|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 4:27 pm: |       |
G'day Caz,
Isn't it handy when we can say that the official records must have got blown up during the war?
Of course he was probably registered at a doss house on those nights, or more likely at home with Mary, but did they not let anyone out of the door once they'd signed in?
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
How do you think the police checked Kidney's alibi, or Kelly's?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:45 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
No idea mate, I'll have to think about it!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 258
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
Robert, Michael Kidney made his own alibi by going to the police station drunk as a skunk and demanding a detective. Kelly was at the lodging house with several other guests, wasnt a problem to coroborate either of their statements.
As for Joe... (purely hypothetical, and synical) Well G'ovner, where was I on August 31st you ask... Well, if I recall I was with Mary seeing as how I had just been paid and we was out for a night on the town. Came back a bit tipsy dont ya know. You can ask Annie, she lived across the street she did, and she saw us stumblin' about on our way back to the court she did...
September 8th... In the morning you say... Hmmmm have to think about that for a moment... I know, I was with Mary that morning as we was celibrating with a wee bit of spirits cause I had found a new job at the fruit market and just got paid. Now mine you, you dont have to take me word for it, you can ask Kate; the lady what lives in the shed next to McCarthy's. She was out and about that evening and we ran into her on our way back to the court...
September 30th... What, you think I might be that Jack bloke? Well, I'll have you know on Sept 30th Mary and me was in the Ringer's Pub. No, I cant recall us being with anyone in particular but most there knows us and would tell you we was there...
Last night, I was playing Whist till 'bout midnight, I was. Me and some mates from the lodging was there for hours. Lost fourpence I did. After that I went broke and headed for bed. Thank me lucky stars I paid for me doss before I sat down to play cards, or I would have spent the night on the street...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:43 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
Very amusing! But I don't understand how Kidney could make his own alibi by going to the station drunk.
Wilkinson was sure that Kelly didn't go out on Saturday night. The fact that he was asked the question, proves that the police were aware of "slipping out" scenarios. I think if Joe had left between 3 and 4 on Nov 9th, there's a good chance he'd have been noticed.
I think the police would have gone through all his possessions, and asked him what he was doing at the times of the other murders. If he couldn't tell them, it wouldn't be damning - but it wouldn't stop them checking him out either. If Lawende couldn't identify him - well, so much the worse for Paley's "description that matched Barnett in every particular".
By the way, I know that this night time murder is Leanne's scenario - you and Richard think Kelly was killed in the morning.
Robert
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 259
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 9:19 pm: | |
Robert, I believe MJK was murdered in the later morning for several reasons: 1) the blood was still in liquid form when the doctor did the post mortem. Had she been murdered in the early morning hours the blood would have been dried. 2) Rigor would have been a lot more pronounced than the doctor stated. 3) there were two witnesses that saw her out and about at nearly the same time, and had no idea that each had seen the same as the other...
As for Kidney, [From "Jack The Myth" by A.P. Wolf] "One day after the murder of Long Liz - Elizabeth Stride - Michael Kidney arrived in a drunken condition at Leman Street Police Station, Whitechapel. He demanded to speak to a detective, ranting and raving that if he had been the constable in the area where the murder took place he would have killed himself. This is a vital point because Kidney did this before the inquest opened on Long Liz and her body had still not be identified, in other words nobody knew who the victim was, and even later, after the inquest had opened, she was still being wrongly identified as Elizabeth Stokes. So how then did Kidney know that the latest murder victim was his ex-girlfriend Long Liz before she had even been identified?
Remember he had not seen her for almost a week - so he claimed - and later admitted to the inquest jury that he was not 'worried' about her absence. He was also later pressed by the inquest jury to explain why he had gone to Leman Police Station to complain about the police and he came out with a wild tale about having some information which could have trapped the murderer if he had been given control of a group of detectives. When pressed even further he admitted that the tale was a lie.
The truth of the matter is that he did have some information which would have trapped the murderer because he murdered Long Liz himself, and in the classic manner - that will be presented in a later chapter - he presented himself to the police the very next day, in the role of the outraged upright citizen full of indignation about police inefficiency. There is no doubt now that Kidney did murder Long Liz... going to the police to complain about the circumstances of her death before anyone knew she was dead clinches it.
It is astonishing that the inquest jury were so quickly satisfied with his testimony, particularly after he admitted lying to them. Equally, one can only wonder at the total incompetence of the police in failing to realize that Kidney could not have known that it was Long Liz who was murdered before her body had even been identified, unless of course he had committed the crime himself. Again, as in other inquests on the so called Ripper murders, the attitude of the police is quite unbelievable. The failure of the police in Long Liz's case of not calling the single eyewitness to her murder, Israel Schwartz, to give vital evidence at the inquest is absolute criminal neglect."
Shannon
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 18
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 1:17 am: | |
Shannon,
Before anyone knew she was dead?
Word on the street of another Jack the Ripper murder spread like wild fire. I'm sure everybody in that area knew what happened and the "word" could have easily gotten through the towns. Everybody was in a panic about the Ripper murders before, why not now? To every ear it got, there would be worries. That's what I think could have happened with Kidney. It could have gotten to him and since he was drunk with a whole different attitude, he went on that tangent to the police.
-Peter- |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 4:19 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Yes your dried blood argument is very interesting, and I have taken it on board. Time of death of course is a separate issue from identity of murderer.
Re Stride, that name was already being mentioned at the inquest on Oct 1st. Kidney made his drunken appearance at the station in the evening of that day. So, although it's possible Kidney killed Stride, I don't see how his appearance at the station can be evidence for this.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 4:24 am: | |
(will move this to the Liz thread) Petra, not that anyone knew she was dead, Everyone knew that "someone" had been murdered, but no one knew WHO she was. Her body was mis-identified, and it wasnt until the day after Kidney made the scene at the police station that she was confirmed to be Liz Stride and not Elizabeth Watts...
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 194
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 5:41 am: | |
I hate reading this argument in various books, it is the most spurious one in the whole case. The victim was identified as Elizabeth Stride in both the evening newspapers of 30th September and in The Times on the morning of 1st October. As Kidney had not been to the inquest there was actually no way of his knowing that she had been mis-identified as Elizabeth Watts. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 155
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 6:38 am: | |
Ahhh, Liz Stride has taken over the thread overnight.
Who identified her correctly for the papers then?
I still think the Ripper killed her and Joe is still the most likely for me.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
G'day,
I just re-read Michael Kidney's inquest testimony, regarding his visit to Leman Street Police Station in the P.M. hours of the same day that Stride's inquest started. Her inquest opened on Monday the 1st, continued on Tuesday the 2nd, Wednesday the 3rd, Friday the 5th and concluded on Tuesday the 23rd of October. It was unfair that Mary Kelly's opened and concluded on the same day, but that's another issue.
Back to Stride's inquest and Michael Kidney testified on Wednesday the 3rd. He may have been drunk when he visited the police station, but he would have been sober at the inquest!
His testimony on a page I printed from 'Casebook', is more detailed than from a page that appears in 'The Ultimate Companion'.
After he mentioned his visit to Leman Street Police station, he said that he wanted to keep his information to himself. He asked for the assistance of a "young, strange detective", so he didn't want it to be someone that was recognized. He said: "The parties I obtained my information from know me, and I thought someone else would be able to derive more from them." Michael Kidney was a waterside labourer who lived at 38 Dorset Street!
ROBERT: I was going to point out that the deceased was named 'Elizabeth Stride', before Kidney went to the police, but you beat me to it!
Where's the proof that Lawende was asked to look at Barnett? Did that get lost in the war too? Lawende said at Kate's inquest: "I doubt whether I should know him again."
Someone should start a new thread on Michael Kidney's visit to Leman Street Police.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 157
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
I don't think we can say what and what didn't get lost in the war? If it's not here now, then how do we ever know any of it existed. We know that Barnett was interviewed, so there must have been some record of that which is now lost, but we cannot be sure that he was in a police line-up so we don't know if there was any record of this to start with.
Sarah  |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 159
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:23 am: | |
Leanne,
"Someone should start a new thread on Michael Kidney's visit to Leman Street Police."
I just did, it's on the Stride thread under "Michael Kidney's visit to police station".
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:36 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Of course, we've no proof :
1, That Lawende saw the murderer.
2. That he got a good look at him - depends whether you think he was Anderson's witness, and what you think of Anderson.
3. That he was asked to look at Barnett.
We also have no record of how the police verified Barnett's alibi. But if they had any doubts about his alibi, it's a fair bet that he would have been looked at as a possible JTR. In which case, with clues so thin on the ground, wouldn't they have asked Lawende to have a look?
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 161
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Robert,
We can say "wouldn't they have done that" or "they should have done this" all we want to, but the truth of the matter is that we have no evidence to show that any of that happened. I'm not saying it didn't, but we can't say for certain that it did either.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 9:40 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Of course we don't know a lot of things. I think though that the balance of probability is that the police would have checked Joe out thoroughly. It's always possible that they were lax, or incompetent. But I'd need some pretty good evidence to set against the lack of police interest in him before I put him down as a very strong suspect.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 163
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 9:49 am: | |
Robert,
The police force today are incompetent, what makes you think they were any better back then? If anything, they would have been worse.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi Sarah
In the Sourcebook are a number of records of police investigations concerning lunatics, suspicious characters, men who confessed to the crimes - all sorts of folk. If these were checked by police and eliminated, are you saying that it's a toss-up whether or not the police checked them out properly?
The suspect list has just expanded dramatically!
If a suspect has "connections" of course there's more room for scepticism. Joe and many others had no connections at all.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 434
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:36 am: | |
Sarah,
As a representative of Her Majesty's investigation force I find your comments both insulting and fictional.....along with plausable !
Believe me, they would have turned that boy inside out. After all, they inspected ALL Joes clothing.
Now thats thorough.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 164
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Monty,
Don't blame me for having a go at the police, they are useless. Let's have a quick run down shall we. Well, My brother's car gets broken into twice and the police do nothing, I'm stopped by the police 4 times in two years for no reason, one of my brother's friends is is seeing a drug dealer with whom she is having a baby and he is walking around as free as a bird and now I find out that my house was broken into this morning and my parents have been waiting for about 6 hours for the police to show up. Believe me, I have more and if that's not incompetent then I don't know what is.
Anyway, rant over.
I'm just saying that if that police today are so useless why would they have been any better back then.
Sarah |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 43
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Sarah,
The police are not incompent today nor, given the limitations of the era, were they 115 years ago. Then and now they may evince a certain lack of imagination; not only is that not encouraged, but most so blessed go in for writing advertising copy or weather forecasting anyway.
The police are very good at the routine of investigation: questioning witnesses, checking alibis and the overall wearing out of shoe leather at a shocking level. They go about this routine with dogged determination and the few records extant concerning the Ripper investigations (e.g. Issenschmid) bear this out.
Moreover, experienced policemen quickly develop a great sense for evaluating the statements of those they question. It isn't evidence or admissable, but they generally have a good handle for when a suspect is hiding something or telling something less than the truth. That they were evidently satisfied with Barnett's story is telling.
Indeed (and with apologies to Monty), if the police then and now have an occasional failing it is to stretch the frame to fit a suspect in order to "get" the culprit in a high-profile case. And there was no higher profile case than that of Saucy Jack's depredations.
One of the problems with the Barnett theory is that he must have been considered a prime suspect in the immediate aftermath of MJK's murder and to believe in his guilt one must believe the police were stupid and incompetent to a mind-numbing extent. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 436
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Donald, Sarah,
Im not Police, me investigator.
Its all about results...stats....whatever comes easiest.
Unless the investigation is important enough.
Unless it could bring down a failing Goverment or weak Monarchy.
Compared to a murder investigation, Im afraid your troubles pale into small fry Sarah.
Is that right? Not for me to say, but its the way it is.
Monty
PS Im sorry to hear about your problems. You honestly have my sympathies Sarah. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 166
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 12:20 pm: | |
Monty,
Well as long as I'm a law abiding citizen and pay my taxes the police should actually get off their arses, excuse me, and do something useful one day. I'm just upset though because all my jewellery has been taken including a lot of things that have huge emotional value to me. The police seem to think that unless someone has been murdered then it's not important, but believe me, if there were that many murders taking place where I live, there wouldn't be anyone left. I've never experienced the police doing anything useful.
Anyway to drag my personal problems up. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
Sarah I hope things get better for you. It sounds like you need a bit of luck.
Just like to quickly say that Abberline was a respected officer - he was no Inspector Clousseau.
Be interested to read your story, when it's finished.
Robert |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
