Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    If Kidney was in any way responsible for the assault witnessed in Berner St. he was risking his own life by turning up as a witness at the inquest.
    Any other witness could have recognised him and he could hang for murder.
    I would think that is an inexplicable risk to take, when, if really guilty, he could just disappear.
    I don't think Kidney was involved but murderers turning up as witnesses does happen, even when there are eye-witnesses who more than likely saw the murderer.

    There was a cold case solved here recently and the killer was convicted on DNA evidence (the crime was in 1992 and he was caught this year, an horrific crime by the way, one of the worst you can imagine and he will be targeted in jail as a result).

    A witness almost certainly saw the killer with the victim (a small child) given the circumstances.

    There was a trial in 1992/93 which saw an innocent man accused, and the killer went to court to give a statement during that trial.

    That case is a good example of eye-witness testimony also. The witness had the killer down as 5'7 and clean shaven, when in actual fact he was 6'0 and had a moustache.

    The witness did her best, she wasn't lying in any way, shape or form; she simply didn't have reason to take much notice of what she saw and her mind recollected a barely conceived event, erroneously.

    Disappearing isn't the obvious solution that it sounds. It may be in vast countries such as Canada and the United States, but in a small country such as England it's not so easy to disappear. The fact that wherever you are in England you are no more than 70 miles from the sea, tells anyone that this isn't a country in which you can lose yourself.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      If Kidney was in any way responsible for the assault witnessed in Berner St. he was risking his own life by turning up as a witness at the inquest.
      Any other witness could have recognised him and he could hang for murder.
      I would think that is an inexplicable risk to take, when, if really guilty, he could just disappear.
      But he could only be identified as the man who pushed her over in the street No one saw the murder, if he had ever been properly interviewed he could have simply said yes we had an argument I pushed her she fell over and I walked off.

      Kidney in my opinion has to be a good suspect and Don Rumbellow also believes him to also be a good bet.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post

        Daily News October 18 1888

        "From more than one source the police authorities have, it is said, received information tending to show that the East-end murderer is a foreigner who was known as having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy. The very place where he lodges is asserted to be within official cognizance. If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused. Her statements are, it is stated, now being inquired into. In the meantime the suspected assassin is "shadowed." Incriminating evidence of a certain character has already been obtained, and, should implicit credence be placed upon the story of the woman already referred to, whose name will not transpire under any circumstances until after his guilt is prima facie established, a confession of the crimes may, it is said, be looked for at any moment. The accused is himself aware, it is believed, of the suspicions entertained against him. With regard to the statements current as to finding a blood-stained shirt at a lodging-house in Whitechapel, it appears the story is founded on some matters which occurred more than a fortnight ago".
        What individuals have ever been named as suspects, who are known to have lived within a few hundred yards of 40 Berner St?
        Does that limit hint that the suspect implicitly referred to lived close to that limit, as opposed to say, 50 or 100 yards away?
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • The English language is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. Sadly.

          Michael uses this to try and insist that Kozebrodsky went alone to look for a Constable:

          In the quote I provided it says without doubt that "I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemshitz."​
          Wick replied:

          .
          We both know Diemshutz asked him to go with him, all the press accounts confirm that. So of course he went at the request of Diemshutz, it still does not mean he went by himself.​​


          From Benjamin Franklin to Lord Kane’s, 1765:

          I went at the Request of the Governor and Council……. with three others

          So Ben Franklin agrees with Wick.


          Something more modern? How about some bloke on Tripadvisor?:

          I went at the request of a friend. We did not received our appetizer.”

          ​The guy on Tripadvisor also agrees with Wick. I agree with Wick too, as I imagine would everyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in supporting a theory.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post

            Re: Star, 2 Oct. 1888:

            I am wondering if "from another source" was a "medical establishment"

            The Star October 12 1888

            "A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.

            A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance".


            Sheffield Evening Telegraph October 12 1888

            "... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances".

            Hampshire Advertiser October 13 1888

            "A report was current late last night that the police have good reasons to suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East End Infirmary. He was admitted since the commission of the last murder, and owing to his suspicious behaviour and other circumstances the attention of the authorities was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries relative to his actions before being admitted to the infirmary, and he is kept under constant and close surveillance".

            Daily News October 18 1888

            "From more than one source the police authorities have, it is said, received information tending to show that the East-end murderer is a foreigner who was known as having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy. The very place where he lodges is asserted to be within official cognizance. If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused. Her statements are, it is stated, now being inquired into. In the meantime the suspected assassin is "shadowed." Incriminating evidence of a certain character has already been obtained, and, should implicit credence be placed upon the story of the woman already referred to, whose name will not transpire under any circumstances until after his guilt is prima facie established, a confession of the crimes may, it is said, be looked for at any moment. The accused is himself aware, it is believed, of the suspicions entertained against him. With regard to the statements current as to finding a blood-stained shirt at a lodging-house in Whitechapel, it appears the story is founded on some matters which occurred more than a fortnight ago".

            Echo October 20 1888

            "There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of the doors."

            Aftonbladet (Sweden) October 26 1888

            “The murderer of Whitechapel has as yet managed to avoid detection. It is said that the prime suspect is now a foreigner who was living not far from Berner St when the murders took place. He has been reported to the police by a woman who he has been living with and is at present under close surveillance”.

            See also the press reports attached in post 739

            Karsten.​
            Hi Karsten,

            Very interesting information in your thread. I am of the opinion that Jack cut himself at the Eddowes murder and used the apron portion to stem the bleeding until Goulston St. If the wound turned septic then he may have had to resort to an infirmary, as detailed above. I did post this suggestion some time ago but it didn't attract very much attention.

            Cheers, George
            Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post

              (Circumstances? "He was a quiet and harmless individual in the ordinary way, but when the paroxysms came upon him his ferocity knew no bounds", Anderson. There also also press reports in December 1888/ January 1889/ August 1889 referring to certain "letters", certain investigations?, Cox)

              Swanson:

              "On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night..." This could mean he did not live with his brother after the Double Event, he returned to his brotherīs house in Whitechapel after the Millerīs Court murder. He was a patient in an "infirmary" & did not live with his brother in the meantime (October/ November 1888).

              Mary Berkin (granddaughter of Swanson)

              "From what I heard I gathered that Grandfather had been in charge of the case, knew who was the perpetrator but couldn't bring him to justice without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements. That someone was a fellow Jew who declined on religious grounds. The 'proof ' was that the crimes ceased when the suspect was sent away from London".

              Hi Karten,

              It is difficult to think of any person of interest to which these descriptions apply more than Kosminski. Great research.

              Cheers, George
              Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                The English language is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. Sadly.

                Michael uses this to try and insist that Kozebrodsky went alone to look for a Constable:

                Wick replied:

                From Benjamin Franklin to Lord Kane’s, 1765:

                I went at the Request of the Governor and Council……. with three others

                So Ben Franklin agrees with Wick.

                Something more modern? How about some bloke on Tripadvisor?:

                I went at the request of a friend. We did not received our appetizer.”

                ​The guy on Tripadvisor also agrees with Wick. I agree with Wick too, as I imagine would everyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in supporting a theory.
                Thankyou for that Herlock, I'm surprised anyone else is actually following this ridiculous exchange. It's not like Michael doesn't know he's making a loosing argument, he knows English but he's trying to push a point of view that is not supported by the testimony. This nonsense about Isaacs not being Isaac is another example, Jews are known for pluralizing their first names, I've explained this to him on other threads years back, but he won't listen.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Karten,

                  It is difficult to think of any person of interest to which these descriptions apply more than Kosminski. Great research.

                  Cheers, George
                  That of course is if the marginalia and the part that names Kosminski was actually penned by Donald Swanson and I have serious doubts because the marginalia is littered with obvious flaws.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Karsten,

                    Very interesting information in your thread. I am of the opinion that Jack cut himself at the Eddowes murder and used the apron portion to stem the bleeding until Goulston St. If the wound turned septic then he may have had to resort to an infirmary, as detailed above. I did post this suggestion some time ago but it didn't attract very much attention.

                    Cheers, George
                    Following treatment the police if they had strong suspicions had the option to arrest this man following his release from the hospital, having asked him how he came by his wound and then they could have sought to prove his story.

                    The apron piece was described as having blood spots. I would suggest that if it had been used to stem a wound then the blood would be more centralised where the wound was and if it was a deep wound I doubt it would have been disposed of that quickly, equally if only a minor cut would there be a need to use anything to stop the flow



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Thankyou for that Herlock, I'm surprised anyone else is actually following this ridiculous exchange. It's not like Michael doesn't know he's making a loosing argument, he knows English but he's trying to push a point of view that is not supported by the testimony. This nonsense about Isaacs not being Isaac is another example, Jews are known for pluralizing their first names, I've explained this to him on other threads years back, but he won't listen.
                      I was taking my hat of to you for displaying more patience than I do Wick.

                      In the case of PC Lamb Michael is insistent that he met Eagle ‘just before 1.00’ despite the fact that six quotes were posted and ‘before 1.00’ was only used in one. The rest said ‘around 1.00.’ We can’t cherrypick which quotes are fit for purpose, but this happens. We can’t assume that quoted times were spot on and perfectly synchronised, but this happens. We can’t assume that discrepancies must indicate something dishonest or sinister, but this happens. Having a theory is fine of course but they shouldn’t be defended at all costs, but this happens.

                      Balance is often sacrificed imo.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        That of course is if the marginalia and the part that names Kosminski was actually penned by Donald Swanson and I have serious doubts because the marginalia is littered with obvious flaws.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        No it doesn’t.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          The English language is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. Sadly.

                          Michael uses this to try and insist that Kozebrodsky went alone to look for a Constable:



                          Wick replied:





                          From Benjamin Franklin to Lord Kane’s, 1765:

                          I went at the Request of the Governor and Council……. with three others

                          So Ben Franklin agrees with Wick.


                          Something more modern? How about some bloke on Tripadvisor?:

                          I went at the request of a friend. We did not received our appetizer.”

                          ​The guy on Tripadvisor also agrees with Wick. I agree with Wick too, as I imagine would everyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in supporting a theory.
                          Ridiculous how daft you 2 are on this point. Issac Kozebrodski says that he was sent, he looked for help, he saw Eagle, and he and Eagle and Lamb returned to the gates. Not once does he say "we" until he meets Eagle, nor does he say that anyone accompanied him. Also Louis doesnt say Issac Kozebrodski accompanied him, he says Issac[s]. You and others assume that he meant Issac K. But as is clear as glass, Issac does not say he went out with anyone. Eagle says he went down the stairs with Issac to see the body, and Jacobs and some other member went out for help. I suggested, based on the references to both Issac[s] and someone named Jacobs, that there may well have been a member named either Issac Jacobs or Jacob Issacs that went out with Louis, but of course you 2 know thats impossible because what Louis meant was...or what Eagle meant was....or that Issac Kozebrodski uses first person singular but he meant that....

                          That you want to imagine that Issac Kozebrodski is with Eagle and Lamb and ALSO with Louis and THEY come back to the gates with Spooner is beyond my comprehension. I know you both like to offer explanations that include" what he really meant is", or "what the actual time was"...like you know better than the witnesses giving the statements,.. but in actuality you dont. Issac said Louis or some member sent him and then he uses only first person singular until he meets up with Eagle and Lamb, Louis says he went out with Issac[s], not Issac Kozebrodski, Eagle says he saw Jacobs and some member go out for help...(I believe that Wick suggests that Jacobs and Diemshitz are just interchangeable names was pretty comedic actually), and you insist that this is all well and good and fits with an arrival time by Louis of 1am.

                          That cannot be. The world has physical laws, use them. If after 1am Issac K goes out, Eagle goes out, and Louis with whoever you will next suggest he meant he was with, and none of them found immediate help, they would not be coming back to the gates in less than 5-10 minutes. You suggest this is fine even while you know that a PC said he was there just before or at 1 because Eagles summoned him, and Johnson is there at 1:10 after hearing about this from a call for the PC sent by Lamb to notify the station of what was discovered. Did Louis arrive to make the discovery before or after Eagle arrives at the gates with Issac K and Lamb? Before, right? Then if they are there at around 1, the what approximate time must the discovery have taken place? Just use the little plastic play clock they have at the daycare you spend your days at.

                          I know you like the fantasy of everything happening when it makes sense to you, or interpreting english incorrectly when it doesnt support your theorizing, or having people suddenly appear or disappear without anyone seeing or hearing a thing...but grownups should know that life doesnt work that way.

                          You have times given. Stop pretending you know what the real time actually was. You have events stated. Stop questioning what people say, or dismissing what they say, and try and recreate, (not create anew) the situation based on the evidence given as is. You have data, just use it. If it doesnt work then someone or something is wrong or intentionally misleading. Just Stop changing witness statements and times please. You do not know better than any witness what they actually "meant".
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-13-2023, 01:41 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Thankyou for that Herlock, I'm surprised anyone else is actually following this ridiculous exchange. It's not like Michael doesn't know he's making a loosing argument, he knows English but he's trying to push a point of view that is not supported by the testimony. This nonsense about Isaacs not being Isaac is another example, Jews are known for pluralizing their first names, I've explained this to him on other threads years back, but he won't listen.
                            Proof that this was the case here? Or you suggesting "what was really meant" again.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I was taking my hat of to you for displaying more patience than I do Wick.

                              In the case of PC Lamb Michael is insistent that he met Eagle ‘just before 1.00’ despite the fact that six quotes were posted and ‘before 1.00’ was only used in one. The rest said ‘around 1.00.’ We can’t cherrypick which quotes are fit for purpose, but this happens. We can’t assume that quoted times were spot on and perfectly synchronised, but this happens. We can’t assume that discrepancies must indicate something dishonest or sinister, but this happens. Having a theory is fine of course but they shouldn’t be defended at all costs, but this happens.

                              Balance is often sacrificed imo.
                              Check my post when I ask you to check the times. If PC Lamb arrived at 1 with Eagle and Issac K, and Louis arrived at 1 to initially discover the body, in what imagined world is this possible?

                              And as far as accusing people of twisting evidence to support theories, Iva suggested using the known data that is there, as is. Times, as given. Youve suggested changing times and events to support your belief in Schwartz and Louis. Look in a mirror...there is your theorizer.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Hi Karsten,

                                Very interesting information in your thread. I am of the opinion that Jack cut himself at the Eddowes murder and used the apron portion to stem the bleeding until Goulston St. If the wound turned septic then he may have had to resort to an infirmary, as detailed above. I did post this suggestion some time ago but it didn't attract very much attention.

                                Cheers, George
                                Hi George,

                                the same here. The Batty Street story; the man who "cutting his corn" may have been the suspect. I think it is very possible that the man who dropped off the shirts at first believed the story the suspect told him. Otherwise, we would never have heard of it. The suspect (Pipeman/Kosminski) could also have cut himself while attacking Liz Stride in Berner Street. Maybe the reason why he walked off.

                                Karsten.​

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X