For what reason do we include Stride?

[Abby Normal]

I've always been intrigued by the fact that Liz was killed not far from where she and Michael Kidney had until fairly recently lived, which might suggest that she was known to her killer; whether he was Kidney or someone else (a jealous old flame?) is another matter.

interesting Sam
the event witnessed by Schwartz does have the ring of a domestic to it-the jilted lover killing his ex. Do we have any descriptions of kidney? does he match BS man in any way?

[Sam Flynn]

Unless the police were complete idiots they would have asked Kidney for an alibi. If he could not supply one that could be verified, they would have asked Schwartz to take a look at him.

The Kidney story is quite interesting, CD, but I only mentioned him as an example, and wouldn't want to turn this into a Kidney thread.

The interesting bit for me is not so much the "suspectology", but the fact that Stride had spent the night in a pub not far from Devonshire Street, where she and Kidney had lived from 1886 until 1888, and she was killed in that same part of town.

[c.d.]

The thing is though Sam do you think it is plausible that the police never considered him a person of interest?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

The thing is though Sam do you think it is plausible that the police never considered him a person of interest?

c.d.

I've no doubt that they did, but - as I said - I've no wish to make this a Kidney thread.

[APerno]

I've no doubt that they did, but - as I said - I've no wish to make this a Kidney thread.

Why not? It goes to the thread's topic.

Why do you believe CD checked-out Kidney? I have always felt Baxter sent Scotland Yard down a rabbit hole, he virtually opened his inquest with the conclusion that Stride was a JTR victim. I question whether CD put any effort into following non-Ripper leads.

Also regarding Kidney, there are several posters here who have argued that there is no empirical evidence that Stride was an 'unfortunate' -- if so that would mean that both victims, that night, were not soliciting and have been incorrectly labeled (historically speaking) prostitutes. But could the absence of a direct mention in Stride's inquest simply been caused by civic politeness? Eddowes on the other hand seems to have just recently returned to London, after having been game-fully employed (as a migrant).

Anyway with that digression, if Stride is not a 'working girl' her presence in the yard becomes more interesting and enigmatic, which brings us back to Kidney. Can Kidney put Stride in that yard?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Kidney, here or in another thread. (Although I think it fits here, "Why Stride?")

[Wickerman]

A question for another thread, perhaps. One cut was enough for Eddowes and Stride but they differed in extent.

When I read Dr Brown's description of Eddowes' throat wound he does not suggest how many cuts, just the way the wound looks, which could have been achieved by more than one cut.
But as you say, for another thread.

[c.d.]

Hello APerno,

Kidney interjected himself into the investigation. But any investigation (i.e, questioning individuals who knew Stride) should have turned up information that Stride previously lived with him but had recently moved out. They also should have found out that Kidney was apparently a heavy drinker and that he had previously been physically abusive to her. Now if that information didn't make him a person of interest then the police would have to have been incredibly stupid and incompetent. If we assume that they were not then it is reasonable to assume that they asked him where he was that night. If he had an alibi, it is reasonable to assume that they confirmed it rather than simply take his word for it. If he had no alibi, it is reasonable to assume that they would have had Schwartz take a look at him. This is all basic police investigation 101. Yes, that is a lot if assumptions but the alternative is to accept that Scotland Yard was the equivalent of the Keystone Cops.

As for them foregoing an investigation of Kidney because they believed this to be a Ripper murder how could the police be assured that Kidney wasn't the Ripper?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Kidney showed up at the inquest, if he was the 'broadshouldered-man' who was seen assaulting Stride, and therefore the presumed murderer. That was a highly risky & stupid thing to do.
This fact alone suggests to me Kidney had no role in her murder.

[APerno]

Hello APerno,

Kidney interjected himself into the investigation. But any investigation (i.e, questioning individuals who knew Stride) should have turned up information that Stride previously lived with him but had recently moved out. They also should have found out that Kidney was apparently a heavy drinker and that he had previously been physically abusive to her. Now if that information didn't make him a person of interest then the police would have to have been incredibly stupid and incompetent. If we assume that they were not then it is reasonable to assume that they asked him where he was that night. If he had an alibi, it is reasonable to assume that they confirmed it rather than simply take his word for it. If he had no alibi, it is reasonable to assume that they would have had Schwartz take a look at him. This is all basic police investigation 101. Yes, that is a lot if assumptions but the alternative is to accept that Scotland Yard was the equivalent of the Keystone Cops.

As for them foregoing an investigation of Kidney because they believed this to be a Ripper murder how could the police be assured that Kidney wasn't the Ripper?

c.d.

Thanks for the reply. Good point, for them, then. We today realize that a serial killer would never kill someone they can be associated with (unless it's his first killing, so they say.)

You say assumptions, but you are saying there is evidence of heavy drinking and 'spousal' abuse, just not confirmation of CD's actions? There is no record that they showed him to Schwartz?

IMHO Today the police would have jumped all over the last person Stride was seen with which makes me wonder why CD didn't use Schwartz more; today the police would have been combing the area for the 'Lipski' man and Schwartz would be their go to guy.

[Sam Flynn]

Why not? It goes to the thread's topic.

Actually, it's quite a different matter, in that we could easily discuss Stride's viability as a Ripper victim without getting side-tracked by the somewhat futile task of identifying her killer.

[Wickerman]

In you're reply to Michael...

.....Nothing in the evidence comes anywhere near to categorically proving that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. She may or she may not have been....
I accept the possibility of both propositions because the evidence cannot furnish us with a definitive verdict.

Im undecided..... Abby appears to be strongly of the opinion that she was. Neither of you are idiots. You are both well versed in the case. And if we asked every ripperologists their opinion I’d guess at a pretty mixed bag of verdicts. At the very least this shows that this issue isn’t a done deal.

Absolutely agree, this is an 'on the fence' issue for me too.
I can see the value in both sides of the argument, yet one of them must be wrong.

Dr Phillips thought the knife used was a short blade (as opposed to Dr. Gordon Brown "at least 6 inches long").
And the chosen place too public for a conventional Ripper killing (compare: Mitre Sq, Hanbury St., Bucks Row), all dark secluded places with little to no expected foot traffic.
This doesn't apply to Dutfields Yard and the hooting & hollering coming from the Club just feet away.

[c.d.]

My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the police found evidence of his heavy drinking and abuse. My memory is faulty but I think he was arrested and Stride chose not to press charges (somebody please confirm). There is no record of an identification by Schwartz so we are pretty much left with either police stupidity or a verified alibi.

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

The person cutting Strides throat would have been working in almost complete darkness,so his actions would have been more by touch than by sight.Pehaps also there might have been slight resistence at the beginning,so two cuts,just to make sure,is a reasonable explanation.

Your answer is rational, Harry. If the entrance to the yard was so dark that a man could walk through it without being able to even see his feet, so dark that Diemschutz had to light a candle to discern that the mass was a woman, and if she was she far enough off the street that no light touched her, it could be that Jack the Ripper found the location not to be ideal for his purposes based on the lighting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your answer is rational, Harry. If the entrance to the yard was so dark that a man could walk through it without being able to even see his feet, so dark that Diemschutz had to light a candle to discern that the mass was a woman, and if she was she far enough off the street that no light touched her, it could be that Jack the Ripper found the location not to be ideal for his purposes based on the lighting.

I don’t have any books to reference with me at the moment but couldn’t the ripper have had Stride in such a place that light from a nearby building threw some light over them to make the murder possible but then, just as he made the first cut, that light went out plunging him into complete darkness?

[c.d.]

I don’t have any books to reference with me at the moment but couldn’t the ripper have had Stride in such a place that light from a nearby building threw some light over them to make the murder possible but then, just as he made the first cut, that light went out plunging him into complete darkness?

Hello Herlock,

I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle if he had the desire to mutilate Stride's body. It would certainly make it more difficult if he were trying to obtain a particular organ but if all he wanted to do was open her abdomen and rip I don't see it as a problem and a reason to leave the scene.

c.d.