Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[harry]

Was it Stride who Schwartz saw at the gateway? He(Schwartz) saw probably as much of the woman,as he did of the person he followed,yet while he can describe the male in some detail.did he(schwartz) detail the the clothes and appearance of the female?

[FISHY1118]

As I keep stating their is a conflict between Kidney and other witnesses you make up your own mind where the truth lays.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes but your not stating whats painfully obvious to all to see , that is its just a fact ,and i know your big on them so here it is. For Kidney to be Strides murderer he must have lied under oath at an official murder inquest .[forget all about this confict nonsense with other withnesses ,thats irrelevant] .

Now seeing how you support the possiblity of kidney being the murderer of Stride, ill ask again .


Did Kidney lie at the inquest of Liz Stride . ?????? Yes/No

[JeffHamm]

Yes but your not stating whats painfully obvious to all to see , that is its just a fact ,and i know your big on them so here it is. For Kidney to be Strides murderer he must have lied under oath at an official murder inquest .[forget all about this confict nonsense with other withnesses ,thats irrelevant] .

Now seeing how you support the possiblity of kidney being the murderer of Stride, ill ask again .


Did Kidney lie at the inquest of Liz Stride . ?????? Yes/No

While I can't speak for Trevor, or anyone else for that matter, I'm happy to give a qualified answer. I don't know if Stride was a victim of JtR, a case can be made either way, as has been done for over 130 years.

So,

A) if Stride is a JtR victim, or was killed by someone other than JtR but not Kidney, then it seems unlikely that Kidney would lie, except maybe about how good their relationship was and whether or not he had knowledge of her engaging in occasional prostitution (he would run the risk of living off immoral income, or something like that). However based upon what we know there would be no benefit to him to lie about whether or not he had seen her since Tuesday if he had not.

B) if Kidney killed Stride, whether or not he's JtR, he has every reason to lie in order to distance himself from being in her presence, and since he says he hadn't seen her since Tuesday, and we're considering him as her killer in this situation, that would have to be a lie.

Problem is, we cannot be sure which of those situations is true, and so whether he lied or not cannot be positively determined. Moreover, given that there might be reasons we do not know about but result in him choosing to lie (he did see her on the night, they quarrelled, but as he didn't kill her he's aware that might still get him in trouble despite being innocent, for example), working out that he lied doesn't in and of itself prove he killed her. It would, however, not look good for him given option B, where if he killed her he has every reason to lie.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

While I can't speak for Trevor, or anyone else for that matter, I'm happy to give a qualified answer. I don't know if Stride was a victim of JtR, a case can be made either way, as has been done for over 130 years.

So,

A) if Stride is a JtR victim, or was killed by someone other than JtR but not Kidney, then it seems unlikely that Kidney would lie, except maybe about how good their relationship was and whether or not he had knowledge of her engaging in occasional prostitution (he would run the risk of living off immoral income, or something like that). However based upon what we know there would be no benefit to him to lie about whether or not he had seen her since Tuesday if he had not.

B) if Kidney killed Stride, whether or not he's JtR, he has every reason to lie in order to distance himself from being in her presence, and since he says he hadn't seen her since Tuesday, and we're considering him as her killer in this situation, that would have to be a lie.

Problem is, we cannot be sure which of those situations is true, and so whether he lied or not cannot be positively determined. Moreover, given that there might be reasons we do not know about but result in him choosing to lie (he did see her on the night, they quarrelled, but as he didn't kill her he's aware that might still get him in trouble despite being innocent, for example), working out that he lied doesn't in and of itself prove he killed her. It would, however, not look good for him given option B, where if he killed her he has every reason to lie.

- Jeff

If someone advocates Kidney as Strides possible killer, which Trevor has done, then option B is all that matters .


[ I think he thinks kidney actually is , but i say ''possible'' only becasue he will say thats what he said as a way to wiggle out of what he believes]

[Mark J D]

... I do believe the murderer was unsettled (not nessacerrily disrupted) by somebodies coming and goings that night...

Good call! The Lechmere family knew the Marshalls on the next block; we know that William Marshall was looking at the road that night and even saw Stride with a man. With all of Lechmere's other connections with that little set of roads -- he'd just moved out of James Street, and his mother & second stepfather & eldest daughter still lived in Maryann Street -- this is exactly the location where one would predict an anomalous murder.

M.

[JeffHamm]

If someone advocates Kidney as Strides possible killer, which Trevor has done, then option B is all that matters .


[ I think he thinks kidney actually is , but i say ''possible'' only becasue he will say thats what he said as a way to wiggle out of what he believes]

If he said "possible", then that means he accepts that Kidney possibly isn't as well, leaving him, like me, to make a qualified answer. He might weight the probabilities differently than I do, he may lean more or less in favour of Kidney than I do, but unless he says "Kidney was her killer", then he's just suggesting that he might have been, and therefore might not have been as well.

A lot of people are undecided on whether or not Stride was a victim of JtR, and for those who are undecided, if she's not then clearly Kidney becomes a person worth considering given most murders are by someone close to the victim. It doesn't mean it has to be him, but he becomes worthy of a closer look. For those who do not allow for Stride to be a victim of anyone other than JtR, then given there's nothing to tie Kidney to the other murders, he becomes just another person we know about but otherwise unlikely to be JtR.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

If he said "possible", then that means he accepts that Kidney possibly isn't as well, leaving him, like me, to make a qualified answer. He might weight the probabilities differently than I do, he may lean more or less in favour of Kidney than I do, but unless he says "Kidney was her killer", then he's just suggesting that he might have been, and therefore might not have been as well.

A lot of people are undecided on whether or not Stride was a victim of JtR, and for those who are undecided, if she's not then clearly Kidney becomes a person worth considering given most murders are by someone close to the victim. It doesn't mean it has to be him, but he becomes worthy of a closer look. For those who do not allow for Stride to be a victim of anyone other than JtR, then given there's nothing to tie Kidney to the other murders, he becomes just another person we know about but otherwise unlikely to be JtR.

- Jeff

Heres the point im trying to make tho Jeff , and you hit the nail on the head in saying he ''might weigh up the ''probabilities'' , just what are these probabilities ?? Theres isnt any !!!. Like Lechmere, Kidney has no evidence that ties him or had any suspicion cast on him for the murder of his Mrs Liz Stride.

Its not enough to say ''Oh he has shown a tendencies to be violent towards her'' and that she had him charged with assault ,every man and his dog was assaulting their misses back then, as someone else pointed out .

The probabilities that should come more into play when discussing Kidney is the other way round. Surley with what we know, and his inquest testimony, lack of any witness i.d, and nothing all that on that night points to him being anywhere near Berner st to kill Stride .

The ''Probablity'' is more in favour of Kidneys innocence than that of his guilt .


I think some attempt should be made to eliminate these type of ''so called suspects'' from these forums. It indeed will go along way to stop the clutter of useless to and froming which in the end [ well thats just it it never ends ] leads nowhere.

There cant be 100 different killers .

[JeffHamm]

Heres the point im trying to make tho Jeff , and you hit the nail on the head in saying he ''might weigh up the ''probabilities'' , just what are these probabilities ?? Theres isnt any !!!. Like Lechmere, Kidney has no evidence that ties him or had any suspicion cast on him for the murder of his Mrs Liz Stride.

Its not enough to say ''Oh he has shown a tendencies to be violent towards her'' and that she had him charged with assault ,every man and his dog was assaulting their misses back then, as someone else pointed out .

The probabilities that should come more into play when discussing Kidney is the other way round. Surley with what we know, and his inquest testimony, lack of any witness i.d, and nothing all that on that night points to him being anywhere near Berner st to kill Stride .

The ''Probablity'' is more in favour of Kidneys innocence than that of his guilt .


I think some attempt should be made to eliminate these type of ''so called suspects'' from these forums. It indeed will go along way to stop the clutter of useless to and froming which in the end [ well thats just it it never ends ] leads nowhere.

There cant be 100 different killers .

Hi Fishy,

Well, unless we come up with an objective way to calculate the probabilities it comes down to a subjective call really. And if it's subjective, then what you may feel is improbable someone else might feel is probable. We can discuss why we evaluate things as probable or improbable, but in the end we come to "I think this is unlikely/likely", which is not something we can easily fit into a probability calculation.

Is Kidney really that improbable? Well, the first step is to work out if Stride was or was not killed by JtR, which has never been conclusively decided. I don't favour either, really, so I guess for me it's 50/50, but if you're more convinced she was, and we both agree that Kidney is unlikely to be JtR, then I can see how you would end up saying Kidney is highly improbable. But since I'm not as sure Stride is a victim of JtR, I see the probability she was not has higher, and if she was not, then Kidney, being her partner, does become a high probability person for her murder (most murders are by a partner, family member, close friend). I'm sure you agree that is the case as that is something objectively documented around the world. As a result, the overall probability for Kidney will seem higher to me than you due to our division on the probability of Stride being a victim of JtR.

I don't think Kidney should be entirely dismissed, but I agree that we have insufficient information to say he's involved but at the same time we cannot rule him out. We know too little. Discussions like this point us to questions we need to further research, and if anyone finds new information on Kidney then that would be wonderful as it might help all of us adjust our subjective probabilities.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

Good call! The Lechmere family knew the Marshalls on the next block; we know that William Marshall was looking at the road that night and even saw Stride with a man. With all of Lechmere's other connections with that little set of roads -- he'd just moved out of James Street, and his mother & second stepfather & eldest daughter still lived in Maryann Street -- this is exactly the location where one would predict an anomalous murder.

M.

But there is no evidence whatsoever that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

[Trevor Marriott]

Heres the point im trying to make tho Jeff , and you hit the nail on the head in saying he ''might weigh up the ''probabilities'' , just what are these probabilities ?? Theres isnt any !!!. Like Lechmere, Kidney has no evidence that ties him or had any suspicion cast on him for the murder of his Mrs Liz Stride.

Its not enough to say ''Oh he has shown a tendencies to be violent towards her'' and that she had him charged with assault ,every man and his dog was assaulting their misses back then, as someone else pointed out .

The probabilities that should come more into play when discussing Kidney is the other way round. Surley with what we know, and his inquest testimony, lack of any witness i.d, and nothing all that on that night points to him being anywhere near Berner st to kill Stride .

The ''Probablity'' is more in favour of Kidneys innocence than that of his guilt .


I think some attempt should be made to eliminate these type of ''so called suspects'' from these forums. It indeed will go along way to stop the clutter of useless to and froming which in the end [ well thats just it it never ends ] leads nowhere.

There cant be 100 different killers .

You keep on raising the issue of whether Kidney lied at the inquest here are some extracts from the inquest which clearly shows someone lied !!!!!!!!!

Catherine Lane - Inquest Testimony
[Coroner] Did you speak to her last week?
[CL] On Thursday and Saturday.
[Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday?
[CL] Between ten and eleven o'clock.
[Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back?
[CL] She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with and left him (few words = Quarrel or argument)

Michael Kidney inquests testimony-
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday?
[Kidney] No I last saw the deceased alive on Tuesday Week
[Coroner] Did you quarrel with her then?
[Kidney] No

Somebody lied there is your answer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

JTR did not write the graffiti will that do you ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

so there is no connection whatsoever between the man seen assaulting stride, his lipski comment, the Jewish related GSG and eddowes' apron?

Get a grip trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

so there is no connection whatsoever between the man seen assaulting stride, his lipski comment, the Jewish related GSG and eddowes' apron?

Get a grip trevor

I think you need to do that take the blinkers off think outside the box

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

There was an incident between a man and a woman,as witnessed by Schwartz.Later the body of Stride was found in the immediate area.What evidence connects the two?
As for 'having words' means a quarrel or an arguement,it could also be classed as meaning just a disagreement.We all have those.and the reactions differ in intensity dependind on the individual.

[Aethelwulf]

I think you need to do that take the blinkers off think outside the box

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

you are funny trevor. crims must have been quaking in their boots when they knew you were on the case

[Trevor Marriott]

Well they sure would not have been if you had been investigating these murders. on you line of thought you would not have caught a cold

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk