Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Cap'n Jack]

Hallo boys, 'ow you sticking the heat?
I do personally believe that Michael Kidney murdered Elizabeth Stride, for the crime - contrary to Tom's opinion - carries all the hallmarks of a domestic incident; and I have featured many very similar cases from the period, where a jilted lover has dogged the movements of his affection, and then made a sudden and swift attack with a knife, on the spur of the moment, and then moved quickly on.
Kidney's behaviour, and statements to the police and court, were highly suspect, and do represent the typical behaviour of a man carrying a burden of guilt... he was sort of hoping to right a wrong by claiming that given disposal of some police officers he could easily capture the killer of his former lover and flatmate, well of course he would, he was stood in the dock giving evidence in his defence.
Kidney, with his street wise cunning and imperial knowledge of the bobby on the beat went on the offensive, and by god, it worked.
Beard the bastards in their den and they will back down.

[Fisherman]

Let me just add to my former post that when Swedens prime minister Olof Palme was shot back in 1986, there were several witnesses who saw it from close distance out in the street. Some of these witnesses said afterwards that the killer wore a moustache, some said he did not. Some said he wore glasses, some said he did not. Some said he wore a short jacket, others said that it was a coat that reached down to the knees.

So to state that Schwartz could not possibly have been mistaken about the size of BS manīs moustache is something we may not want to do - it may prove terribly wrong in the end.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"I was not suggesting that Michael Kidney did or did not have broadshoulders, simply that he had a large mustache and BS Man did not. That would have been a VERY prominent feature that Schwartz couldn't have missed."

Wanna bet, Tom? Given the circumstances and the fact that Schwartzīs evidence took the way over an interpretor before it reached the police report, I would strongly advice against it.

"For whatever reason, Fisherman and Perry Mason are married to the idea that Kidney killed Stride and are willing to make something of a fool of themselves in an effort to argue the idea."

The only fool around would be the guy who missed that I earlier on this thread wrote that I am more inclined to believe in a successor to Kidney than in Kidney himself as Strideīs killer. It was in post 36, and I quote:
"Kidney remains a viable candidate, although I myself am more inclined to believe that the man who killed Stride may well have been Kidneys successor."
That post, by the bye, was addressed to you, Tom, so it is a tad strange that you are willing to display a total unawareness of it a few pages down the road...?

See Tom, the ones who read up before they open up are the ones who need not make fools of themselves. The ones who DONīT read up, however ... well, you get my drift, donīt you?

Fisherman
read up

[Tom_Wescott]

I was not suggesting that Michael Kidney did or did not have broadshoulders, simply that he had a large mustache and BS Man did not. That would have been a VERY prominent feature that Schwartz couldn't have missed. Also, there's the problem that the Stride murder bore absolutely no earmarks of a domestic homicide. Then Kidney's alibi and the fact that he willingly appeared at the inquest. In short, there's no more reason to think him the killer of Stride than to think John Kelly killed Eddowes. For whatever reason, Fisherman and Perry Mason are married to the idea that Kidney killed Stride and are willing to make something of a fool of themselves in an effort to argue the idea.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

Fisherman,

I over emphasized his intoxication in my mind, apparently. I've had a feeling that she had encountered this man before, so he could have been the man Marshall saw. Sometimes, when a particular sort of person feels rejected, they react in a nasty way. Perhaps she turned this man down earlier, or did something that he took as a snub, and he stewed over it and came after her later.

I didn't get the impression that any of these men described were shabby-looking.

[Ben]

They did not believe the two men in the two stories were the same.

I'm afraid there's little justification for that interpretation, Mike.

If the police prioritized one description over the other, it could easily be explained on the grounds that they felt one witness acquired a better sighting than the other, as opposed to a belief that they must have seen two different people. Israel Schwartz may not have been mentioned at the inquest, but his name and description were both mentioned (along with Lawende's) on a police report penned by Donald Swanson.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

...and perhaps successor TO MICHAEL KIDNEY that is. That part went lost for some reason.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Celesta:

"Then I stand corrected. I had the impression the man was drunk."

Well, Celesta, we cannot conclude who is corrected or not here; Schwartz was interpreted at the police station, and things may have gone lost. Maybe he was intoxicated, at least to some degree.
One of the things I always point out is that it was also said in the Star that BS man was a man of "respectable appearance". I feel that if the reporter would make something up on his own, this would not be such a detail - it adds no "spice" to the story, as does for example the part where Pipeman suddenly is armed.
Therefore, I tend to believe that Schwartz actually did say that BS man looked respectable. And I have no problems with the suggestion that he was slightly tipsy - he may well have been.
The problem I am having is when people suggest that BS man was proably an ordinary street ruffian and a drunkenbolt. That seems very far from what we can allow ourselves to read into things, given what we have on record.

My suggestion is that BS man could well have been one and the same man as Stride was seen with earlier, by Marshall. That man seemingly had a corresponding clothing, and is described as heavy-set and clerk-looking; a respectable appearance, that is. And if this holds any water, we have a man in whos company Stride is seen not once but twice that evening, a man with whom she has a friendly conversation in a doorway before she walks away with him. An aquaintance of some sort - and perhaps successor.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Roy Corduroy]

Sir Melville suggests that the only person who may have seen the Ripper was "a city Pc near Mitre Square." ...

...They did not believe the two men in the two stories were the same.

Perry, you don't mean Herman Melville, do you? Because you must be the first person ever to use Melville McNaghten to argue that Elizabeth Stride was not a Ripper victim.

Have you read the McNaghten Memoranda? He states "there were 5 victims and 5 victims only." One of the five he lists is Stride.

He goes on to say: " With regard to the double murder which took place on 30th September, there is no doubt but that the man was disturbed by some Jews who drove up to a Club, (close to which the body of Elizabeth Stride was found) and that he then, 'mordum satiatus', went in search of a further victim who he found at Mitre Square."

Roy

Hello, Michael.

At the risk of starting the whole "cutaway" discussion up again, I would have expected the police to question suspects and ask them explicitly about these details. Perhaps they weren't equating Schwartz's man and Lawende's, perhaps it was Harry Harris and William Marshall. Personally I think Schwartz's description matches Lawende (at least some of the variations thereof), but if I had them in front of me, I'd ask them what they mean by "dressed respectably" or "appearance of a sailor." The problem is that we don't really have enough information to go on, and there are many variables and possibilities, but they were in a position to question suspects about these details, and they concluded that Eddowes and Stride were seen with the same man.

Thats reasonable Christine, but lets look at some details that might tell how they felt about both suspects. Sir Melville suggests that the only person who may have seen the Ripper was "a city Pc near Mitre Square." Since neither of the officers that looked into that courtyard reported seeing anything, and since the witness that is seems to have had the best view of the man with Kate is Jospeh Lawende, of the Three Wise Men leaving the Imperial Club, its probable he meant the citizen not the City cop.

Lawende is mentioned at the Inquest, but with the details withheld as they were being used for investigative purposes at the time of the Inquest. Its likely Macnaughten meant Lawende, and confused the situation based on the many city cops that appear in this murder story.

Israel Schwartz does not have a report made of his statement that we can view, I have never heard where it may have gone, but Swansons recollections are all we have. He says he thinks the man is truthful. Yet Schwartz is not even mentioned in the Inquest that finishes 3 weeks after the murders. Not even in passing....with ample time to have him appear.

They did not value the witnesses remarks equally, obviously.....and they did value Lawendes, so, the logical conclusion is that they believed Israel did not see anything including of value including a possible Jack with Liz, but they did think Lawende saw Jack with Kate.

They did not believe the two men in the two stories were the same.

All the best Christine.

[Christine]

Hello, Michael.

At the risk of starting the whole "cutaway" discussion up again, I would have expected the police to question suspects and ask them explicitly about these details. Perhaps they weren't equating Schwartz's man and Lawende's, perhaps it was Harry Harris and William Marshall. Personally I think Schwartz's description matches Lawende (at least some of the variations thereof), but if I had them in front of me, I'd ask them what they mean by "dressed respectably" or "appearance of a sailor." The problem is that we don't really have enough information to go on, and there are many variables and possibilities, but they were in a position to question suspects about these details, and they concluded that Eddowes and Stride were seen with the same man.

Michael, I don't really have that much respect for the police, but I really can't believe that there were no attempts to determine whether Schwartz and Lawende saw the same man, or to determine whether any of the witnesses saw Kidney. If the police did anything at all they must have done that, and all accounts indicate that they were at least trying to find the Ripper.

Hi again Christine,

One would think youre correct, like we have to assume a vigorous investigation took place based on Hutchinson's story. The results of both investigations must have unearthed some reason for discrediting Hutchinson's story and completely ignoring Schwartz's at the Inquest. I think we are able to judge whether the same man was seen at both locations based on the accounts that were given, again only Lawende's is accredited at the Inquest.
Physically they could possibly be the same man, but they are not dressed alike.

Im all for Jack having engaged in some discretion, but not for costume changes during a 45 minute murder break. I think any clothes being changed may have happened when Kates killer dropped off his take for the evening before heading to Goulston.

Cheers Christine

[Celesta]

Celesta writes:

"He knew that the man was drunk because he was walking behind him"

If we can believe the Star, that is - in the police report, nothing is said about drunkenness...

The best,
Fisherman

Then I stand corrected. I had the impression the man was drunk. I'll have to look into this. Thank you, Fisherman.

P.S. I just took a look at the transcript of an Oct. 1 issue of the Star. This is from the witnesses section here on the site. I suppose I may have seen this and formed the impression of his being drunk. This suggests he was not completely bombed.

"It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane. When he first came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner Street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alleyway where the body was found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. "

[celee]

Perhaps, Schwartz actually witnessed and interupted the murder taking place. This would explain her death despite being seen?

Maybe.

I feel that if Stride's killer knew he was spotted by Shwartz and still murdered her anyway. He must have been someone who was out of control or someone who did not want to leave a witness. Maybe Kidney in some sort of rage or maybe Jack.

If it was someone who was just trying to rob Stride or get away with a free toss then I doubt he would have killed her after being seen.

Your friend, Brad

[celee]

Hi Fisherman, I agree, however, in this instance BS Man does not appear to be aware that Schwartz was behind him, and if the incident was taking place just inside the gates and Schwartz saw her fall where she was to be found (see the following reports referring to the footway inside the gates) :

Both reports taken from the East End Observer :

Both gates were open - wide open. It was rather dark there. I drove it in as usual, but as I came into the gate my pony shied to the left, and that made me look at the ground to see what the cause of it was. I could see that there was something unusual on the pavement, but I could not see what it was.

[I]On entering the gateway a brick wall runs for some distance on the right-hand side, and it was on the footpath here[/I], and by the side of the brick wall, that the first victim was found.

Mr. Jon Guy,

Come on down. I am awfuly glad you posted. I was up all night thinking about the Stride murder and all day today while at work I was thinking about the crime scene.

I always assumed that Stride was killed were she fell. It makes sence. If Stride was able to get to her feet and make a move she would have moved towards the street not back inside the gate. Does that sound right to you. I am not as familiar with the crime scene as I would like to be.

Would the killer have killed her and then moved her back inside the gate. I assume that would suggest an attempt to conceal the body. I do not think that Jack cared much about concealing the bodies.

Your friend, Brad