Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[c.d.]

You've hit the nail on the head. Stride was not slapped around, yelled at, or manhandled, according to the medical evidence. She was taken to a dark corner where her throat was slit in one motion...no false starts as are almost always seen in knife homicides. Twas a practiced, emotionless hand what fell poor Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Interesting that Diemschutz's wife as well as Morris Eagle testifed that despite the singing in the club they were quite confident that they would have heard Liz scream which they did not. It would stand to reason then that they would have heard any yelling or loud argument preceding her death. Hard to imagine that Kidney would have just walked up and stabbed her without a preceding argument with lots of yelling.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish,

It was in that one documentary I saw.

Nats,

I'm not at all convinced that PC Smith saw Stride's killer, but your points are certainly valid ones. Personally, I think she may have been talking to a clubman carrying a stack of Der Arbeter Fraints.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Tom,
I can see your point.Thats certainly another possibility .The newspaper parcel was described by PC Smith as being 18 in.in length and 6 to 8 in. in width.I wonder at how precise PC Smith was being when he said "parcel"? Because parcel implies the newspapers were being used as a " wrap" round something, might not a "newspaper bundle" or "sheaf" of newspapers have better described a collection of papers from Arbeter frient?

Best

[Tom_Wescott]

His size description fits issues of Der Arbeter Fraint to a T. A stack of these with the string around them would resemble a parcel from most angles in that light. And they DID stand outside the club handing the newspaper out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

In short, there's no more reason to think him the killer of Stride than to think John Kelly killed Eddowes.

Glad to see someone's got sense regarding the somewhat braindead theory that Stride's (and Mary Kelly's for that matter) murder was the result of a domestic. I never understood why either of their spouses made good candidates for being a murderer; the worst thing any of them did from memory is be rough or absuive to their girlfriends, which was probably a very common thing to happen in those days, as wrong as it is. That and one of Mary's Joes(?) was institutionalised later on, but going by his aslyum notes that someone posted on here a while back he seemed to be harmless. Not exactly the make-up of a regular murderer, let alone serial killer.

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.

[Cap'n Jack]

And if we piled up rabbit turds for a thousand years we'd get a hill.
Tom, your last post was beyond the pale, or bucket.

[halomanuk]

We have to look at the hysteria factor which would have been escalated once Eddowes had been killed AND mutilated.
It is no different than a spreading hysteria today.
People would have looked back to any other 'profile murder' on the same night and would have found Stride..it's a possibility..

[perrymason]

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

Hi Ben,

Ill address both your rebuttal and Roys together.....Joseph Lawende is a named witness that was called to put his story on record at the Inquest. Due to the sensitive nature of his evidence and an ongoing investigation of it, the details were suppressed. Lawende was sequestered in a hotel during their investigation of his account. Macnaughten's Memorandum that Roy misused in defense of his counter point suggests that a single witness saw the real Jack, and although he says he thinks it was a PC who saw him near Mitre Square, we have no evidence that would back that statement up other than a witness to a suspect for the Mitre Square murder, who by his account is seen with Kate less than 10 minutes before she is found dead. Considering the extent of her injuries and the fact that they are not at the location yet where she will die, it would seem reasonable that she did not meet yet another man after Sailor Man. Lawende is aasumed the best witness to the killer, and is assumed to have been brought in at times to ID suspects in custody. He is a likely candidate for their "City PC witness" mentioned by Macnaughten.

That seems fair, yes?

Now, Israel Schwartz gave a story Sunday Sept 30th that places the soon to be Berner Street victim in a tussle just outside the location where she is murdered with a drunk. Critically important if true. That story is repeated in the press, and some notations by Swanson. It is not stated publicly, as it was with Hutchinson, that he is a discredited witness....but his story does not appear at all in the official review of the police evidence gathered, called an Inquest, even though there was ample opportunity to call him in.

They did not.

Ergo, his story was not believed relevant by the Police, and that fact is verified by the fact that James Browns competing 12:45am story IS in the official review. Ergo, the officials cannot have concluded that Schwartz and Lawende saw the same man when one witness was not believable.

I could care less who says Jack killed 5 women including Liz Stride, ....there is not one tiny piece of evidence that supports linking ANY 2 Canonicals...including the 2 placed in that group that happened to die on the same night. That a group of men said they thought so doesnt makes it a fact.

I like debates, I dont like people intentionally dismissing facts because they prefer different answers. Like wanting Jack as the dual killer on Sept 30th.

So we are on the real page.....Lawende was believed, and is on the record at the Inquest, Schwartz was said to have been believed in a memo, but in fact was not asked to recite his statement on record. It wasnt even mentioned, Nor was he, Or a Broadshouldered Man. Or a Pipeman.

In point form;

-Brown is the legitimate 12:45am sighting by virtue of his appearance at the Inquest
-Schwartz's story was not officially accepted, by virtue of the absence of it or him at the Inquest
- There was likely no Broadshouldered Man, Pipeman, or altercation with Liz outside the gates at 12:45am
-Liz was not likely just outside the gates alone at 12:45am.
-Diemshutz so called killer-interruption is that he pulled in and found a woman who had been cut perhaps as much as 10 minutes or more before he even arrives
-Liz Strides killer murdered her and then left her untouched

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.

[Ben]

It is not stated publicly, as it was with Hutchinson, that he is a discredited witness....but his story does not appear at all in the official review of the police evidence gathered

It does, Mike.

Swanson made a compilation of eyewitness evidence, and it included Schwartz's description.

there is not one tiny piece of evidence that supports linking ANY 2 Canonicals...

You can't be serious.

You can argue that there's no proof, but to argue that "not one tiny piece of evidence" to link any one "canonical" victim with another is obviously outlandish.

[celee]

Hi Celestra,

Just now noticed your responce.

Exactly, Kidney in the heat of the moment or Jack. No one else, in my opinion, would have killed Stride after being seen by Shwartz.

Your friend, Brad

[Mascara & Paranoia]

There's no proof that Kidney was even in Berner Street that night (is there?), or that he was capable of killing. And Stride's is the most dissimiliar kill in the canonical group. But then I'd just be repeating myself.

[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 youīll pardon my French. And if you donīt, there is very little I can do about it.

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]

Hi M&P!

I really donīt 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

[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.