Same motive = same killer

[Elamarna]

but no body is there yet so how is he going to get reward? that makes no sense.

Hi Abby

It may suggests a lack of communication between associates, possibly the report being made before the event takes place, that suggests the informant is not the killer himself.

maybe not shock per se, but the thrill of doing it? the urge to "tell" about it?

Possibly but that is not what some have proposed in this thread, I understand where they are coming from, however these reports IF TRUE, call that into question.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Abby

It may suggests a lack of communication between associates, possibly the report being made before the event takes place, that suggests the informant is not the killer himself.

That was certainly mooted at the time. Forbes-Winslow's ripper suspect was said to have had an associate known as "Dodger", and some speculated this could be Cleary.

It would be inteesting to know how many strange men wandered into newspaper offices with tales of murders, but no body was ever found where they said.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

It may suggests a lack of communication between associates, possibly the report being made before the event takes place, that suggests the informant is not the killer himself.



Possibly but that is not what some have proposed in this thread, I understand where they are coming from, however these reports IF TRUE, call that into question.


Steve

Hi El and JR
an associate jacking something like this up so bad, perhaps three times? someone that stupid and incompetent wouldn't even be able to find the pressmen.
No, I find this explanation wholly untenable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers H, I look forward to reading anyrhing you can find.

Hi Joshua,

As I said, the article is called ‘Jack The Ripper And The Shoeblack Connection.’ It appeared in the April 2002 Issue Of True Crime although it doesn’t say who wrote it. I’ll type the first 4 paragraphs:

‘On Sunday September 8th, 1889, The first anniversary of the murder of Annie Chapman, a young man who gave his name as John Cleary called at the London offices of The New York Herald. He said the police had discovered the mutilated body of a woman in Backchurch Lane, Whitechapel, at about 11.20 the previous evening. He had been told this, he said, by a police inspector he had met in Whitechapel’s High Street. But when the London papers editor questioned him, he changed his story and said his informant was an ex-policeman.
A cab was promptly summoned to take two reporters and Cleary to the scene. But when it arrived at the offices Cleary declined to get in it, saying that Backchurch Lane was too far from his lodgings in Drury Lane. Failing to persuade him to accompany them, the reporters went to Backchurch Lane where they repeated Cleary’s story to a police inspector and a Constable. The officers said it was news to them. If a body had been found the previous night they would certainly have known about it.
The address of his lodgings which Cleary had given-21 White Horse Yard, Drury Lane-turned out to be false. This suggested that the name that he had given was also false. His true identity remained a mystery, but the reporters had noticed the soiled condition of his trousers at the knees, which indicated he was a Shoeblack.
Two days later, a woman’s torso was found by police patrolling the railway arches in Pinching Street which led off Backchurch Lane. So was Cleary a clairvoyant, or was the discovery of the torso just a coincidence? Had he hoped to make a quick buck out of this tip-off to the newspaper, and had he refused to accompany the reporters because he knew his story would be proved bogus? If that were the case, nobody would be more surprised by the torso’s discovery than John Cleary.
Whatever the explaination, the incident highlights something overlooked for more than a century by investigators and researchers alike. All have failed to appreciate the importance of Shoeblack as potential witnesses. There was one on just about every street corner, and we know where they were because their pitches were licensed. If anybody might have seen something of the ripper as he went about his grisly work, it was a Shoeblack.’

The article goes on to mention that Michael Keating was a licensed Shoeblack and that he and Cleary could have been one and the same. It also mentions that the police were responsible for licensing Shoeblack and that the officer responsible for there certification was Superintendent Charles Cutbush. The article writer also points out where various Shoeblack were located in relation to the murder sites. Apparently City Shoeblack s wore red tunics whilst metropolitan ones wore blue (which in poor visibility made them liable to be mistaken for police officers.
The writer also believes that for the ripper to get from Berner Street to Mitre Square and the Goulston Street he used the underground and there would have been a Shoeblack at the stations. He questions why Shoeblack weren’t questioned for evidence.
If anyone wants to know where the writer says that a Shoeblack was stationed in relation to a murder site let me know.

[Elamarna]

Hi El and JR
an associate jacking something like this up so bad, perhaps three times? someone that stupid and incompetent wouldn't even be able to find the pressmen.
No, I find this explanation wholly untenable.

What if however he is told it will be in place at 6 on Saturday, but for some reason that does not occur and he is not told. He would not be directly involved in the killing? Cutting or disposal, however he is aware of what is happening, how is anyone's guess.


It may be unlikely in your view but I would suggest to call it untenable is in correct; but we have our own views end of the day.


Cheers


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

HI Harry
These reports are so odd. and now heres a third.

I've found these two reports:

Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 11th October 1888
"An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices..."

Lancashire Evening Post, 16th Sept 1889
"It seems the remarkable story told of the visit paid by the man Leary to the London office of the New York Herald is not without parallel in connection with the revolting crimes which in the past 18 months have occurred in the metropolis. The Leary incident has recalled the fact that a few nights before the horrible discovery of the dead body..."

Can anyone point me to the third?

[Pcdunn]

Alternative explanations

HI Harry
These reports are so odd. and now heres a third. I'm beginning to think that these aren't totally false stories.

Its such a rare story-someone going to reporters and telling them about torsos that havent been dumped yet, but then end up dumped there?!?

whats going on here? anyone have a clue?

its either the killer with some odd habit of "declaring/revealing" the dump sites beforehand or..or whats the alternative???

-- If not the killer himself, perhaps an accomplice responsible for the dumping of the parts. (Though why he did not squeal on the killer is a point.)
-- A medical student prankster?
-- A random citizen with psychic abilities? Yet if he wanted money for the tip, why not return later?

[FrankO]

Peter Sutcliffe killed three women in four months, while others were killed almost a year apart. And I'm sure I can dig up other serialists with erratic murder patterns.

Peter Sutcliffe isn’t a good example, Harry. Sutcliffe never changed from relatively low-risk murders that were spread out over more than a decade to high-risk in murders in only a couple of months, only to return then to the relatively low-risk murder type.

The man responsible for the torsos was willing and able to take time to get their victims to some private place, kill them & cut them up, think of places where he would leave them, which meant that he had to know some of these places very well and chose the right time (when there was no copper or anybody else around) to do dump body parts. That is very far removed from the Ripper, who more or less did what he did when he wanted to and wasn't willing to take his time to minimize risk to the extent the Torso murderer was.

If you find me an example of a serial killer who changed from low-risk to high-risk and back again like the Torso man/Ripper, then I might change my mind.

All the best,
Frank

[jerryd]

John Cleary is actually John Arnold. I should actually say, John Arnold is the man that walked into the Herald to announce the murder. It's a long complicated story that I won't get into here, but I have threads on him if you want to read the whole story.

John Arnold was not a shoeblack. He was a newspaper vendor with a stand at the Charing Cross Post Office. He had been a newspaper vendor since he was very young. He asked for a reward in the Pinchin case which made me think the MO of the same story in the Whitehall case could possibly be him. He was well known to the police, according to Swanson, but mainly for drinking, gambling and deserting his wife. In the Pinchin case I feel John Arnold spilled the beans too early and his partner/s got angry with him. On the dead walls near the Pinchin arch there was writing found in chalk stating "John Cleary is a fool". I think this was a statement by his informant that he spoke too soon. John Arnold fits the description of the blotchy man in the Kelly case to a tee as well as other witness descriptions of the man seen with the women.

[Observer]

But the mens story predicted something that actually happened?!? three of them? whats the chances of that happening.

Zero AN. They are the garbled account of the original story as told by Arnold, nothing more nothing less.

[jerryd]

Zero AN. They are the garbled account of the original story as told by Arnold, nothing more nothing less.

How can the Sheffield Telegraph story be a garbled account of Arnold's story when it appeared in the paper in October of 1888? The Arnold incident was in September 1889.

[Observer]

John Cleary is actually John Arnold. I should actually say, John Arnold is the man that walked into the Herald to announce the murder. It's a long complicated story that I won't get into here, but I have threads on him if you want to read the whole story.

John Arnold was not a shoeblack. He was a newspaper vendor with a stand at the Charing Cross Post Office. He had been a newspaper vendor since he was very young. He asked for a reward in the Pinchin case which made me think the MO of the same story in the Whitehall case could possibly be him. He was well known to the police, according to Swanson, but mainly for drinking, gambling and deserting his wife. In the Pinchin case I feel John Arnold spilled the beans too early and his partner/s got angry with him. On the dead walls near the Pinchin arch there was writing found in chalk stating "John Cleary is a fool". I think this was a statement by his informant that he spoke too soon. John Arnold fits the description of the blotchy man in the Kelly case to a tee as well as other witness descriptions of the man seen with the women.

Swanson was of the opinion that Arnold was prompted to go to the New York Herald offices due to the fact that a woman had been attacked in Church Lane on the night that he visited the office. Being a newspaper vendor he could have got wind of this attack from a reporter, in the course of picking up his newspapers in order to sell them.

[Observer]

How can the Sheffield Telegraph story be a garbled account of Arnold's story when it appeared in the paper in October of 1888? The Arnold incident was in September 1889.

My mistake, I was reading the Sheffield Telegraph story as taking place October of 1889. Wasn't it a Mr Miller of The Star who found Emily Jackson's thigh though? Starting to make sense.

[Observer]

-- If not the killer himself, perhaps an accomplice responsible for the dumping of the parts. (Though why he did not squeal on the killer is a point.)
-- A medical student prankster?
-- A random citizen with psychic abilities? Yet if he wanted money for the tip, why not return later?

How about a Newspaper journalist prankster?

[jerryd]

My mistake, I was reading the Sheffield Telegraph story as taking place October of 1889. Wasn't it a Mr Miller of The Star who found Emily Jackson's thigh though? Starting to make sense.

Hi Observer,

Some report the name as "Miller" but his name was Claude Mellor. He became alerted to the John Arnold story because the description on the man circulating fit a man he knew by the name of John Cleary who was an ex-compositor for the Globe and yes, he found Jackson's thigh in the garden of the Shelley estate in Chelsea.

Regarding your other point about Swanson. Ellen Bisney was found in Brunswick Buildings after an epileptic seizure at 12:15 a.m on September 8th. Swanson said the Bisney story did not account for the mention of a murder in Back Church Lane. Brunswick Buildings were on Goulston Street.

(Ellen Bisney story is from Ripperologist 143, Rob Clack's article)