More misinformation...ho hum....does anyone actually believe that my views and research is financially motivated? If so, they're painfully ignorant of Ripperology. And you would probably be the only person to compare my work to Trevor's, AP.
In any event, I'm not on this thread arguing the Ripper as Liz's killer, but arguing AGAINST Kidney as her killer.
It has nothing to do with Charles Le Grand...although since it was probably Le Grand who took Kidney to the police station, and therefore probably him who gave Kidney the half-baked theory he hinted at at the inquest, and since Le Grand looked like Pipeman, it might just be tantalizing to theorize that Le Grand puppetmastered the Stride murder, using an angry Kidney as his instrument. Thanks AP!
'ow much is it, Tom?
5 grand for a bucket of Le Grand?
Don't be a fool, Tom--grab the 5 (le) grand! And if Tom's not interested, AP, then, I will gladly dodge carrots for a like sum while discoursing on any topic of your choosing. I have done worse for less.
"To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."
Tom Wescott writes:
"the fact that very few OTHER people bother to post intelligently on these threads is - to my mind - the major reason why they sometimes turn into the The Tom & Fisherman show. Personally, I would love to see more input from folks like Sam Flynn, Monty, Dan Norder, Gavin Bromley, Grey Hunter, Caz, Chris Phillips, Scott Nelson, etc. I'm sure Fisherman would agree."
That I would, Tom. In fact, I find very little to disagree on in these lines of yours, but for the fact that you misuse your alphabetic insights when you speak of "The Tom & Fisherman show"...
Don, just to warn you, I was planning to fire the carrots out of my thirty pounder, and then to rake the bounder with me poop gun loaded with sour grapes.
All that might be left is a few grape stalks in me bilges.
Hi Fisherman, Thanks for answering my post,and for pointing out that you were the first to reply to Sam's post.You are,of course, correct in what you say that in relation to Stride,unless anything else is revealed relating to her murder none of us have any definate answers,who knows what information has been lost over the passage of time. I was just interested to read Tom's viewpoint,and to read yours also,except there seemed to be more of his than yours....It is purely a personal opinion,but if Jack didn't kill Liz,I think he'd have used the situation to goad the police and remind them of,what he would see,as their incompetence at not recognising that it was not his work. My apologies if I offended you or Glenn,that was not my intention,I just wanted to continue the thread and was fed up of the bickering that was holding up the discussion.By the way........I am not a chum of Tom's....but it would be a bit boring if we didn't hold different views on the subject of JTR,so felt it a bit unfair that he was being criticised for his opinion,that's all. Regards. Anna.
...and no hard feelings on my part either, Anna; I think you fell victim of criticizing my post at a moment where I was still under the Wescott influence, and at such moments I am much disinclined to pull my punches. So I will repeat what Glenn has already told you, and admit that my first post to you was perhaps not what it ought to have been. IŽll try to shape up in the future!
At what time was it stated that my inferior level of knowledge should prohibit me from writing an essay on Stride?
Nobody forces anyone to write an essay on Stride either.
Nothing prohibits anyone these days - not even their own humility it would seem - from writing essays, or dissertations no less, while readily admitting they have an inferior level of knowledge when it comes to their subject matter. Luckily nothing prohibits anyone from taking to task those who indulge themselves in this way.
I don’t know what’s more worrying: being fully aware of one’s limits, as you say you were, and going ahead regardless; or being woefully unqualified for the job (whether it be in the factual information, interpretative skills or coherent writing departments) and blissfully unaware of one's shortcomings when venturing into the dissertation-writing lions’ den.
But in neither case does anyone appear to know what has hit them when not all the reactions are positive to their undoubted freedom to submit and see in print what can on occasion be the most appallingly written drivel. Even the most knowledgeable, competent writers on this tricky subject don’t always get an easy ride. But everyone can get themselves an easier one by taking the rough with the smooth and a chill pill - or quit writing essays they aren’t obliged to write.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Jack
For my money, Kidney appeared to be well aware of the fact that the police would be unable to question him when drunk, so he went on a drunk, leaving the police with only one option, arrest him on suspicion and let him sober up in the cells for 24 hours. Given the fact that popular and police opinion dictated that the murder of Stride was part of a series committed by the Whitechapel Murderer, one can understand the reluctance of the police to arrest someone who might have had a solid alibi for the earlier murders, when the person who could provide that alibi had just been murdered herself.
Catch 22 just went to 23.
Come off it, Cap'n.
“Only one option, Constable Quick. Arrest the beggar on suspicion and let him sober up. We can’t do him for Stride because we can’t do him for the previous murders because Stride is bound to give him a solid alibi for them.”
“But Stride is dead, Sergeant Thick.”
“Ah, I wondered when you’d spot that, Quick. Well done. Arrest the beggar for all of them and let him come up with his own damned alibi.”
Catch 22 just went nowhere.
I suppose it would have served the murdering swine right though. I mean, fancy volunteering the information that he “tried unsuccessfully to padlock her in” if he was the one who successfully slit her throat. What a berk. The padlock key was found on her. No evidence that he hadn’t given it to her himself.
I’d say Kidney was glaringly innocent, and maybe a bit lucky he wasn’t set up for the lot. Unlike what is happening these days to the luckless Barnett and Hutchinson. Mary had no alibis about her person either. She hardly had her person about her.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
When strong comments based on opinions are put forward, someones going to yell "oh-murder" here..so what Tom and Fisherman exchange is just a mutual enjoyment of the heat of the battle.
But before Sam points this out.......I am against Kidney as Strides killer simply because no-one has presented a well wrapped story that involves him as Broadshouldered Man,...because if you're accepting of Schwartz,....that she had an altercation, that Schwartz saw it, and that Schwartz and another of the only 3 men on the street, 2 near Stride and the gates, leaves......then the only two people that are on the street, or in or near Dutfields Yard, are Liz and Broadshouldered Man.
That being said, the fact that Schwartz's story is not entered as evidence even though the inquest is still going on in late October, after some adjournments, meaning he and his account could have been investigated fully by then...I don't believe Fanny Mortimer is called to corroborate her statement that she looked towards the gates from her stoop at around 12:56 and saw Goldstein slip past, and the two witnesses believed to perhaps have seen Liz with someone last, are Smith and Brown.
And I don't believe either of those men, or that one man, has been, or could be used to make a case for Kidney.
The way I see it...Schwartz is truthful, Broadshoulderd Man is the only male anywhere near her....Schwartz is not truthful, neither Smith or Brown's sightings make for a plausible Kidney suspect, being in plain sight with her just before he kills her.