Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Celesta]

Hi CD, Sorry! Yes, I did mean to reply to you. I caught my mistake and changed it. I've pondered these same questions. If the two witnesses took off, what was to prevent him (whoever he was) from laying hands on her and tightening the scarf, until she was semi-conscious. She died where she was lying, but I wonder if she was wasn't lifted and carried into the yard, then killed . He'd have carried her, with his arms under her knees and back. He placed her on the ground, and then killed her. It seems she would have dropped those cachous near the gate when the scarf was tightened, but she might have tightened her hands instead. Perhaps they then relaxed to the "partially closed" position with unconsciousness or death?

[Cap'n Jack]

What was it, Tom, that Kidney said of Stride?

'She loved me more than the others...' ?

[Ben]

Sorry, Ben but those are simply your opinions unless you graduated with a degree in cachousology.

Ah, but do you have such a degree, CD?

If not, you can't know that any of the things you cite as "red flags" are genuine "red flags" or simply non-problems that can be overcome with an explanation such as the one I suggest above.

Ben

[c.d.]

Sorry, Ben but those are simply your opinions unless you graduated with a degree in cachousology. As to red flags, I think the whole scenario is filled with them. If you don't, so be it.

c.d.

[Ben]

If she struggled with the BS man, how did the cachous remain in her hand unboken?

Probably because they remained in her clenched fists as she tried to fend off her attacker, CD. The fact that they remained there is more indicative of preparedness for attack than it is of an a sudden and unexpected assault. Blind instinct is more likely to take over in the latter scenario.

There really aren't any red flags in the "BS man as her killer scenario" other than the possibility that Schwartz invented the whole caboodle.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Celesta,

I think you meant to reply to me not Ben. But if you have a violent action, how does Liz get into the yard to the spot where she is killed? I would assume that it was not voluntary on her part (although that is a possibility). If she was dragged against her will, did she not realize the danger she was in? Why did Diemschutz's wife and Morris Eagle not hear her scream for help as they testified that they believed they would have had she done so? If she struggled with the BS man, how did the cachous remain in her hand unboken? It seems to me that these are just a few of the many red flags in the BS man as her killer scenario.

c.d.

[Celesta]

Fair enough, CD. I overstated. He pushed her to the ground. My intention was to emphasize a violent action, not fisticuffs.

The suddenness of it, is what strikes me. There's little preamble. He speaks to her and then lays hands on her. The Ripper may have behaved the same way. Hard to say.

[c.d.]

What we know is that two witnesses, only one whose statement we have, saw a broad-shouldered man, apparently without a mustache, pushing a woman around, and acting threatening to both witnesses. Shortly thereafter that same woman was found murdered in the Yard.

So why is it illogical to assume the man, who was pushing her around, was less likely to be her killer than a man no one seems to have seen, to our knowledge? Are we supposed to assume this man became bored with beating up on Stride and just wandered off, while Liz hung around and waited for the real killer?

The broad-shoulder man may or may not have been Kidney, or someone else Stride knew, or he may have been JTR. One thing we know is that he was capable of throwing women around. He was on the spot, he was committing violence, do we really need to pull a rabbit out of a hat?

Hi Celesta,

Well that's just it, the BS man didn't beat up on Stride which is what you would expect. It was simply a cut to the throat with the intent to kill. That's what makes it so strange.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Your ramblings on this issue remain every bit as pathetic as they were the first time you tried this hogwash, if youŽll pardon my French. And if you donŽt, there is very little I can do about it.

You do yourself no favors by picking and choosing which evidence you'll consider worthy in order to reach your foregone conclusion...and then calling me pathetic.

According to THE 10 PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR KIDNEY:

1) Schwartz is right on the money about what he saw...except his description of BS Man. Why? Because BS Man looked nothing like Kidney. Somehow, Schwartz could see a big, billowy mustache and walk away thinking it was a small mustache. This is what Kidney supporters would have us believe.

2) The only reason to suspect Kidney in the first place is that he and Stride supposedly broke up. But who says that? Liz Stride moving out on Kidney was a semi-regular occurence, and there's nothing to suggest it was even permanent or that Kidney was particularly upset. Kidney supporters suggest this was not the case, but on what evidence?

3) All of Stride's closest associates were investigated by the police. They produced alibis which were confirmed. Kidney was unquestionably her closest associate. He went into the police station OF HIS OWN VOLITION and gave statements. He appeared at the inquest. Yet Kidney supporters will have you believe that he was not questioned about his whereabouts and that he alone among her associates was not investigated. Considering his rather gruff demeanor, I would suggest the police looked at him quite strongly.

4) All of Stride's associates were asked if there was anyone who might want to harm her. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM GAVE UP KIDNEY. Yet Kidney supporters would have you believe he was some evil, abusive force, although all the evidence thus far points away from that conclusion.

5) Stride was seperated from Kidney for only a few days after three years together, yet the autopsy revealed no signs of somewhat recent or prolonged physical abuse.

6) Kidney didn't hesitate to present himself to the police and sit in on the inquest, even though if he were BS Man, he would have known that he'd been seen and that Schwartz had talked to the police.

7) Stride's murderer did not hit her, rip her clothes, yell at her, nor did she run from him or yell audibly for help. He calmly cut her throat and laid her down. This did not occur at home or a regular haunt.

In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing that would lead an obective person to believe that Stride had been murdered by Michael Kidney or any would-be suitor. There is nothing here that points to a domestic homicide.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Enough with the semantics and personal attacks, Fisherman. If you can't argue on my level, don't attempt to argue with me.

[Celesta]

What we know is that two witnesses, only one whose statement we have, saw a broad-shouldered man, apparently without a mustache, pushing a woman around, and acting threatening to both witnesses. Shortly thereafter that same woman was found murdered in the Yard.

So why is it illogical to assume the man, who was pushing her around, was less likely to be her killer than a man no one seems to have seen, to our knowledge? Are we supposed to assume this man became bored with beating up on Stride and just wandered off, while Liz hung around and waited for the real killer?

The broad-shoulder man may or may not have been Kidney, or someone else Stride knew, or he may have been JTR. One thing we know is that he was capable of throwing women around. He was on the spot, he was committing violence, do we really need to pull a rabbit out of a hat?

[c.d.]

If anyone wants Liz Strides killer to have been Jack cause that agrees with the unofficial and unproven allegations of a 5 woman killing spree by Jack the Ripper, just know that you do so without any evidence or proof in legal terms that validates those opinions. None.

Best regards all.

Hi Michael,

If we had evidence or proof in legal terms of who killed Liz we wouldn't be having this debate. That same criteria holds true for the non-Jack camp as well.

c.d.

[c.d.]

That being said (not in reply to anyone in particular), I don't think Stride was a Ripper victim any more than Alice McKenzie(?). Their throat wounds were both superficial and tame in comparison to that of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and even Kelly's. The only striking component linking Stride to the Ripper is that she was killed in Whitechapel on the same night as Eddowes and not much else. If she was a Ripper victim, then Jack did everything strikingly dissimilar with her one-off type of murder for some reason, and I'm talking about the way in which she was actually killed, not the so-called so-trite theory of being interrupted before being able to perform the mutilations; unless Jack was interrupted the moment his blade touched her throat.

Hi M&P,

How can a throat wound that kills the victim be described as "superficial and tame". It did what it intended to do did it not? And if it was not exactly similar to the other cuts, could there be any reasons for that?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hi M&P!

I really donŽt see how my argument can be used agaist me? Unless you mean that the fact that we do not know if the two men looked like each other or not goes to prove that they may have looked unalike?
If so, that is something I have already agreed to - in my post, I said that just as they may be twin-like, they may also be totally unalike, Laurel and Hardy-style.
What I am after here, though, is that Tom Wescott is telling us something that may factually and logically only be put forward as an ubstantiable suggestion as if it were assertained facts. This is not the case.
As for Kidney being a possible or even probable killer of Stride, we have very little to go on. We do know that he appeared quite dodgy in his police contacts, and we do know that it seems he lied about him and Stride having a row as they parted prior to her death - he did not admit this. And - of course - we do know that the statistically most probable killer of a woman is her spouse.

I have no trouble admitting that this does not constitute much evidence against Kidney. I wish that those who speak against him had the same ability to admit that the facts weighing against him being the killer are more or less absent too.

The best!
Fisherman

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Your argument can just as easily be used against you. What is there, at all, to suggest that Kidney could have possibly, perhaps, maybe have been the one to kill Stride?

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"It was in that one documentary I saw."

If you provide any evidence telling us that the ordinary throat-cutting domestic killer typically will make a false start when cutting a neck, I will find the name of my documentary.
My guess is that you are the one who will come up short. Again.

You know, Tom, it is of the essence that somebody steps in and tells the other posters what you are trying to do and what you are supporting it with, although it will earn those who do so some scorning and mocking. Returning to the suggestions on your behalf that made me do the job this time over, we have a statement on your behalf,asserting that "not only did BS Man not look like Kidney".

To begin with, we have no photo and no drawing of BS man, so we actually can tell very little about how he looked. The police report states this only: age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered.
Of Kidney, we have a drawing. He was 36 at the time of the murder, we do not know how tall he was, we do not know what colour his complexion was, we do not know the colour of his hair - nothing in the drawing tells us that he would not have had a fair complexion and brown hair, though - we cannot see if he had a full face, since the drawing depicts Kidney from the side, we do not know if he had broad shoulders for the same reason. We can see that he had a substantial moustache, and we know that Schwartz believed that BS man had a small moustache, but these things, as we can learn from myriads of witness testimonies, are often not picked up on in a correct fashion.

What does all of this mean? It means, of course, that BS man and Michael Kidney may have been as like each others as a couple of one-egg twins! Or, for that matter, that they may have been as unalike as Laurel and Hardy. The lack of material involved guarantees that each of these two suggestions may be true!
Once and for all - nobody can say that the two men were unalike and substantiate such a claim. Those who say it anyway are dealing in fiction.

Next claim: "Kidney produced an alibi that the police were able to confirm".

Do we know this? Nope. What we DO know is that the police stated that they had spoken to the near aquiantances of Stride, and that their assessment was that these aquaintances were not relevant to the search for the killer. That, at least, was the gist of it all.
We have, however, NO specific mentioning that Kidney belonged to the investigated ones, just as we have no specific mentioning of how - IF Kidney belonged to the tally - his alibi looked.
He could have said "I was playing cards with my chums", in which case he could also have instructed these same chums to agree with that suggestion - whether it was true or not.
He could have said "I was at my favourite pub all night", in which case his favourite bartender may have confirmed that, trading for ten pounds.
If he felt that awkward questions may have caused his chums or the bartender to get things tangled up, he may just have settled for saying "I was at home, sleeping".

The bottom line is that we have no substantiation telling us anything about Kidneys alibi, his true whereabouts - or even whether he WAS questioned and supposedly freed from suspicion by the police. We have nothing, and therefore we should not hint at such a thing, let alone boldly state that Kidney was interrogated whereupon he presented a watertight alibi.
Such a thing would be to propose that there were good reasons to rule Kidney out, and there is not. There are not even BAD reasons to do so! There is, effectively, NOTHING that allows us to rule him out, just as there is nothing that could possibly tell us that BS man and Kidney did not look the same. The sack of promises and hot leads is totally and utterly empty.

But still, we are fed this complete nonsense by you, Tom, over and over again, while you encourage people to listen to YOU when they need to have MY nonsense cleared up ...?

Your ramblings on this issue remain every bit as pathetic as they were the first time you tried this hogwash, if youŽll pardon my French. And if you donŽt, there is very little I can do about it.

Fisherman