Michael Kidney

[perrymason]

If Kidney was the BS man and killed Liz in a fit of rage, why does he then stick around after being seen by Scwartz and Pipe Man? Not only can they identify him but he knows that the police will show up at his door simply by virtue of him being her ex boyfriend. If I had been Kidney, I would have left Whitechapel just as fast as I could.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Sorry I missed the direct question earlier, and I see this is still an issue with you.

Whats more suspicious.....an ex boyfriend with a history of physical abuse towards Liz fleeing the city after he knows there were witnesses, or one that remains and continues the life he had before the murder?

Also, lets not forget that it is not a given that Israel Schwartz's story was even given to a jury or panel, in fact the evidence suggests he did not appear at the Stride Inquest,.... and the details of and the "witnesses" in his story, including himself, may be red herrings.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You are right. Schwartz most certainly could have lied or been mistaken. But I see no reason for him doing so. If we want to go that route, then we have to believe that every single witness in the case could have lied. That really doesn't get us anywhere. What we do know is that he made his statement. So pays your money and takes your chances.

As for Kidney fleeing, I am not sure that I see your point. Let's imagine that Kidney goes to trial. Both Schwartz and the Pipe Man (assuming that he can be tracked down) take the stand. They positively identify Kidney as the BS man and describe how they saw him throw Liz down shortly before her death. His past record of abuse is introduced. His defense lawyer says keep in mind that a guilty man would have fled and Kidney did not. That is a point. But if I am a juror, no way would that carry as much weight as identification by two eye witnesses and a history of abuse and violence towards Liz. I would vote to hang.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

You are right. Schwartz most certainly could have lied or been mistaken. But I see no reason for him doing so. If we want to go that route, then we have to believe that every single witness in the case could have lied. That really doesn't get us anywhere. What we do know is that he made his statement. So pays your money and takes your chances.

As for Kidney fleeing, I am not sure that I see your point. Let's imagine that Kidney goes to trial. Both Schwartz and the Pipe Man (assuming that he can be tracked down) take the stand. They positively identify Kidney as the BS man and describe how they saw him throw Liz down shortly before her death. His past record of abuse is introduced. His defense lawyer says keep in mind that a guilty man would have fled and Kidney did not. That is a point. But if I am a juror, no way would that carry as much weight as identification by two eye witnesses and a history of abuse and violence towards Liz. I would vote to hang.

c.d.

Hi again cd,

Well.... on Israel, his absence in the reporting of the formal Inquest does not suggest strong police support for his statements, contrary to the mention in memos and correspondence indicating he had belief from those investigators. If he wasnt called to the stand, he likely wasnt deemed to have value as a witness or he was so important a witness the police protected him.

We do see that behavior with Lawende, the paid for a hotel room for him to sequester him and they didnt even let him make his suspect statements again in court. They protected his evidence. Is there any evidence that exixts that shows the same was done for Schwartz?

On the second point, these killers get away with these kinds of murders because their are no visible characters doing suspicious things after they occur....life goes on, people do what they do, and the world turns. If Schwartz's story is not something we should be counting on as valid, then there are no witnesses such as Pipeman.....and there may have been no BSM either. Kidney doesnt have to be BSM...there does not have to be a BSM in this story, just someone who gets Liz alone in the yard for a brief moment.

I believe that BSM is an offsite thug or potential Ripper type that was perhaps fabricated to cast suspicion away from the club members onsite....who were all European Jews at a time when the Police believed Jack was from that population segment. An offsite attacker was a godsend for them circumstantially....but was he real or not....I have my doubts.

Someone really killed her though.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

There is no reason to doubt Schwartz's story other than mere speculation. His non-appearance could could have a simple explanation such as there being no interpreter that day.

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the direction of many of your posts these days. I am not being sarcastic here but you always seemed to pride yourself on strictly dealing with the know facts. Now it seems that you are embrasing every conspiracy under the sun. Just an observation on my part. No insult intended.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

To me, not fleeing Whitechapel under those circumstances would make him either extremely arrogant or extremely stupid.

That's as may be, CD, but the fact remains that many killers/manslaughters do stay put, bluff it out and get away with it to this day - most of them nowhere near as "rough" as the likes of Michael Kidney or his mates.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

I have no doubt that what you say is true but I am assuming that you are referring to individuals who are simply under suspicion by the police not individuals who could be identified by two eye witnesses.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

There is no reason to doubt Schwartz's story other than mere speculation. His non-appearance could could have a simple explanation such as there being no interpreter that day.

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the direction of many of your posts these days. I am not being sarcastic here but you always seemed to pride yourself on strictly dealing with the know facts. Now it seems that you are embrasing every conspiracy under the sun. Just an observation on my part. No insult intended.

c.d.

Hi cd,

For me the fact that he doesnt appear in any coverage, that he isnt mentioned as having been treated as a special or protected witness, is enough to warrant great care when using what he says are the "facts".

Conspiracy theories most often refer to the Ripper series, as in a Royal Conspiracy that involved the 5 women killed, or some or that the Police did in fact know the name of the killer but would not name him publicly, instead covering up his capture and incarceration.

So there is no misunderstanding about what Ive put forward lately....I dont feel that anyone knew who Jack the Ripper was other than himself, I dont feel that he is responsible for more than 2 or perhaps 3 of the victims accredited to him, and I believe that in the case of the Double Event, that the Club members may have conspired to keep their operation from closure or suspicion.

Not so fanciful as a Conspiracy theory cd, and without deviation from any known and validated data.

Im still on the facts....and one is that Israel Schwartz is not recorded as attending the Liz Stride Inquest anywhere by anyone.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

I have no doubt that what you say is true but I am assuming that you are referring to individuals who are simply under suspicion by the police not individuals who could be identified by two eye witnesses.

Indeed, CD, but that still doesn't stop some from brazening it out... assuming they could have been identified by the eyewitnesses in any case. Besides, as I've been at pains to point out, it needn't have been Kidney at all...

Stride was no stranger to the neighbourhood of St George-in-the-East, owing to her frequent begging missions to the Swedish Church in Wellclose Square, some 7 minutes' walk away from, and practically due South of, Dutfield's Yard. She may have had regular haunts in the vicinity of which Kidney, or any other acquaintance from her Devonshire St circle, could have been aware.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

I was simply assuming that it was Kidney for the sake of argument. I don't for a minute think that he killed Liz.

As for the category of killer you described, while I am sure they exist, I myself would not fall into that category. Had I been in Kidney's shoes and killed Liz, I would have hauled ass big time.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

As for the category of killer you described, while I am sure they exist, I myself would not fall into that category. Had I been in Kidney's shoes and killed Liz, I would have hauled ass big time.

That's because you're a decent chap, CD, not a drunken, violent scumbag from a Late Victorian slum.

[c.d.]

Let me make myself clear with regard to Schwartz. I don't believe that he lied. I think he reported what he thought he saw with the caveat that he didn't understand English and that he came in in the middle of the movie and left shortly afterwards. So yes, the police could have taken his statement with a big grain of salt.

c.d.

[c.d.]

That's because you're a decent chap, CD, not a drunken, violent scumbag from a Late Victorian slum.

Why thank you, Sam. That's the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me. If only such a statement could be used to impress women.

I shall always recall the words of one girlfriend..."you have a lot of faults but fortunately none of them are glaring."

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

It seems to me with Michael Kidney that we see some strange behavior in a formal setting at the Inquest, and some evidence that he had in fact been aggressive towards Liz in the past, at least once before she had charged him, and we have the severing of their relationship just days before her murder. It also seems to me that there may be a motive for him to have killed her if her appearance that night and her behavior indicate that she was waiting for a Socialist Jew inside the club whom she had assumed she would be sleeping with that night....by virtue of her behavior at the lodging house before leaving. She stated she would not be back that night.

I really feel that in either Schwartzs story, or Browns, we may have a viable candidate for a man with a grudge against Liz based on a failed relationship that had fresh pain associated with it.....a far more prevalent motive for murder than an anonymous serial killer.

Best regards all.

[caz]

But we're talking about much more than "serial throat cutting" when it comes to Jack, though, Caz. At the very least, we're talking about "serial deep throat cutting with rapid and significant loss of blood". All that - and more! - being accomplished under significant time-pressure, where the risk of being caught in the act was very real. I can't quite see the same man, perhaps spooked by a gee-gee, giving up midway through a (comparatively superficial and solitary) wound to the throat that left his victim only slowly "oozin' life". Wouldn't a practiced killer - of any description - have made bloody sure that she was a goner before running (incontinently ) away?

Well Sam, you could turn that argument right round and say that only a practised cut-throat would have been confident when he left the scene that she would be a goner. And only a total stranger to Liz could afford to leave her without being bloody bloody sure.

If this was a first and only murder by someone Liz knew, eg Kidney, and he didn't have to rush off after the single cut (which is the usual argument against Jack being her killer: he apparently had all the time in the world - like James Bond and Diana Rigg thought they had just before she was unexpectedly shot dead ), he'd have been a total idiot to leave while she was still in the process of dying.

Whoever killed Liz did it swiftly and efficiently and escaped in time to avoid being connected to her last moments. Just like someone else we know who pulled off another risky attack on another unfortunate less than an hour later. Why fight it?

As far as I'm concerned this Kidney thing is just one more theory involving an idiot getting clean away with murder, thanks to a police force made up entirely of even bigger idiots. If Peter Sutcliffe had died without being caught, we would now have to suffer endless almost identical theories concerning the abusive boyfriends of the victims who were not 100% 'typical' Yorkshire Ripper crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Don't quite buy it, sorry, Caz. The manner and execution of Liz's death has "amateur" stamped all over it - it also suggests that the man responsible did not exert as much force on the throat as Jack invariably (yes, invariably) did.