Even if asked where he had been, Kidney likely wouldn't have fessed up to killing his girlfriend. He could have made up a story and had a couple of mates back him up. Maybe this is a naive view, but wouldn't that be possible?
That is definitely true and I agree with the possibility - crime history is littered with such situations. I don't see such a view as naivety at all. On the contrary.
All the best
__________________ The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing
But what convinces me that Schwartz did see a man with a moustache is that he describes not only the size,but the color of the moustache.
To be frank, I don't see how Schwartz describing those features would apply as evidence in any way of that he actually saw someone. Firstly, we are not talking very controversial or uncommon details here, and second, numerous false witnesses have produced detailed descriptions without necessarily telling the truth. After all, a witness - true or false - has to attribute the suspect with some details anyhow. And small brown moustache isn't really that ingenious for East End in 1888.
By that I am not saying that Schwarzie boy DID fabricate his story, only that there is nothing in it that proves or indicates that he didn't.
A great Christmas holiday to you too, Howie!
All the best
__________________ The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing
If Schwartz had seen a man....who did not have a moustache....but made up the story in line with how (as you mentioned) witnesses often invent elements which get included in their deposition...then Kidney ain't our huckleberry here. He had a major league moustache. I have no doubt that Schwartz at some point saw Kidney after Stride's death. Can I prove this? No way,Jose.
If Schwartz had seen a man with a moustache, then his description of the moustache is far from what Kidney had hanging over his piehole.
"To be frank, I don't see how Schwartz describing those features would apply as evidence in any way of that he actually saw someone. Firstly, we are not talking very controversial or uncommon details here, and second, numerous false witnesses have produced detailed descriptions without necessarily telling the truth. After all, a witness - true or false - has to attribute the suspect with some details anyhow. And small brown moustache isn't really that ingenious for East End in 1888.
By that I am not saying that Schwarzie boy DID fabricate his story, only that there is nothing in it that proves or indicates that he didn't..."
The first sentence ( underlined) is true, if Schwartz made up his story. Evidently,the authorities believed his story...that being,that he did see someone who also possessed a small brown moustache according toSchwartz. If the authorities believed his story, then the moustache is included with what was believed to be factual. It is usually those of us who lean towards Kidney who dispute the detailing if it conflicts with their belief in Kidney's culpability. I'm not claiming or rather, insinuating, you are oblivious to the possibility that Schwartz was correct with his description,but invariably the counter argument to what Schwartz saw and the police believed him to have seen comes from the cadre that is firmly in the "domestic murder" corner. At least thats my impression.
The second sentence ( underlined) can be answered in this way ( not the only one ): Whats the first thing you notice about a man's face? Answer: Whether he has glasses on or has a moustache. The reason is probably that one is not born with either.
In the case of Schwartz, that he describes the machinations of BS Man...in a brief few seconds of intense activity...without being able to identify one of the two "indicators" ( glasses,which of course,Kidney is not known to have worn...or the moustache...is hard to fathom. Yet,according to Schwartz, the assailant did have one. Whether it was a small black one, small red one, or small brown one is less important, to me, than the size of the moustache.
- but I can't seem to recall that Stride and Kidney lived in a lodging house together. But I might be wrong.
I replied to you yesterday stating Kidney lived at a lodging house at 38 Dorset St. However, when I got home I had a look to see if no.38 Dorset St was a lodging house but in Sugden it said that this address was an error by the press.
Kidney and Stride lived in Devonshire St, and a few months previous to her murder they moved to another house in Devonshire St, where Stride eventually left him. So, Kidney was living in his own room, near Berner St !!!!
Indeed, Jon, at the inquest, and in answer to a specific question about whether any strangers had entered the lodging-house in the hours after Kate's murder. This question only arose during the inquest, it seems, and Wilkinson was asked to leave the chamber in order to retrieve his register. If it hadn't occurred to Crawford and/or the jurors to have asked the question, we might still be none the wiser - indeed, taken at face value, the fact that it took until then for the information to be requested might actually reflect rather poorly on the police. That aside, this episode by no means indicates that Kelly himself was under suspicion before the inquest itself.
I grant you that, Sam, it does appear to have taken Crawford, and not the police, to have requested the register.
I wanted to address what Howard and Glenn were exploring If I may, on Schwartz's viability as a genuine witness.
Only a strong hunch, I dont know how or if it could be proven other than by a members register dated for that period, which in and of itself wouldnt be proof....anyway, I think its entirely possible that Schwartz was a club member, and that Wess might have interpreted for him...as he did for Goldstein apparently...another questionable tale, walking by a club he is a member of with empty cigarette cartons in his Gladstone and cigarette makers in the cottages in Dutfields Yard awake at the time.......but another day for that one. Tom Wescott suggested the link before, and I think it fits the reputation of the club more accurately when people are in that yard after a meeting. We know that was the pattern, by the neighbours comments.
If the events Schwartz describes took place in the yard, as he was leaving via the side door...(we know the front was locked at that time), rather than outside the gates, then any features that he offers about Broadshouldered man, beyond that one feature....broadshoulders, as perhaps seen from the back...could be fabrication anyway. It was dark, and if he entered the yard via the side door, saw a man with Liz inside the yard near the gates, the man from behind, then as he passes the couple Liz tries to leave via the gates and is pulled back, by her scarf, by Broadshouldered Man. She falls, inside the yard already...and the rest of the story, yada, yada... rolls on. Pipeman might have been inside the yard himself, and left as Schwartz did, now that it was getting a bit rough. Or maybe he does come in from the street and try to drag her out, and Schwartz sees that.
Point being...Kidney could well be that guy who shows up, all we might need to match is "Broadshoulders",... and that could be one reason that we dont have Schwartz's statement in his own hand preserved, or his translators rather, and why he was never called to repeat his story at the Inquest. We also know that his words were translated....by a club member with some importance, judging by the fact that he is the first person called to testify...before Diemshutz, Blackwell or Kidney even.
Wess might only have changed "just inside" to "just outside" the gates, and a few minor details. With or without Schwartz's agreement.
I think the tale is "changed", or shaped by Wess, and I think that if so, a scenario that has Kidney coming in via the gates, grabbing Liz who is waiting for a new beau inside, they argue, she falls, Schwartz leaves, Liz tries to get up and outside the gates, and is grabbed by her scarf and pulled off balance backwards. Her weight falls back on his arms, he twists her and with the hand free that pulled the knife from where it was tucked into his pants, and just lets her throat slide across his blade, dropping her, her own dead weight pressing her throat into the blade, and dictating the cuts depth and location. He pulls her back into the yard only because its darker and private.
Im suggesting that a scenario like that is plausible, has some thread of logic to it...including Schwartz saying he was looking to see if his wife had already finished their move, something that realistically was already complete many hours earlier in the day, instead of fessing up to attending the meeting and drinking instead, he is around 28 ish...not a stretch there, and if offers a perfectly plausible encounter with a jealous spurned lover that ends quickly and tragically. Meaning it explains why only a single wound is made. He didnt set out to kill her, it just happened, and he panicked and fled.
I think there is a good possibility Kidney was anti-semetic, and may have been refering to a Jew as the man he could catch if the police would give him some men to place about. And thats why he escalated so quickly to violence....it was one thing for her to dismiss him, it was another to do so for a Socialist Jew perhaps.
It also works for the cry of "Lipski"....if Kidney was the man saying it. And in an even bigger stretch,...it might make Kidney the author of the GSG,...where he went knowing club jews lived there in the Model dwellings.
Maybe he is trying to justify killing Liz because he was tring to get her away from "dangerous men" and she wouldnt listen.
Speculation...just for the jolly.
Last edited by perrymason : 12-19-2008 at 06:32 PM.
Interesting scenario - good speculation! We could call this possible scenario #1...
Its a little self indulgent for sure, but thanks wastelandr. I have this habit of seeing how changing a fact or two might change the entire perspective....kind of like The Butterfly Effect as applied to Ripperology.