Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[GBinOz]

There is an interesting discussion on men's hats in 1888 in this thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/general-discussion/748021-other-attacks-man-wearing-deerstalker-hat

Jon's post #11 shows a hard felt deerstalker.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

'' On Tuesday''' !!!! four days he claimed he didnt see stride for ,and adding to that he didnt see her alive again since then!!!!!! , seriouly think properly about this statement and what it actually means ,use some intelligents for a change. [ill explain it if its too hard]

So all thats left for you to do know trevor is flat out call Michael Kidney, who testified under oath at an official murder inquest........ a LIAR !!!!!!!![/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

If Kidney had killed Stride it would be reasonable to expect that he would lie about it under oath at the murder inquest. Murderers are not generally known for their honesty when trying to escape the consequences of their actions. That's not to say he did kill Stride, just that not all testimony is truthful. It is thought that JtR was probably interviewed at some stage, and he would obviously not have been forthcoming with the truth at that time.

[GBinOz]

But they dont the decsription of the man given by Schwartz is differnet to the one give by the other witness one describes a hard felt hat and the other describes a black cap,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your quite right Trevor. Smith's description was of a hard felt deerstalker which looked more like a Fedora than the peaked cloth deerstalker made popular by Sherlock Holmes. The others described a peaked cap.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

There doesnt have to be direct evidence, reasonable suspicion is all that is required!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You clearly have not read, digested, or understood the reasons for that suspicion

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And where and when and by whom did kidney ever come under reasonable suspicion for strides murder back in 1888 ? or is it just now with you in 2022 ?

Your clearly making this little narrative of yours up as you go along . These threads get so polluted with this nonsense far to often .

[Coroner] When did you last see her? - [Kidney] On the ''Tuesday,'' and I then left her on friendly terms in Commercial- street. That was between nine and ten o'clock at night, as I was coming from work.
[Coroner] Did you expect her home? - I expected her home half an hour afterwards. I subsequently ascertained that she had been in and had gone out again, and I did not see her again alive.


'' On Tuesday''' !!!! four days he claimed he didnt see stride for ,and adding to that he didnt see her alive again since then!!!!!! , seriouly think properly about this statement and what it actually means ,use some intelligents for a change. [ill explain it if its too hard]

So all thats left for you to do know trevor is flat out call Michael Kidney, who testified under oath at an official murder inquest........ a LIAR !!!!!!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd want my suspect to have some kind of evidence linking him to the actual crime before I label him a suspect. Which in kidneys case, we don't see or have any ..

There doesnt have to be direct evidence, reasonable suspicion is all that is required!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You clearly have not read, digested, or understood the reasons for that suspicion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

But it makes him a better suspect than JTR based on the differences in the MO

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'd want my suspect to have some kind of evidence linking him to the actual crime before I label him a suspect. Which in kidneys case, we don't see or have any ..

[Trevor Marriott]

at the same time?lol

yes he was ambidextrous

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

But the killer of Stride could have carried out the thoat cutting in a matter of seconds, and equally the same length of time to stab her abdomen repeatedly !!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

at the same time?lol

[Abby Normal]

Abby if this case is ever solved I’m going to buy you a peaked cap and ship it over to you.

thanks! but only if the ripper was one of tje suspects that had a peaked cap! but im sure he was. : )
But please, ive enough baseball caps, so ill take one "like what a sailor would wear." ; )

[Trevor Marriott]

There were three cutthroat murders that night. One was a domestic incident. The other two were apparently motiveless. Probability-wise, the odds of all three being unconnected must be remote. And while it's an old chestnut, I do suspect the killer compensated for Stride's lack of mutilations when he butchered Eddowes.

But the killer of Stride could have carried out the thoat cutting in a matter of seconds, and equally the same length of time to stab her abdomen repeatedly !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So, witnesses testimony about clothing worn is safe now?

- Jeff

No just clarified !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

schwartz, marshall, smith and lawende and co all describe the suspect as wearing a peaked cap.

I was referring to the Stride murder only, in Swansons report he refers to the two men one being the decsription of Schwartz and the other the unidentifed man who he states could not be one and the same for the reasons stated.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

But they dont the decsription of the man given by Schwartz is differnet to the one give by the other witness one describes a hard felt hat and the other describes a black cap,

And it seems I have to highlight the clues you fail to see before you post derogatory comments !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, witnesses testimony about clothing worn is safe now?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Maybe we are overlooking the obvious? Was Schwartz Anderson's witness, and he refused to testify at the Inquest against the suspect he was shown, and whom he identified as BSMan, because he was a fellow Jew as indicated in Swanson's memoirs?

Best regards, George

Hi George,

That's possible I suppose, but isn't the identification of the suspect by Anderson's witness suppose to have ended the murders as well, and Kelly was still to come. Memoirs can be error prone of course, but it seems to me that if the police had Schwartz ID and he only balked at swearing to it, then there would have been a quick arrest after the Kelly murder (they would know where to go on the day). Personally, I get the feeling that Anderson's witness was just not as sure of the identification as the memoirs suggest they were initially, and frustration combined with prejudice taints the presentation so it can be presented as if the police had solved the case but were stymied at the finish by a witness protecting their own against gentile justice. Personally, I suspect the witness didn't swear to it because they truly were unsure, which would indeed be quite frustrating for the police if they had their suspicions but to make a case they needed a solid ID only to find that their witness couldn't truthfully provide that. But of course, that's just my interpretation/reading of the Seaside identification.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Setting the bar a bit low there, eh, Herlock?

Just call me Ebenezer Sholmes.