Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[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!

[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

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

I presume the thinker you refer to is me but let me say I have over 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal case which I still do to this day so i would like to think that if I highlight or identify and issue that needs addressing then there is a good reason for it.

The problem is that there are those who firmly believe that JTR killed Stride, those people have made their position clear and they are full entitled to maintain that stance and they as seen will fight tooth and nail to protect their position, and dare I use the term "old accpted theories" But they are not prepared to consider anything that goes against their beliefs or the old accpeted theories or logical thinking out of the box, as has been seem by some of the ridiclous comments and posts on this topic.

Then there are those who belive that Stride could have been killed by another in an unrelated murder to the Ripper murders, but are not preared to consider suspects for her murder when a plausible suspect is introduced.

The thought processess and the posts I see on here from some of the armchair detectives who sit here and hold court day after day, hour after hour, is nothing short of amateur night at dixie. That being said I do have the respect for several posters who do post regularly and who do apply common sense and logical thinking to their posts with some even concurring with me on important issues that have arisen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I presume the thinker you refer to is me but let me say I have over 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal case which I still do to this day so i would like to think that if I highlight or identify and issue that needs addressing then there is a good reason for it.

The problem is that there are those who firmly believe that JTR killed Stride, those people have made their position clear and they are full entitled to maintain that stance and they as seen will fight tooth and nail to protect their position, and dare I use the term "old accpted theories" But they are not prepared to consider anything that goes against their beliefs or the old accpeted theories or logical thinking out of the box, as has been seem by some of the ridiclous comments and posts on this topic.

Then there are those who belive that Stride could have been killed by another in an unrelated murder to the Ripper murders, but are not preared to consider suspects for her murder when a plausible suspect is introduced.

The thought processess and the posts I see on here from some of the armchair detectives who sit here and hold court day after day, hour after hour, is nothing short of amateur night at dixie. That being said I do have the respect for several posters who do post regularly and who do apply common sense and logical thinking to their posts with some even concurring with me on important issues that have arisen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I wasn’t just referring to you btw. And I’m not saying that your opinion isn’t worth listening to Trevor but you surely can’t expect people just to agree with you because of your background?

But what I’ve seen are numerous posters who simply aren’t sure. You however seem far more certain that she wasn’t a victim. I don’t see why you have such a level of confidence?

As far as ‘amateur night at Dixie’ is concerned I don’t think that a police officer is any more likely to get to the truth than anyone else. Most of the things that have been found out in the years after those events were discovered by people who aren’t police officers. Many of us will remember ‘Plimmer’s wineglass’ as an example of something coming from a senior ex-police officer! And no, I’m not saying that we should dismiss the thoughts of an ex-police officer out of hand, but we can’t assume that their interpretations must be correct. We can’t be expected to say ‘well if an ex-copper think x then it must be true.’ It might be true but it might not.

On this particular aspect of the case Im undecided. We just can’t know which is correct but you seem very confident that you are. I think that you’re being over-confident. All option are still on the table for me at least.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wasn’t just referring to you btw.

But what I’ve seen are numerous posters who simply aren’t sure. You however seem far more certain that she wasn’t a victim. I don’t see why you have such a level of confidence?

As far as ‘amateur night at Dixie’ is concerned I don’t think that a police officer is any more likely to get to the truth than anyone else. Most of the things that have been found out in the years after those events were discovered by people who aren’t police officers. Many of us will remember ‘Plimmer’s wineglass’ as an example of something coming from a senior ex-police officer! And no, I’m not saying that we should dismiss the thoughts of an ex-police officer out of hand, but we can’t assume that their interpretations must be correct. We can’t be expected to say ‘well if an ex-copper think x then it must be true.’ It might be true but it might not.

On this particular aspect of the case Im undecided. We just can’t know which is correct but you seem very confident that you are. I think that you’re being over-confident. All option are still on the table for me at least.

I am not over confident but somone killed Stride the evidence in my opinion points away from JTR so if the be the case the question has to be who? I am merely sugegsting that gine their torid history Kidney has to be considered

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not over confident but somone killed Stride the evidence in my opinion points away from JTR so if the be the case the question has to be who? I am merely sugegsting that gine their torid history Kidney has to be considered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I agree that Kidney should be considered. It’s certainly a pity that we don’t have a physical description of him.

[Joshua Rogan]

And I agree that Kidney should be considered. It’s certainly a pity that we don’t have a physical description of him.

We have a sketch....

https://photos.casebook.org/displayimage5fa7.html?pid=464&fullsize=1

[C. F. Leon]

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

I was thinking that also. You beat me to the post. And it's POSSIBLE all 3 were telling the truth as they saw it, assuming Lane's testimony regarding what Stride said is reliable. And Stride and Kidney may be referring to two separate events.

He; We had a spat.
She: We had WORDS.
Her Friends: He's a wife-beater.
His Friends: She's a slut.
Neighbors: They had a right row, they did! Kept us up ha' the night! Damn dog was barking and we couldn't sleep at all. Happens EVERY Friday...
Dog (translated by Dr. Doolittle): No one fed me for TWO days, Man!!
End result: They lose the Damage Deposit. Dog sold to local dogs' meat dealer. Food poisoning hits half the neighborhood a week later.

[C. F. Leon]

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.

As long as you're considering POSSIBILITIES, Herlock, you missed one: Accident. The "boot-scraper" theory.

Or here's one that I've never heard: Stride has slipped into the Yard for "Sanitary purposes". Louis the Hawker comes in, the horse gets spooked, knocking poor Liz over onto the boot-scraper. So the HORSE is the Killer!

[Abby Normal]

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

thank you! of course there was a connection.