Tweet
Nor do I, Observer. They would surely empty all the possibilites at hand, although I really think that the Ripper trace would be the one they preferred to follow, urged on by the press and the general public.
That, however, need not amount to anything at all, since there is no need whatsoever to believe that Michael Kidney must have been the man responsible. Though it cannot be ruled out that it WAS him, there is every possibility that it was somebody else, perhaps a newfound lover. And such an affair need not have been old - it could have been completely fresh.
Moreover, if the police wanted to nail an aquaintance of Strides as the killer, they would be left with the burden of proof: Anybody who simply stated that they had been home sleeping in their bed would be very hard to convict if there was no evidence and no admittance on behalf of the guy. That would have applied on behalf of Kidney too, for that matter, if you want him as BS man.
All of this, however, does not touch on the issue of explaining the cachous itself. And I really feel that the explanation with an aquaintance/lover is the ONLY explanation that covers all them small things that are left uncovered with Jack on stage:
The guy tries to drag Stride along, out into the street - a clear pointer that he wanted her to leave the spot for some reason.
She cried out three times, BUT NOT VERY LOUD. So she kept her voice down - to a degree that made Schwartz notice it! During the Ripper scare? How credible is that - unless we allow for a man aquainted to her. Keeping it "in the family" is so typical for domestic violence.
The Lipski outcry craves some explaining - but if we open up for the possibility that "Lizzie" was what he shouted, no further explaining is needed, is it?
And the cachous, Observer, the cachous - if we reach a conclusion of it being a domestic affair, we finally have a solution to that nagging cachous problem!!
She would NOT have had them in her hand outside the gates - then she would most probably have dropped them as he abused her. So we have to accept that she took them out in the yard. But if she went in that yard to have sex with a punter/Jack, then why would she take them out before the act? The customer was already aquired, and if oral sex was involved, AFTER would be the appropriate time to bring them out.
It all becomes very, very strange, just like you yourself has pointed out, seemingly inexplicable - until you accept the scenario with an aquaintance. Then the problem dissolves into thin air all of a sudden, and it all becomes almost embarrasingly simple, does it not?
Add to this that we have Marshalls sighting of Stride with a man in a dark jacket and dark trousers, wearing a dark cap with a peak, and displaying a stout bodily constitution, a man who she affectionately kisses and smalltalks with before they head towards Helen street, his arm around her shoulder and telling her "You would say anything but your prayers". And lo and behold, when BS man enters the stage HE TOO carries a dark jacket, dark trousers, a dark cap with a peak, plus he displays a stout bodily constitution. Talk about coincidences! And just as Schwartz has the clothing of that man down as "respectable" in the Star, Marshall gave that exact same description of his man - respectably clad.
Theorize, if you will, Observer, that this man was one and the same, and a lover of Strides. Let a flight of fancy talk you into the possibility that when the man said "You will say anything but your prayers", it was in response to a promise on Strides behalf that she would give up prostitution, and then imagine what he would feel and do when he returns unexpectedly to Berner Street, only to find her soliciting outside the club..?
There is a lack of proof here, obviously - but there is also a chain of logic that will NOT break at any point - cachous or not. And as long as nobody comes up with a more credible explanation covering all them little details in as logic a manner or better, I remain convinced that Elizabeth Stride was killed by BS man. And BS man was not the Ripper, as clearly evinced by the crime scene.
The best, Observer!
Fisherman
That, however, need not amount to anything at all, since there is no need whatsoever to believe that Michael Kidney must have been the man responsible. Though it cannot be ruled out that it WAS him, there is every possibility that it was somebody else, perhaps a newfound lover. And such an affair need not have been old - it could have been completely fresh.
Moreover, if the police wanted to nail an aquaintance of Strides as the killer, they would be left with the burden of proof: Anybody who simply stated that they had been home sleeping in their bed would be very hard to convict if there was no evidence and no admittance on behalf of the guy. That would have applied on behalf of Kidney too, for that matter, if you want him as BS man.
All of this, however, does not touch on the issue of explaining the cachous itself. And I really feel that the explanation with an aquaintance/lover is the ONLY explanation that covers all them small things that are left uncovered with Jack on stage:
The guy tries to drag Stride along, out into the street - a clear pointer that he wanted her to leave the spot for some reason.
She cried out three times, BUT NOT VERY LOUD. So she kept her voice down - to a degree that made Schwartz notice it! During the Ripper scare? How credible is that - unless we allow for a man aquainted to her. Keeping it "in the family" is so typical for domestic violence.
The Lipski outcry craves some explaining - but if we open up for the possibility that "Lizzie" was what he shouted, no further explaining is needed, is it?
And the cachous, Observer, the cachous - if we reach a conclusion of it being a domestic affair, we finally have a solution to that nagging cachous problem!!
She would NOT have had them in her hand outside the gates - then she would most probably have dropped them as he abused her. So we have to accept that she took them out in the yard. But if she went in that yard to have sex with a punter/Jack, then why would she take them out before the act? The customer was already aquired, and if oral sex was involved, AFTER would be the appropriate time to bring them out.
It all becomes very, very strange, just like you yourself has pointed out, seemingly inexplicable - until you accept the scenario with an aquaintance. Then the problem dissolves into thin air all of a sudden, and it all becomes almost embarrasingly simple, does it not?
Add to this that we have Marshalls sighting of Stride with a man in a dark jacket and dark trousers, wearing a dark cap with a peak, and displaying a stout bodily constitution, a man who she affectionately kisses and smalltalks with before they head towards Helen street, his arm around her shoulder and telling her "You would say anything but your prayers". And lo and behold, when BS man enters the stage HE TOO carries a dark jacket, dark trousers, a dark cap with a peak, plus he displays a stout bodily constitution. Talk about coincidences! And just as Schwartz has the clothing of that man down as "respectable" in the Star, Marshall gave that exact same description of his man - respectably clad.
Theorize, if you will, Observer, that this man was one and the same, and a lover of Strides. Let a flight of fancy talk you into the possibility that when the man said "You will say anything but your prayers", it was in response to a promise on Strides behalf that she would give up prostitution, and then imagine what he would feel and do when he returns unexpectedly to Berner Street, only to find her soliciting outside the club..?
There is a lack of proof here, obviously - but there is also a chain of logic that will NOT break at any point - cachous or not. And as long as nobody comes up with a more credible explanation covering all them little details in as logic a manner or better, I remain convinced that Elizabeth Stride was killed by BS man. And BS man was not the Ripper, as clearly evinced by the crime scene.
The best, Observer!
Fisherman
Comment