Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Fisherman]

Was that you writing, Frank? Or was it me?

Can´t tell much of a difference here, I must say. Therefore I will also add that I agree whole-heartedly with you. Or is it with me...?

The best, Fisherm... I mean Frank!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

I also whole-heartedly agree with me - and you!

The best, Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hello, Michael.


You make some good points. For example, I agree with you, Blackwell, and Eagle. IT happens after 12:46. But, again, Scwartz is the linchpin for the rest of your scenario, and you yourself don't seem to trust Scwartz too much. So then, while you refute JTR appearing in a wisp of smoke, can't the same "act" be attributed to BS man? Besides Scwartz, noone sees BS--not even Fanny. And that's to say nothing of the fact that noone sees OR hears, any of the commotion surrounding Scwartz.

BUT suppose he does see something at 12:45 or so; there is still time for Jack to meet Stride. AND perhaps Scwartz is off on his time, perhaps BS is JTR--and Smith's man, perhaps Blackwell himself is off a bit in his time. And perhaps it happened the way you suggest--I'll give ya everything but the cachous. But for me, all this is at best a wash, so I go to cuts and coincidences and JTR. For me the time issue isn't such a big deal. I feel what Tom suggests is true. It's JTR, but he's not looking for mutilation, cuz the way I see it, he has a hot date.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Sammy & Fisherman:

I completely understand your position between living in one's own home and living in a doss house, which renders most, but not all, of my comments previously invalid.

A man can kill domestically inside with people in full view of the act as they could without any people around... or in an alley or on the street...and in light of this fact, there is no real discernible difference between a domestic murder and a random murder if we keep these considerations in mind . If a man is mad enough, he can kill anywhere and only a prior "history" of violence emanating from the man against the woman will lead us into the realm of whether it was a domestic as opposed to a random murder. We clearly do not have this pattern...or history...or actual violence, save the incident of him locking her in her room, which hardly constitutes violent aggression.

What was part of this "point" I was trying to make is that it seems that we assume Kidney was not being truthful when he was on the stand at the Inquest when he said, under oath, that he had not had a row with her on Tuesday...and which to me, at least, should be taken as truthful until otherwise disproved.

He also mentioned...and perhaps even with a degree of embarrassment ( I'm 'reading" that into this part,guys ) that he was accustomed to this sort of behavior on Stride's part and that it wasn't unusual.

So I don't think that the basis for Kidney-as-Stride-killer is based on any real evidence other than our assumption that he was lying on the stand, something clearly unprovable and utterly theoretical.

However, that someone other than Kidney, as Fisherman mentioned in theory, who knew her and killed her could be closer to the truth or reality of the situation.

Sorry for busting in on this thread, Fisherman. I really only wanted to point out that Tom Wescott made some good comments. Carry on,my friend.

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom should try 'slumming' it in the East End like his American counterparts from the LVP, he might learn something new then, like they did.
Like it is entirely possible that no person slit Stride's throat that night but she was instead thrown down onto an object that caused such a wound.
From the 'Boston Daily Globe', 10th December 1888:

'
The Berners Street Tragedy,

whilst opposite is a stone block which is a board school. Next to the club is a pair of high wooden gates which open inwards into the stable yard.

On the right is the club, the windows of which are all lit up, and further on is the side door. Opposite are three small whitewashed cottages. The place is so narrow that if the hapless victim had made the least noise it must have been heard, despite the singing and merriment that were going on in the club.

A girl of about 14, barefooted and bareheaded, with a white, frightened face and sharp furtive eyes comes out of one of the houses. She starts a little when she sees us standing, and then comes across to me.

"The woman was found there," she says, with infinite gusto smacking her lips at the chance of repeating the tale of horror to an interesting listener. "'er head was on that short stone post, and 'er legs was just over the iron railings, and the blood and gore was all down there," and she pointed out the various spots mentioned with great relish.

"Do you live here?" we asked.

"Yes, sir, in the second cottage," she answered.

"And did you not hear anything?" queried Mr. B-----.

"Not a sound, sir." says the girl, earnestly, "and nobody else down here heard nothing neither. You know, sir, I think that…"

But we were fated never to hear what the girl thinks, for a voice calls out "Lizer!" and she promptly vanished into the cottage. '

[Fisherman]

Howard!

To begin with: Don´t make any excuses for participating on the thread - good reasoning and sound knowledge is always welcome!

Kidney, Howard; you are right that we have no conclusive proof that he was a violent man. We have a few pointers in that direction, though!
The fact that Stride turned him in to the police a year before is one such. The fact that she did not see it through is an even more telling thing. Finally, like I have already pointed out: the major part of domestic violence goes undetected by the authorities. Very often the suspicion is there in the circuit of relatives and friends, but it takes A LOT before somebody has the audacity to ask any questions.
In so many tragic cases, ending up with the woman beaten to death, people around the couple suffer from a very bad conscience afterwards, since they saw the signs - but did nothing.

Of course, we cannot use this outfit on Kidney with any certainty. But Liz´turning him in, her decision not to challenge him in court, the padlock key in her posession as she was found - all of this contributes to a growing suspicion on my behalf.

What I find striking about Kidney is that he seems to have been a jealous and possesive man, and such men are the kind of guys who often come up with the "If I can´t have her, no-one else will" line.
There is of course the line that he believed that she was more fond of him than any other man. Which is a bit strange, given that she had left him. For someone else, perhaps?
The one line I find most instructive here, though is "During the three years I have known her she has been away from me about five months altogether"
Now who else but an extremely jealous man would have kept that close account? If he had said that she had been away at a number of occasions, or that she had been gone fore some months or so, but no: "about five months altogether". He knew, beacuse he kept close count, and he kept close count because he was a very, very possesive man. That is how I read it.

So those are the parameters I think that we are allowed to speculate about: Enough violence to frighten Stride away from the opportunity to have him put away, in all probability lying about their relationship and a very possesive disposition. That could very well make up a lethal coctail.

The best, Howard!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Frank.


“No matter how accurate the drawing of Kidney’s head & shoulders was, the simple fact of the matter is that we have no way of knowing how accurate, if any, Schwartz’s description was … “


This, of course is exactly what I wrote in my post,
“… As to how accurate Schwartz’s description was, I have no idea …”
So it seems we are in total agreement.

However, the drawing is useful in a number of other ways.
It was suggested that because some drawings of Barnet differed, no "ripper drawing" could be relied on, which is why there was a need to show this particular drawing was, in all likelihood, an accurate depiction of Kidney.
Ergo, if Schwartz’s description was even roughly accurate, it eliminates Kidney from being BS once and for all. That in itself, of course, does not preclude Kidney from the crime.

It’s seems like I’m writing these posts in an echo chamber. Yet again I'll reiterate; the point is not that any one reason makes Kidney an unlikely suspect, it is the cumulative whole.

Off the top of my head,

The Coroner, who heard evidence we didn’t, went out of his way to exonerate
Kidney.

The only police report we have on the subject casts no suspicion on Kidney.

The police had access to evidence we do not.

All the witnesses, from both lodging houses, said Stride was not in fear of Kidney.

Sven Olssen, from the Swedish church made no mention of Stride complaining about Kidney. This is the person most akin to a modern day social worker and accordingly the person most likey to have heard any sob stories of domestic abuse.

We know Stride’s stories could not be trusted to be accurate.

We have nothing that suggests Kidney was a liar, therefore, no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

To the contrary, in fact, the parts of his evidence we can verify all fit in with the known facts.

Kidney says Stride left him for periods due to drunken bouts. We know Stride was arrested frequently for drunken bouts in the same period.

Not one newspaper, no matter how desparate their need for an exlusive, published even rumour of domestic violence.

The list goes on but I’m afraid my time doesn’t. Listed above are just some of the known facts. In contrast, all ideas of Kidney’s guilt are merely speculation.
A little speculation is fun and it’s probably why we’re all attracted to the case but we do have to keep it within the realms of reality.

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Dusty, making two quotes from your post, and swopping places for them chronologically, I come up with this:

1. "A little speculation is fun and it’s probably why we’re all attracted to the case but we do have to keep it within the realms of reality"

2. "Ergo, if Schwartz’s description was even roughly accurate, it eliminates Kidney from being BS once and for all."

...meaning, of course, that you are still trying to push a comparison between a newspaper drawing and a verbal description, translated from Hungarian, given by a very frightened man who for a few fleeting seconds saw an aggressive guy in the deep darkness of Berner Street.

And yes, Dusty, you have an overwhelmingly accurate point here:
If the likeness of the Kidney drawing borders on perfection, and if Schwartz got his testimony right, and if it was correctly translated into English by Wess (if Wess it was), and if we can allow ourselves to estimate the shoulder width and face fullness of a man depicted from the side, and if such an estimation must end in a verdict of being a frail, thin man on Kidneys behalf, then yes: you have finally taken the steps we need to rule Kidney out. Congratulations!

Then again, Dusty, may I direct you to the reports and testimony connected to the murder of Olof Palme, Swedish Prime minister, back in 1986? It was a a murder committed in the middle of Stockholm, on a well-lit street, and witnessed by a number of people.
Those who saw the shooter say that he was dressed in a short jacket, and in knee-long overcoat, that he limped on one leg and moved like a very well-trained guy, gracefully like a trained gymnast, that he was a thin guy and that he displayed a muscular, heavy-set body...

Does this tell you something, Dusty? Anything? Or do we have to go through the witness reports from hundreds and thousands of other cases where numerous people have seen the same man - and given descriptions that are completely incomparable inbetween them? Do we have to bring out "phantom scetches" drawn by trained artists, and approved by witnesses as being perfect likenesses of criminals who, when they are apprehended, look totally different?

Do I once more have to point out that when people who witness a man for a few short seconds in very poorly lit conditions, and afterwards state that the man had broad shoulders, will all belong to one of three categories:
1.The ones who correctly pointed out a broad-shouldered man
2. The ones who saw a man dressed in thick garments, maybe a jacket with polstered shoulders, and mistook it for broad shoulders, and
3. The ones who were simply wrong

"If Schwartz description was even roughly accurate...." How would you solve the Palme case, Dusty? Who of the ten or so witnesses would you hope was "even roughly accurate"? The one that said the man who shot was a skinny type? The one who said he was heavy-set?
Perhaps both of them were "even roughly accurate"? Or could they both have been wrong?

If I am even roughly correct here, Dusty, then you are terribly wrong.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dusty,

Well, reading some of your points, I agree with the echo chamber

The Coroner, who heard evidence we didn’t, went out of his way to exonerate Kidney.

He did nothing of the kind. What he did was to try to make Kidney reveal the 'information' he had about the killer (which apparently turned out to be boasting and bogus stuff to begin with), but failed.

The only police report we have on the subject casts no suspicion on Kidney.

That's because there is no police reports that deals with Kidney at all.

All the witnesses, from both lodging houses, said Stride was not in fear of Kidney.

Well, they did say that Stride had been living there because she'd 'argued with the man she lived with' (Kidney). 'Fear' or not, it is an idication of that things weren't right in the relationship.

Sven Olssen, from the Swedish church made no mention of Stride complaining about Kidney. This is the person most akin to a modern day social worker and accordingly the person most likey to have heard any sob stories of domestic abuse.

That is nonsense. Why would this be Sven Olssons concern? Elizabeth went to the Swedish Church in order to collect financial aid, and Sven Olsson would not know about domestic disputes unless Stride told him. More likely she did not, since that would mean the authorites would look into it. Not a good thing if you want to scam the church on some money.

We have nothing that suggests Kidney was a liar, therefore, no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

Yes he was a liar, because he lied about their last meeting, He said they parted in good terms last time he saw her, which is completely contradicted by the fact that she had been home while he was at work and collected her things. An odd behaviour for a couple on good terms. It is also contradicted by what some of her friends said, namely that she stayed at the lodging house because she had words with him.
I suggest you go back and read the witness testimonies again, because your memory clearly is somewhat faulty. Kidney did lie, and it is a very obvious lie. Just like Kidney tried to boast his ego at the inquest with nonsense about the 'information' he had. And no doubt both the coroner and Inspector Reid found him obnoxious and considered his talk to be boasting with no value whatsoever. Why do you think Inspector Reid asked him if he was drunk when he went to the police station?

Kidney says Stride left him for periods due to drunken bouts. We know Stride was arrested frequently for drunken bouts in the same period.

Well, Kidney was arrested as well on at least one occasion, so that doesn't really mean anything. We all know that Stride had some character problems and had an ability to bend the truth but it doesn't necessarily mean that Kindye was any better.

Not one newspaper, no matter how desparate their need for an exlusive, published even rumour of domestic violence.

That's because they had already decided it was a Ripper murder and wasn't interested in other angles. It was the Ripper who sold papers and there is no indcation of that they ever tried to cover the murder from other angles.

All the best

[FrankO]

Hi Dusty,

This, of course is exactly what I wrote in my post,
“… As to how accurate Schwartz’s description was, I have no idea …”
So it seems we are in total agreement.

It seems we're only partly in agreement, because even though I'm aware of what you wrote, in your post above you left out the important part of the whole sentence. You didn't add the latter half of it: "As to how accurate Schwartz’s description was, I have no idea but we can positively say the description does not match the drawing.". And that was what I was reacting to.

Because, as I've said - and as Fisherman has supported with a example from reality - any such comparison between the two remains unconvincing as long as one of both remains an unknown. However, you still seem to want to attach weight to it by saying that they don't match. Basing anything on Schwartz's description, or any other witness description for that matter, would be is a fruitless attempt. And that's really the only point I was trying to make in post no. 179.

All the best,
Frank

[drstrange169]

Hello Glenn,

Re: Baxter,

“…He did nothing of the kind…”

Actually, he definitely did!

I’ve previously quoted a relevant section of Baxter's summing up.
Another part is so pertinent to this debate, it’s as if he anticipated it and sent a warning wafting through three different centuries especially for the current crop of cyber theorists.
“There was no one among her associates to whom any suspicion had attached. They had not heard that she had had a quarrel with any one - unless they magnified the fact that she had recently left the man with whom she generally cohabited; but this diversion was of so frequent an occurrence that neither a breach of the peace ensued, nor, so far as they knew, even hard words.”

The word “magnified” is oh so apt.


Re: Police reports,

“That's because there is no police reports that deals with Kidney at all.”

So it is your contention that when Swanson wrote,
“… friends or associates or anybody who had known her …” he was specifically excluding Kidney from that list?
Come on Glenn, I’ve read your posts over the years, your better than that kind of twaddle.

Re: Lodging house inhabitants.

“Well, they did say that Stride had been living there because she'd 'argued with the man she lived with' (Kidney). 'Fear' or not, it is an idication of that things weren't right in the relationship.”

Using the word “they” seems to imply a plural of some kind. It was only one person, Catherine Lane. And she specifically stated (twice!) in her testimony that Elizabeth Stride at no stage indicated or hinted at any form or fear of harm.
What was it Baxter said?
“… neither a breach of the peace ensued, nor, so far as they knew, even hard words.”


Re: Sven Olssen.

He knew her for seventeen years!!!


Re: Kidney as a lair.

“Yes he was a liar, because he lied about their last meeting, He said they parted in good terms last time he saw her, which is completely contradicted by the fact that she had been home while he was at work and collected her things …”

Is it?

From the descriptions we have of their relationship it seemed perfectly normal, for them. Once again. "... this diversion was of so frequent an occurrence ..."
There is absolutely no evidence that Kidney lied about their last meeting.
Everyday, everywhere in the world people ditch their partners, leaving behind a bewildered lovelorn who never saw it coming. If it’s never happened to you or if you’ve never done it to anyone, count yourself lucky.

“It is also contradicted by what some of her friends said, namely that she stayed at the lodging house because she had words with him.”

There you go with the plurals again, see the above answers.
“…nor, so far as they knew, even hard words.”

Re: The press.

“That's because they had already decided it was a Ripper murder and wasn't interested in other angles. It was the Ripper who sold papers and there is no indcation of that they ever tried to cover the murder from other angles.”

I guess you don’t know the media very well. After twenty five years in it, that has not been my experience.

Thanks for your time.

[Stephen Thomas]

"And did you not hear anything?" queried Mr. B-----.

"Not a sound, sir." says the girl, earnestly, "and nobody else down here heard nothing neither.

A nice example of the Cockney double negative there, referring to events on the same night as the Goulston Street message was written, with the word 'nothing' used instead of 'anything'.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dusty,

To be honest, I have never understood what Baxter meant with "... this diversion was of so frequent an occurrence ...", and I never will. Nor what he based it on, and I have to say that I find it utterly nonsense.
To try to 'clear' Kidney after having struggled desperately to try to get any sensible word out of him when he was at the stand seems like an alien thought. If that comment means that Baxter indeed was trying to 'clear' Kidney, then Baxter must have been incompetent and a very bad judge of character, considering the man's appaling behaviour at the stand.
In essence: Baxter most likely said this because Swanson had written it in his report or elsewhere.
Have you actally read Kidney's testimony?

"There is absolutely no evidence that Kidney lied about their last meeting."

Yes, there is, because it contradicts her own actions. Kidney said that they had parted in good terms, while Stride in fact had been home and collected her own things. So we have to things: that she had collected her stuff while he was at work (which can hardly be considered hearsay) plus the evidence of Catherine Lane who said that Stride had left Kidney and had words with him.
None of that works well together with Kidney's statement that 'they were on good terms' last time he saw her. It is an absolute contradiction that would raise any eyebrow at any unexperienced police constable today.

You obviously prefer to rely on Kidney's word, but that is of course up to you. But it's a strange choice to rely on a man who delivers mumbo-jumbo and uses the inquest of the death of his woman to play boasting idiot, busybody and to make himself look important.

"So it is your contention that when Swanson wrote,
'… friends or associates or anybody who had known her …' he was specifically excluding Kidney from that list?
Come on Glenn, I’ve read your posts over the years, your better than that kind of twaddle."

Oh dear, not that nonsense again. How many times do I need to address this?
Firstly, when Swanson wrote this, he was clearly dead wrong, because no police officer today would agree with his conclusion considering the facts we do have. If a murder on a woman occurs and it turns out that she had had a problematic relationship with her man - and just recently left him - then any police officer today would consider that to be motive, and one of the simplest and oldest in the world. It is in fact one of the most common circumstances in any domestic murder.
So Swanson must no doubt have smoken too many clay pipes when he wrote that twaddle. Because when he writes that he can't find a domestic motive, he clearly shows that he hasn't covered or understood that angle at all.

Secondly, it is quite clear from the police reports, that the police early on regarded it as a Ripper murder, and the reason for this was most likely the murder in Mitre Square just discovered 45 minutes later. It is very clear that they made a connection, and if there ever was a domestic angle, they appear to have scrapped it rather quickly. Furthermore, if they believe the Ripper did it, then it would be enough for Kidney to provide an alibi for the murders of Chapman and Nichols in order to be in the clear.
This has all been said many times before.

"Everyday, everywhere in the world people ditch their partners, leaving behind a bewildered lovelorn who never saw it coming."

Yes, but when it happens shortly prior to a murder, then even the worst rookie within the police force knows that this is a circumstance that must be considered important.

And yes, it is painfully clear that the press regarded the murder as a Ripper killing right from the start - just like the police did as soon as they found out about the Mitre Square murder. This is evident from the press reports and all you have to do is read them. Heck, the press even counted Emma Smith and Tabram - Stride was regarded the 'fifth' victim.
If they could link any victim to the Ripper, they would sell more papers and of course it also suited some of the papers' political agendas.
I think it is YOU here, in fact, who needs to brush up your knowledge about how the press of 1888 operated.

I have no idea why you put so much stake on Kidney, because his behaviour at the inquest and at the police station clearly doesn't speak in his favour. And his testimony must be one of the absolute worst I have even encountered by a man who just lost his wife.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:
"So Swanson must no doubt have smoken too many clay pipes when he wrote that twaddle. Because when he writes that he can't find a domestic motive, he clearly shows that he hasn't covered or understood that angle at all"

Yes, Glenn, you are spot on here. The obvious fact that high-ranking policeofficers of that time had so little insight into how domestic violence works is somewhat apalling, but the conclusion that this was indeed the case is inescapable. In a former post on this very thread I wrote to Dusty:

"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."

I am well aware that criticizing the police is not all that popular on these boards, but the fact remains that Swansons wording on the matter is spectacularly stupid and a hindrance to giving the case a proper treatment if accepted.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Glenn,

I don’t know you well enough to say whether its misunderstanding or mischief that is causing so much misinformation in your posts.

You have flip flopped from definitively declaring Baxter said “nothing of the sort” to admitting that he did. And now you have moved to even stranger assertions.

RE: Kidney’s behavior at the inquest.

The figure you cut for Kidney; a “boasting idiot, busybody”, “making himself look important” is totally at odds with the only description known of how he gave his testimony.

Kidney was said to have been “morose”, eventually breaking down and speaking in an “incoherent manner” a far cry from your theoretical Kidney.

RE: Kidney’s actual testimony.

In two posts now, you’ve edited Kidney’s words to imply some inconsistency in his testimony that wasn’t actually there.

He was reported as saying he last saw Elizabeth Stride was in Commercial Street between 9 and 10 o’clock as he was returning from work. He then said she told him she would home with in the half hour.

Ergo, the last time he saw her, they left on good terms with Stride promising to meet him later. This *full* account *is* consistent.

RE: Kidney the boasting idiot.

I can only guess you are referring this comment,

“She always came back again. I think she liked me better than any other man. I do not believe she left me on Tuesday to take up with any other man.”

Other than the reporter’s description of Kidney being morose, we have absolutely no way of knowing what inflections Kidney used to deliver these lines (if indeed, they are accurately reported in the first place).

“*I* think she liked *ME* better than any…”
could, possibly, be considered boastful but it is at odds with the reporter’s description of “morose”.

“I *THINK* she liked me better than any…”
would be considered a statement of modesty.

It must be obvious, to any unbiased reader of these posts, that the idea of being able to state definitively how Kidney delivered these lines is silly.


RE: The police belief he didn’t do it.

“Oh dear, not that nonsense again. How many times do I need to address this?”

Apparently at least one more time, because you appear not to have grasped the basics.

Swanson was not an on the ground investigator, he headed the investigation as coordinator and liaison between the investigative police and senior officials.

Abberline headed the on the ground forces.

Swanson’s report was not his personal findings but rather a précis of the evidence collected by Abberline and his team.

Neither you nor I know exactly what investigations took place.
All we know is; a domestic dispute was ruled out.

Abberline was the most commended policeman of his time.
He lived in the area, met most of the main players in this saga, was highly respected by all who had dealings with him, had access to thousands of documents, eye witness interviews and information, he either attended or had access to accurate reports of the inquest.

You have access to a few varying newspaper accounts of the inquest and a small handful of police notes, most of which are unrelated to Kidney. Yet you feel confident enough to call the police incompetent, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that.

Thanks for your time