Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats the trouble the sacred cows of ripperology have been allowed to graze in the field that is Ripperology for too long, its time they were taken to market and slaughtered !!!!!!!!

History is there to be challenged and not readily accpted as being factually correct.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And it’s not there to be dismissed simply because it’s been around for a long time and someone thinks that we need a change either. Taking another look and re-assessing should be done but it doesn’t mean that we have to cast things aside just for the sake of it. Sadly I think that this is what often happens. Someone decides that they want to be the ‘outside the box’ thinker who spots something that no one else has seen so they set out in search of a cause. And in cases like this there are rich pickings in terms of estimated and conflicting timings, differences from one report to another, press exaggerations and errors, words than can be interpreted in more than one way etc. So a ‘new’ theory is arrived at. The problem is that it becomes that persons ‘baby’ and they then proceed to defend it at all costs. And when people put up valid, logical and entirely reasonable objections they get labelled by the theorist as someone who has such a heartfelt connection to the existing theory that they just can’t bare to contemplate a new one. It’s just an excuse.

We can’t know if Stride was a ripper victim or not. It’s impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as there are pro’s and con’s just like other aspects of the case. So….

BS man killed Stride and was the ripper = possible.
BS man killed Stride and wasn’t the ripper = possible.
Someone else killed Stride and was the ripper = possible.
Someone else killed Stride and wasn’t the ripper = possible.
Suicide = about as close to impossible as we can get.

[Trevor Marriott]

Gotcha. Glad we're on the same page.



Don't forget no organ removal either.

Trevor seems to derive great pride in taking down the "sacred cows" of Ripperology, no matter how extraordinary his claims are.

Thats the trouble the sacred cows of ripperology have been allowed to graze in the field that is Ripperology for too long, its time they were taken to market and slaughtered !!!!!!!!

History is there to be challenged and not readily accpted as being factually correct.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

no i know, i wasnt ragging on you, just pointing out the difference (and agreeing with you, and not trevor)between the domestic who they knew exactly who the killer was and stride and eddowes, who, while they dont know exactly who killed her, knew it was an active serial killer.

Gotcha. Glad we're on the same page.

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

Don't forget no organ removal either.

Trevor seems to derive great pride in taking down the "sacred cows" of Ripperology, no matter how extraordinary his claims are.

[Joshua Rogan]

Oh i think the answers better than that Trevor , thanks to the Coroners line of questioning aimed at kidney.

He seemed fully aware im sure at the time just what he had been told previously by Catherine Lane.

This certainley would have rasied more than a few eyebrowes as to the difference in their stories, and would more than likely lead to more attention directed towards Kidney after the inquest.

As to which one of them was indeed lying or mistaken we may never know , but as im pretty sure Catherine Lane didnt murder Stride, so the the police would have to think of the two, kidney was lying .

Of course, they both might have been telling the truth, and it was Stride who lied.

[FISHY1118]

Nice one Trevor, but shall we just take a moment to reflect on the cunning insight that made you the most feared of coppers - from post #371 of GSG conclusion (my bold text for emphasis):

'The decsription of the GS piece fits the scenario, spotted/smeared with blood, traces of faceal matterall on one side of the apron piece all consistent with it having been placed between her legs and used as a sanitary device where we would expect to see all of that residue

Now before those eagle eyed researches say but she wasnt wearing any drawers so how could she have used a piece of apron in this way, The answer is that she was in possession of pins and needles and she was wearing a chemise and a mans vest which she could have easily affixed the apron piece to'

Brilliant!

Connection indeed .

[FISHY1118]

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

Oh i think the answers better than that Trevor , thanks to the Coroners line of questioning aimed at kidney.

He seemed fully aware im sure at the time just what he had been told previously by Catherine Lane.

This certainley would have rasied more than a few eyebrowes as to the difference in their stories, and would more than likely lead to more attention directed towards Kidney after the inquest.

As to which one of them was indeed lying or mistaken we may never know , but as im pretty sure Catherine Lane didnt murder Stride, so the the police would have to think of the two, kidney was lying . But as we know there was nothing mentioned or any follow up from the police, or anyone else casting any such suspicion on Kidney for Strides murder. Where by according to C.L and Kidneys different version of events, certainley there should have been . ..... What does that tell you .?

It tells me the police didnt think enough of Michael Kidney even if he lied to even suspect he was Strides Killer . Neither do I

[Aethelwulf]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nice one Trevor, but shall we just take a moment to reflect on the cunning insight that made you the most feared of coppers - from post #371 of GSG conclusion (my bold text for emphasis):

'The decsription of the GS piece fits the scenario, spotted/smeared with blood, traces of faceal matterall on one side of the apron piece all consistent with it having been placed between her legs and used as a sanitary device where we would expect to see all of that residue

Now before those eagle eyed researches say but she wasnt wearing any drawers so how could she have used a piece of apron in this way, The answer is that she was in possession of pins and needles and she was wearing a chemise and a mans vest which she could have easily affixed the apron piece to'

Brilliant!

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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