Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Tom_Wescott]

if the Ripper didn't commit the crime, then Kidney - as the closest male companion and living with the woman - he, like in any normal murder investigation, has to be the prime suspect since the male companion generally is the perpetrator.

Precisely, and the police then would have known that too. Remember that he was investigated, was cleared, had NO SUSPICION attached to him by Liz's friends and associates, and therefore does not TODAY stand as the most likely killer of Stride. Obviously, Jack the Ripper is the most likely killer of Stride. But running a distant second to him are a list of characters who must be placed OVER Kidney.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. he never locked Liz in their room, by the way. More nonsense. And there's no evidence he abused her at all.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Tom,

We certainly don't know if he was investigated, cleared or had any suspicion attached to him.
Again, you are basing this on Swanson's very brief one-liner in his summary report, which does not mention any name whatsoever.

In addition, Swanson was in fact dead wrong when he wrote nonsense like 'no MOTIVE could be found' for a domestic murder, because if you have a scenario where the murder victim just recently have left the man she lives with and also is accusing him of abuse on one occasion but fail to show up in court (yeah - how many thousand times have I not seen that in connection with domestic abuse), then you automatically have a motive.
Not to mention the fact that he most likely lied about their last meeting (yes, I'd rather believe Catherine Lane - delivering a statement on oath - then Kidney, for reasons based on his other dubious statements in court).
So Swanson's expression is in itself evidence of that they either dropped the domestic scenario before it was fully investigated or else he simply had no clue of what he was talking about. I intend to be kind here - since I otherwise respect Swanson - and suggest the former.

And the reason they did was in such case because they after the discovery of the Eddowes murder -and due to pressure from the papers (and it is beyond doubt that the press immediately did connect the murder with the Ripper and called her 'the fifth victim') and the higher authorities - decided that the Ripper was the perpatrator. Which meant Kidney could be easily cleared if he could provide an alibi for the previous murders.

And no, besides the Ripper there are no credible suspects that surpasses Kidney.

All the best

[Tom_Wescott]

My mind boggles, Mr. Lauritz Andersson, how you can keep saying that 'we don't know Kidney was investigated' when we know he willfully went to the police station where he was interviewed, we know he willfully appeared at the inquest and gave testimony, and we know from the very investigators themselves that Stride's "closest associates" were investigated and their alibis checked into. Kidney obviously topped this list. You said so yourself when you wrote: Kidney - as the closest male companion and living with the woman - he, like in any normal murder investigation, has to be the prime suspect since the male companion generally is the perpetrator.

It's fine if you want to argue Kidney for Stride's killer, but please don't insult our intelligence and ignore all the contrary evidence in the process. And if Kidney killed Stride, then who was BS Man? Who was Pipeman? How much evidence are you willing to dismiss in order to chase your ghost?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Tom,

There is no evidence of that he was investigated or even interviewed when he went to the police station. He went there in order to either play dumbass or throw the police of their tracks by delivering nonsense.

"and we know from the very investigators themselves that Stride's "closest associates" were investigated and their alibis checked into."

I just adressed that above, but it just doesn't sink in, does it?

"You said so yourself when you wrote: Kidney - as the closest male companion and living with the woman - he, like in any normal murder investigation, has to be the prime suspect since the male companion generally is the perpetrator."

Yes, TODAY! But hey, even today investigators do this mistake but you are obviously prepared to rely on the rather unexperienced police of 1888. Well, each his own.
Until I see direct evidence of that Kidney (mentioned by name) was really fully investigated, and the reasons for why he was alleged to be cleared and what he alibis were, I see no reason to dismiss him. I certainly won't rely on a one-liner in a police report from 1888 that doesn't even mention any names.

"...then who was BS Man? Who was Pipeman?"

Characters we don't even know existed and never were identified.

All the best

[drstrange169]

Hello Glenn,

First off, congratulations on your book, is there a thread about it anywhere?

Back to the business at hand:
So you consider Kidney “a smartass,” with “the behaviour of a boaster and a busybody - and most likely a drunken idiot” simply because he had an unsustainable theory about Stride’s death, dodged the questions put to him, wouldn’t provide any proof above his personnal opinion, ignored the facts and thought the police were totally incompetant.

:-)

Most of your current post has already been addressed and explained in my previous post, so there is nothing to be gained by repeating it all.

You keep insisting your personel opinion should hold sway over those who were actually there. If those who saw, say Kidney became a mumbling mess in the section of testimony your referring to, I’m afraid with the absence of any evidence to support your theory, I’m inclined to believe them over you.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, the bulk of Kidney’s evidence was forthright and cross checkable, both times he appeared in the stand.

If it’s his mumbling section that troubles you so much, lets go though it logically rather than emotionaly.

As I keep repeating, those that were there make no mention of boastfulness.
And no serious modern reseacher can claim to know exactly what inflections were used. So what are other possible reasons:

Was Kidney poorly educated?

Did he struggle to express himself and thus lead to this particular part of his testimony? Of course we simply don’t know. You seem happy to chastise Tom over the supposed lack of evidence in the Swanson snippet then with equal happiness make assumptions as facts here that can’t possibly be backed up.

Was Kidney drunk?

Most relatives of murder victims these days are heavily medicated in the following weeks. Such medical moderness was not available in the East End inhabitants of 1888, so drink was a very viable option.

Was Kidney telling the truth?

This one will shock you I’m sure but it’s an option that ticks all the credible boxes.

We know that the “gang” theory existed back then. What if Kidney believed a Victorian version of the Krays were responsible for the murder? Rereading his testimony this theory certainly fits in perfectly with his reluctant mumblings, especially his desire not to publicly name the killer, a certain death warrant for himself if he did.

Is that what happened? i don't know. And that's the point. Theories are just theories and shouldn't be stated as facts.

We have read a lot of posts about Kidney but so far nobody has put forward credible evidence that would place Kidney anywhere but close to the bottom of a suspect list.

Thanks for your time.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dusty,

I don't know which part of Kidney's testimony you refer to as the 'mumbling' part.
His WHOLE TEXTIMONY from beginning to end is a complete mess with avoidance to answer a number of questions and when he do answer he only delivers irrelevant nonsense.

Of course he's boasting! It is also perfectly obvious that he has no 'information' to reveal in the end. Baxter even gave him the opportunity to deliver the information to Inspector Reid afterwards instead of speaking to the coroner, but refused.
So here we have a man who boasts that he has the solution to the murder, and on the other hand refuses to help out. So why do he mention anything at all in the first place? Why not just keep his mouth shut?
C'mon Dusty - give me a break here.
Even coroner Baxter - who appears clearly frustrated and several times tries to ask him the same questions all over again although Kidney refuses to deliver any sensible answer - thinks he's a pain in the butt.

You don't NEED the papers or anyone else at the time to describe him as boastful, because his behaviour speaks for itself.
Sometimes I wonder if people are actually reading the same testimony as I do. Just incredible.

But yes, I also think it's quite possible he was drunk.
Heck, if he was drunk at the police station he could also have been drunk at the inquest, and his behaviour surely implies it.

I don't know how many witness testimonies you've read in your day, Dusty, but I've read several hundreds and Kidney's is probably one of the worst ones - if not the absolute worst - I have ever encountered delivered at the stand in court. And certainly the most unsympathetic one delivered by the spouse to a murdered woman.

All the best