Michael Kidney

[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.

[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.]

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]

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.

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

[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.

[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 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 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,

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.

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.]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;100263 Yet, even today, there is a fair percentage of manslaughters/murderers who stay calm in an effort to throw the police off the scent, and some even succeed. How much more likely would such behaviour have been in the context of the Late Victorian slums?[/QUOTE]

Hi Sam,

But in Kidney's case, if he had been the BS man, why in the world would he stick around after being identified by Schwartz and the Pipe Man? Throw in his documented history of violence towards Liz and it would have been enough to put a rope around his neck. To me, not fleeing Whitechapel under those circumstances would make him either extremely arrogant or extremely stupid.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I plead ignorance- without digging out my book collection- on where Liz was living after having left Kidney.

My book collection is under wraps at the moment, Ken (I'm decorating), but from memory she was lodging on and off in Flower & Dean Street, possibly alternating between there and 36 Devonshire Street, where she and Kidney had moved a few months prior to her death. (Before then, the couple had lived next door at 35, Devonshire Street for over two years.)

If she was any significant distance from home while out working the streets, what are the odds that Kidney could have found her?

Not as low as one might think, if one considers that Stride and Kidney had lived for a considerable time in Devonshire Street, a few hundred metres from Dutfield's Yard.

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.

[lynn cates]

Liz's address

Hello. To add another question to that one--when was Liz living in Fashion st. with a man and working among the Jews? Was that during the 3 months previous her living and quarreling with Kidney? The Tanner testimony seems a bit ambiguous on this point.

LC

[kensei]

A question occurs to me on the possibility of Kidney being Liz's killer. Whitechapel and its surroundings is not exactly a huge area but not exactly a small one either. I plead ignorance- without digging out my book collection- on where Liz was living after having left Kidney. If she was any significant distance from home while out working the streets, what are the odds that Kidney could have found her?