample proof of such cases have been presented on the boards at numerous occasions, so bringing that point up once more seems unneccessary to me.
Would he have agreed to appear at the inquest, if he had a feeling that there would be people there who could point a finger at him? It may seem illogical, but then again refusing to participate could be just as risky - that would be a very safe way to attract the interest of the police. And as everybody who has read the inquest reports will know, Kidney seems to have been a cocky enough character to defy the odds.
Moreover, like you yourself often point out, Tom, there is every possibility that Kidney may have been able to back a claim of not having been at Dutfields Yard up with something that resembled a watertight alibi. "Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends", you know. The sort of thing that would be nigh on impossible to dispell for the police, allowing Kidney to claim that "Alright, then, that guy outside the yard may have looked like me- but hey, I do have an alibi, boys!"

We donīt know, Tom, and thatīs the simple truth. What we DO know, however, and I have already pointed it out at a number of occasions, is that making comparisons between a newspaper drawing and no picture at all amounts to absolutely nothing.
You know, just as well as I do, that when one guy speaks of another guy as broadshouldered, a third guy may not give his consent: "Broadshouldered? Him? He looks like an asparagus to me!" The same goes for "full-faced", fat, tall, meagre and flatfooted. It is all in the eyes of the beholder, and there is always the obvious possibility that we all, if we were presented with a look at "BS man" may have said; "Why, he does not look remotely the way Schwartz described him. Look at that small, squeamish guy! Ha! Schwartz must really have been scared to describe him as a stout man!"

Finally, I will once again ask you to elaborate on the theory you mentioned on the old threads - that Stride was never meant for evisceration, since the killer was after a double strike on the night. I think I remember it correctly, and I am most curious of what lies behind all this.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

If anybody reading Fisherman's post finds it at all persuasive, please speak up and don't be frightened. Because then I'll bother to reply. Otherwise, I think I'll just let the obvious speak for itself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom, you do have a flair for silly games, do you not? Should I join in, and call upon all posters who see my version as a plausible one to write their hearts out in defence for it? I think not - I prefer to fight my own battle over it. Calling on friends to fight my battle for me is something I gave up at Kindergarten age. I suggest you do the same.
Donīt use other peoples judgement to estimate what you should rely in or not. It will sooner or later force you to stray from your chosen path, all to keep others happy. Itīs not worth it.

But alright; never mind the parts you find it hard to agree with, Tom.
Skip the parts you feel uneasy about for now, and give us your elaboration on the Stride-was-never-meant-to-be-eviscerated stuff! That should liven up the debate!

The best, Tom!
Fisherman