Schwartz and Brown

[lynn cates]

hot date

Hello Sam. Any leads on this old flame? Was he her "hot date" for that night? (Sorry, the pun was YOUR fault.)

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. Indeed, no necessity attaches to its being a client. However, once we remove "Jack" (wrong MO); Kidney (sailed through interrogation); and, a client, who's left? Perhaps her heavy date for that night?

Or an old flame from her (recent) time living in the area of St George's East.

[lynn cates]

who's left?

Hello Sam. Indeed, no necessity attaches to its being a client. However, once we remove "Jack" (wrong MO); Kidney (sailed through interrogation); and, a client, who's left? Perhaps her heavy date for that night?

The best.
LC

So, had the Ripper been interrupted 90 seconds sooner in Bucks Row, before he could have mutilated her abdomen, you'd be arguing her as a domestic murder or one-off as we speak. You realize that, right? That's what I mean when I say it isn't all black and white.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And if the queen had balls she'd be king....the point is? That didnt happen. So why create a scenario for it?

Liz being killed by Jack who gets interrupted before he can finish suggests that he learned nothing from a first attempt that likely was interrupted, based on actual evidence not fanciful imaginations.... and just killed her before being fairly sure he had some time to mutilate, which is why he kills based on the previous murders....that he couldnt hear horseshoes and wooden wheels on cobblestone streets getting louder and approaching his location....and that he cuts Liz just as the cart and horse enter the yard.

Thats a lot of speculating, and paints what some called a "cunning" killer as extremely stupid ......a man who never left any trace of himself, never is seen leaving a crime scene, and successfully kills while the entire area and a ramped up police force was out looking for him.

Yet this cunning mutilator starts his kill-mutilation sequence while he can hear the approaching cart, or see it pulling in. He kills someone then is trapped in the yard with her.....some clever fellow.

Best regards Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

There is every indication that Marys Anns death might well have looked just like Annies had the killer chosen a better spot to commence.

So, had the Ripper been interrupted 90 seconds sooner in Bucks Row, before he could have mutilated her abdomen, you'd be arguing her as a domestic murder or one-off as we speak. You realize that, right? That's what I mean when I say it isn't all black and white.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

By the reasoning you show, we should expect to see organs missing from Nichols. Since it's impossible that Jack would be interrupted, or get nervous and flee, him being superhuman and all. So, where are these missing organs from Nichols that are required for a murder to be 'distinguished' as a Ripper crime? It's not all black and white, Michael.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Since there is actual physical evidence and circumstantial evidence based on the first killing that suggested to the coroner and the physician who performed the postmortems that the second killing was for the same motives as the first, Mary Anns ripped open abdomen should be a hint. There is every indication that Marys Anns death might well have looked just like Annies had the killer chosen a better spot to commence.

You see...there actually has to be evidence of some interrupted act to found a suggestion that interruption is even a possibility there....and since there are NONE of those indicators, there likely was no interruption.

Pollys case clearly is "pre-organ extraction"...not a completed act....based on the details of that murder, and the very next murder which is almost a twin of the first.

Cheers Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

I've exaggerated nothing. If you've dropped Kidney as your preferred suspect in the murder of Stride, then you must have come to appreciate the same information which points away from Kidney.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

A recently jilted lover is a far better suspect for this murder than a post mortem mutilator Tom...based on the actual evidence of course.

Who's the jilted lover? She'd left Kidney numerous times for days at a time. He did not have a history of killing her on these previous occassions and this last one seems not to have been any different.

Motive.......a single slit of a throat does not fit with Jack the Rippers assumed motives, in that, he distinguishes himself by whats done after the murder...not by merely killing.

By the reasoning you show, we should expect to see organs missing from Nichols. Since it's impossible that Jack would be interrupted, or get nervous and flee, him being superhuman and all. So, where are these missing organs from Nichols that are required for a murder to be 'distinguished' as a Ripper crime? It's not all black and white, Michael.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

I favour a client who was becoming attached to her (falling in love?) and hence jealous.

It doesn't necessarily have to have been a client, Lynn, considering that Stride (and Kidney) had lived not a million miles from Berner Street, until comparatively recently before her death.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes (once again!):
"There is a wealth of information that suggests strongly Michael Kidney DID NOT kill Liz Stride. There's not one iota of evidence to suggest that he did."

There is a wealth of information that suggests that Michael Kidney could have killed Liz Stride. There´s not a iota of evidence to suggest that he did not.

Now, this is exaggerating things à la Wescott. But there you are ...!

The best,
Fisherman
(who does not have Kidney as the prime suspect - but still enjoys proportionality and common sense)

[Tom_Wescott]

you said a "wealth" of information exonerates Kidney.....what exactly do you feel is this evidence? The fact they interviewed him and didnt arrest him?

I said no such thing. I said there's a wealth of information that strongly suggests Kidney did not kill Liz. Not the same thing as 'exonerating evidence'. But damn close. Since I'm not sure anyone else really cares to know this stuff, I"ll save myself the time of posting it all. I am at work, you know. No computer at home these days.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There is a wealth of information that suggests strongly Michael Kidney DID NOT kill Liz Stride. There's not one iota of evidence to suggest that he did. Just a reminder since I see Perry Mason is on his soap box again.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

A recently jilted lover is a far better suspect for this murder than a post mortem mutilator Tom...based on the actual evidence of course.

Motive.......a single slit of a throat does not fit with Jack the Rippers assumed motives, in that, he distinguishes himself by whats done after the murder...not by merely killing.

Someone wanted Liz dead and killed her. Thats the whole story, thats all of the evidence....and a jilted lover beats a ripping stranger anytime as a suspect based only on that simple principle.

At least the premise on which I stand has some logic attached....a serial mutilator post mortem of women deciding as he hears a cart approach to just cut once and only kill then wait for a chance to slip out the gates.....now thats fantasy.

Cheers Tom


edited to add.....you said a "wealth" of information exonerates Kidney.....what exactly do you feel is this evidence? The fact they interviewed him and didnt arrest him?

[Tom_Wescott]

There is a wealth of information that suggests strongly Michael Kidney DID NOT kill Liz Stride. There's not one iota of evidence to suggest that he did. Just a reminder since I see Perry Mason is on his soap box again.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Mike. He might have been so dissociated that he was in denial. It is possible. That might explain his silliness.

I favour a client who was becoming attached to her (falling in love?) and hence jealous.

Cheers.
LC

Thats an interesting take as well Lynn...hadnt really run that one up the flagpole myself.

Either way it seems both you and I can agree that whomever was her company in the seconds before she was grabbed it was probably someone she felt comfortable enough with. The cashous, unless placed in her hand after she is on the ground, seem to indicate unpreparedness for a struggle with anyone as being imminent. And it appears she turns her back to her assailant and thats why he can grab her scarf from behind.

We dont know precisely why Liz and Michael split just days before this final act...and we dont know why much of her demeanor and dress suggests she was out on personal business that night...the flowers, the cashous, her lodgemate saying she was wearing her "good" evening wear, her request for a lint brush......all these things would not be something she would feel the need for to solicit what were probably dirty, smelly, very poor men. And they would cost money...money she might rent a bed with.

Yet she had that doss money, and instead suggests that she would not be returning that night....nor did she know when she might. Maybe she thinks she's running off with someone that night...or having a weekend tryst?

Either way, speculation aside, its hard to reconcile a calm and unthreatened demeanor after being pulled into the street and falling by someones hand who she apparently did not know....and who seemed like a bully by the way he verbally bullies the witness.

Browns tale does not have that issue.
Cheers mate

[lynn cates]

dissociated

Hello Mike. He might have been so dissociated that he was in denial. It is possible. That might explain his silliness.

I favour a client who was becoming attached to her (falling in love?) and hence jealous.

Cheers.
LC