6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Physical ability, temper, drink, etc and "coming off like a buffoon" are seperate things don't you think?

Maybe Liz wasn't the greatest catch but she did at one time choose "the buffoon".

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

Silly ol' Kidney.

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"but there are red flags with Kidney that in my opinion would make him lean more towards being someone capable as opposed to being someone who without doubt wouldn't murder Liz."

I think you are onto something with the notion of "flags." At some point, you must estimate character and decide, "Could he cut a throat?"

But MK comes off looking like a buffoon. Look at his testimony. Just silly.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Hello Rivkah. Have you had a go at Tom Wescott's article on Michael Kidney? It lays to rest a good many legends.

With all do respect to Tom who i've been a big fan of for years, he too has just done what we all do which is speculate and interpret. To be honest, I was not convinced by one of his debunking pieces.

Regarding Kidney, I'm not sold on him being guilty by any means but he surely should be a suspect. As we all know, most murders are domestic and he was obviously 'not all there'. Just because he had some mental issues doesn't make a murderer but it doesn't mean he didn't murder either.

Sure everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt before being lynched by the public but there are red flags with Kidney that in my opinion would make him lean more towards being someone capable as opposed to being someone who without doubt wouldn't murder Liz.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

Yes, but . . .

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

" \but the statistical reality of women being killed by their partners or recent exes is as compelling as "There was a serial killer on the loose, so any unsolved murder at the time must be his work,""

Absolutely. But Michael Kidney?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

OK. Let's go with "argument from ignorance" error. "We don't know who killed her, so it must have been Jack the Ripper." I don't necessarily think Kidney killed her, but the statistical reality of women being killed by their partners or recent exes is as compelling as "There was a serial killer on the loose, so any unsolved murder at the time must be his work," which what it seems the argument for Stride as a victim essentially boils down to.

It's also remotely possible she was mistaken for someone else, or that she really was killed for 6d., or that she was killed by the torso murderer, who intended to take her back to wherever he did his dismembering, and it was he who was interrupted. Yeah, the last one is a truly long shot. But, "Jack the Ripper was on the loose, so, he did it," doesn't work for me.

[lynn cates]

legend

Hello Rivkah. Have you had a go at Tom Wescott's article on Michael Kidney? It lays to rest a good many legends.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Except he padlocked her out of his place

Hi Rivkah

This is according to whose evidence exactly?

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Except he padlocked her out of his place. Anyway, he would be the first person to get dumped, and then kill the person who dumped him. In fact, when break-ups end in murder, it usually works that way.

[lynn cates]

back

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Yes, whilst he waits for her to come back.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

I agree Lynn

The evidence, such as it is, suggests it's actually her trying to cut him out...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

She's leaving home, bye, bye.

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"I think the reason that Kidney is often proposed as a suspect is that he appeared to be making some pretty drastic attempts to cut her out of his life."

Of course, she left HIM, right?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hello DDW.

"What was the point in murdering her by slitting her throat."

I'd go further, why murder her at all?

Cheers.
LC

I think the reason that Kidney is often proposed as a suspect is that he appeared to be making some pretty drastic attempts to cut her out of his life, and while we don't know exactly what their relationship was like-- if there was a stalker/victim dynamic, and if so, who had which role, for example-- it seems pretty clear that the relationship was volatile, and also that either Kidney considered her some kind of legitimate threat, or, he was paranoid to some degree. Or, a little of both. (Saying he was paranoid is not suggesting he was schizophrenic-- while most schizophrenics have paranoid delusions, you certainly do not have to be schizophrenic to be paranoid.)

Why a knife is fairly easy. Guns were expensive, and being seen buying bullets was one way the police could track you down. Ditto for being seen buying poison. Pretty much everyone already owned a knife. I don't know how well someone could cut a throat on the first try ever, but I don't know that Kidney had never killed an animal-- or another person for that matter.

Cutting a throat, rather than stabbing, pretty much ensures that the victim won't scream. You have the problem of getting close enough, but since Kidney knew the victim, for him, it might not have been a problem.

Since serial killers don't tend to simply kill someone and then run away, and Stride is an unlikely victim of a murder for robbery, that leaves a personal motive, unless we accept the idea of a serial killer who was interrupted.

Not really trying to take a side, just trying to draw a flow chart.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello again,

I feel that I should address your comments Mike.

Your "holistic" view of these events dont seem to include the type of neighborhood these murders took place in, the socio-economic climate at the time of the crimes, and the fact that the Whitechapel Unsolved Murders file includes many knife crimes that clearly were not done by the same person. Nor do you seem to consider that this was the worst crime district in the city, and as such, held the most dangerous criminals.

Since my perspective is contrary to all who believe that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer of 5 in the Fall of 1888, I dont see how my views could be considered anything but outside the box. Your accept the conventional wisdom, thats fine, but my continual reminders are that there is no concrete evidence to link the crimes to any one person, there is no evidence in the Stride murder that should lead anyone to conclude a serial mutilator killed her....other than of course timing and geography, which would also include the known facts that other killers were living in the area at the time.

I dont pretend to know who killed Liz Stride, nor do I pretend to know who killed Mary Kelly. Ive never pushed any suspect for any of the Canonical crimes down anyones throat...including your own chosen go-to guy, Mr Ripper, the unknown serial killer. Ive said that I personally see no reason why Mary Ann and Annie should be considered killed by other than the same person, that Liz Strides murder is inconsistent with those 2 murders in some key areas, based on what has been learned about the man who killed Polly and Annie. Ive said there is no evidence that Liz Stride was killed by a mutilator, which the man who killed the first 2 women clearly was, and Ive said that there is no evidence that the killer was interrupted. You feel differently? Fine. Produce a single bit of physical evidence that denounces those claims. Ive said that I have serious doubts as to whether the man that killed the first 2 women also killed Kate, because again, of some very pertinent irregularities...not the least of which was evident skill with a knife and knowledge about what he was doing, and I believe that Mary Kelly departs from the conventions of all 5 murders to such a degree that it becomes a staged production of a Ripper murder.. Thats my stance on the 5....and I dont see where any of that is illogical or irrational.

I believe that joining together ill fitting pieces is not the way to create a jigsaw image, so I dont see why that approach would be valid here.

ps....I wouldnt have to repeat pointing out the known facts if people would stop assuming things which have no basis in facts or evidence. Like the interruption theorizing at Berner....a pleasing answer to some but without any evidence of it occurring in existence.

Maybe not having some answers Mike, like who Killed Stride, is better than just assuming someone in particular did it anyway.


Best regards

[Abby Normal]

If Stride is not a victim of "JTR" then who killed her? Please don't say Kidney. The number of women murdered by having their throats slit a year was low. What was the point in murdering her by slitting her throat. Sorry for crappy wording. It's late and drunk here. Hullo everyone, by the by!

Hi Digger
Thats actually 2 good points. Who did kill her-this is another unsolved murder in the midst of a series of unsolved murders. And if you look at the work of Colin Roberts who showed the number of women who died by cut throats in the years preceeding and after 1888, it is relatively low, with the number in 1888 spiked to an additional 6 or 7 (i beleive it was this amount-could actually be higher).

Oh and welcome-we could always use another drunk around here! : )

[Abby Normal]

Abby, I just listed some facts, hard evidence that discounts your conclusion, ...body position in death, victimology, single wound, no evidence of mutilation interest present,...and for the record you made your most observant and salient point last, yes.....when you do see differences in some major elements within the crimes, you do have to consider other killers aside from Jacky boy.

Ive mentioned this before, and likely will again, but one of the most respected and scholarly contributors to the field of Ripperology was asked directly, by me, which Canonical murders in his opinion are most suggestive of the same killer. He said 2, or perhaps 3.

Now, its one thing to disagree with me, after all Im just a student, and unpublished, and an armchair sleuth, ...but an expoliceman with that kind of pedigree deserves to be considered strongly.

For me the actual number that is most probable is 2, but there's the unpublished student for ya.

What youve shown above is that people make their opinions based on many of the incorrect ideas that they had preconceived, not on the actual facts. There are quite a few here who see an argument that cannot be denied and yet they contest it because it flies in the face of their beliefs.

If nothing else, I would suggest that the opinions of people far more learned in this subject than you or I are better to use that our own instincts and biases.

Cheers Abby

Hi Michael
I think its safe to say that most experts(including the ones there at the time!) would venture that at least 4 of the 5 C5 were killed by the same man, with stride being the odd victim out. And I would concede that out of the 5 that she would be the most likely to have been killed by a different hand. (Also, we are not even including the other possible victims Tabram and mckenzie which also could very well have been by the same killer).

However, when you start getting into 3 (or even 2 IMHO) different killers for the C5 I think you are getting into highly unprobable territory.

The Bottom line, is either you see more simililarities than differences in the murders, and when you look at the big picture taking into account all circumstances then I simply see them as in most liklihood from the same killer.