Is "Mr. Blotchy" the best suspect we have?

[Jon Guy]

My main difficulty with this suspect is that he had such a distinctive complexion, which would surely have stood out. And yet no other witness refers to a similar looking suspect.

Hi John

Apparently, the East End was awash with ruddy faced, gin soaked faces.
The fair or ginger moustache certainly appears throughout the Ripper`s story.

[Abby Normal]

Based on the eyewitness testimony?

Hi Harry

In my opinion yes.

He is the last person seen with the victim alive and is seen entering Mary kellys room the night of her murder while she was very intoxicated.

he is never seen leaving. And other than dubious witnesses hutch and Maxwell, Mary Kelly is not seen again until her body is discovered in her room.

The witness Cox-is a very credible witness, attended the inquest, never went to the press, believed by the police and there was never even a hint that her story was ever discredited. There was never any reason to doubt her and she had every reason to be there that night as she lived there. She knew the victim.
Further, her story is corroborated by other witnesses who lived in the court.


Blotchys description of red/ginger/fair hair is similar to witnesses lawende, Fiddymont and co, Galloway and also fits the description of the man who attacked earlier possible victim Ada Wilson with a knife.

Discrepencies with other credible witness sightings by Smith, marshall, Schwartz and Long regarding hair color can be explained by poor lighting conditions and/or the witness not getting a good enough look. Even so, in build and dress, Blotchy is similar to these witness descriptions.

Blotchy never comes forward and is the epitome of the profile of the local average Joe serial killer.

IMHO, he is most likely to be our man.

[Harry D]

I posted this over at jtrforums earlier. I'm referring to John Arnold that reported the Pinchin Torso 2 days before the body was discovered. aka John Cleary,John Leary, John Kemp, Denis Lynch

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing, jerry. I just had a read-up of John Arnold's entry here on Casebook. I wonder how his story went from initially being told by a police inspector, to an ex-copper, and then finally a soldier? If he was a boozehound, perhaps his mind was shot and he honestly couldn't get his story straight, OR he had another reason for straying from the police connection. Either way, very suspicious. If he was involved somehow, I don't see why he would voluntarily come forward instead of keeping his head down, though.

There is a part of me which believes that for all the legend and mystery surrounding the Ripper, it probably turns out he was just some no-mark loser with a forgettable name. In that respect, this guy would certainly fit.

[jerryd]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing, jerry. I just had a read-up of John Arnold's entry here on Casebook. I wonder how his story went from initially being told by a police inspector, to an ex-copper, and then finally a soldier? If he was a boozehound, perhaps his mind was shot and he honestly couldn't get his story straight, OR he had another reason for straying from the police connection. Either way, very suspicious. If he was involved somehow, I don't see why he would voluntarily come forward instead of keeping his head down, though.

There is a part of me which believes that for all the legend and mystery surrounding the Ripper, it probably turns out he was just some no-mark loser with a forgettable name. In that respect, this guy would certainly fit.

Harry, thanks,

First off an extract from:

New York Herald
[London edition]
11 September 1889

Last Sunday morning at five minutes past one o'clock a young man called at the HERALD office and reported that there was another "Jack the Ripper" murder. He was sent up to the editorial rooms and interviewed by the night editor. He said that a mutilated body had been found in Backchurch-lane, in Whitechapel. He said that it had been found by a policeman at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock. The map of London was immediately studied by two reporters in order to locate Backchurch-lane, while the editor cross-questioned the man. He said it had been told to him by an acquaintance of his, a police inspector whom he had met in Whitechapel High-street. He said there was no doubt about it, and that he had hurried to the HERALD office understanding that he would be rewarded for the news. He said his name was John Cleary, and that he lived at 21, White Horse-yard, Drury-lane. He was asked to write down his name and address; and he did so, the writing being preserved. His information was explicit and seemingly authentic, and two reporters were detailed to take the man with them, and go and get the story.

The two reporters went out, and one of them stopped on the landing of the stairway in going down, and asked the man some more questions. Under this examination he varied slightly, saying that the man who had told him was not a police inspector, but an ex-member of the police force. This statement has, perhaps, some significance to all who have been following the murders closely. He then went down to the street with the reporters. They called a hansom and told the man to get in with them; but he first hesitated, and then refused. His excuse was that it was too far from his home. They urged him to go, but he was firm. One of them proposed to take him back upstairs, in order to have him near at hand if necessary; but the necessity of immediate departure compelled them to start and leave the man to go his own way. He was assured that if the news proved authentic he would be handsomely rewarded, and he went away apparently contented with the arrangement.

The statement in bold is important as it reflects on opinions made during the Alice McKenzie murder. Some thought an ex-member of the police force could be involved merely for insider information of police beats and timings, etc. Also, an ex-metropolitan policeman was in the area at the time of her murder standing near the arches leading into Castle Alley.

He did come forward voluntarily but then seemed to want out as he disappeared after giving a false name and false address (John Cleary of 21 Whitehorse Yard, Drury lane). However, in the 1881 census there appears a John Arnold b. 1861 (makes him 28 in 1889) and wife Amelia with children living at 4, White Horse Yard. His occupation is given as hawker. This John Arnold was born in Holborn which covers the area where our John Arnold appears to actually be living down on the Strand at 2, Harvey's Buildings. 'According to Arnold, he gave the reporters the name 'John Kemp' (not Cleary), and the address 21 Whitehorse Yard, where he had lived previously. The false name was given, he said, because he did not want his wife to know where he was staying.'

So, even though he came forward, in hopes of reward, he gave a false name and address supposedly to keep his wife off him. Suspicious, yes. Was he hoping for reward immediately? Otherwise why disappear if you want to be located to receive your reward. His story changed in a matter of seconds relating who told him of the mutilated body, which incidentally, no one was aware of until two days later.

Also interesting is the graffitti found on the dead walls near where the torso was discovered that said 'John Cleary is a fool'. The name John Cleary was introduced by a Mr. Miller from the Star newspaper. Mr. Miller believed the man to be an ex-compositor for the Globe but his description of John Cleary was age 35, 6 feet tall, comp. fresh, hair and heavy moustache dark, bald, medium build, speaks peculiar, as though he has no roof to his mouth who as of about 4 months ago was living at 2 Savoy Buildings, Strand. Clearly not the same man that walked into the Herald to report a mutilated body in Back church Lane. That man was John Arnold. But the question now remains, who was John Cleary? Savoy Buildings were very close to Harveys Buildings and also very close to the remains of the Whitehall torso and Elizabeth Jackson's remains. In fact, this same Mr. Miller was said to have found the thigh of Annie (Elizabeth) Jackson in a garden on the Embankment.

[RockySullivan]

I wonder where the john cleary graffiti was in relation to the lipski graffiti. Obviously who ever was killing these women liked graffiti..perhaps we can find done graffiti arrrests in 1888

[jerryd]

I wonder where the john cleary graffiti was in relation to the lipski graffiti. Obviously who ever was killing these women liked graffiti..perhaps we can find done graffiti arrrests in 1888

One chalked message mentioned in the papers was at Frederick Street. A dark passage under the railway that connects to Pinchin Street. The Lipski graffitti was seen on a black paling opposite the arch where the pinchin torso was found.

Same general area.

[RockySullivan]

What does the john cleary is a fool message mean to you jerry? Does it mean a connection with GSG in your opinion?

[jerryd]

What does the john cleary is a fool message mean to you jerry? Does it mean a connection with GSG in your opinion?

Good question. I have thought of a couple meanings. One, if you look at all the graffitti, from GSG to the Pinchin graffittis, they seem to place blame. The GSG I interpret as, The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for anything [nothing]. Similar to american slang like, You can't blame me for nothing [anything] So basically the author, to me, is saying Jews won't be blamed for this, I will. The author could still be a jew but just saying don't blame the whole group of jews, blame me.

Lipski chalked up may be laying blame on Lipski for one reason or another. Either for betraying humanity and murdering his wife or for being a jewish murderer. Or simply for getting caught (if he was part of their gang, for example)

The John Cleary is a fool message seems to blame John Cleary for performing a foolish act of some kind. Maybe related to Pinchin Street or not.

My other thought is that these chalked messages were code for the killer and his accomplice/s. For example, place the body by the Lipski chalking and frame John Cleary for the murder.

Last, John Arnold comes into the picture. He seemed gullible to me. Whomever gave him the inside information of the body in Back-church Lane may have set him up and told him to use the name John Cleary not knowing these fellas had chalked up the name near the murder scene to frame him.

All speculation, of course. A theory hasn't solidified in my mind, yet.

[jerryd]

Correction on Lipski. I said murdered his wife. Should be his fellow lodger, Miriam Angel.

[pinkmoon]

If I was a prostitue I would steer clear of a punter who had a "blotchy face" because he might have some nasty disease could Mr blotchy have been made up by the witness?Mary Kelly was in a different class to the other poor victims she would be able to be a bit more fussy who she did business with so I think she would have avoided anybody with a "blotchy" face.

[jerryd]

Just an interesting observation I have. I don't put much into it at this point but worth noting I think.

John Arnold of Pinchin torso fame shares the same last name of the Superintendent of H Division in 1888, Thomas Arnold. I doubt there is a family connection or I would think it would have been discovered by now but it is another coincidence. Also coincidental is the fact that Superintendent Arnold ordered the removal of the GSG and in 1887 was involved in another famous murder case. The case of Israel Lipski.

[GUT]

Just an interesting observation I have. I don't put much into it at this point but worth noting I think.

John Arnold of Pinchin torso fame shares the same last name of the Superintendent of H Division in 1888, Thomas Arnold. I doubt there is a family connection or I would think it would have been discovered by now but it is another coincidence. Also coincidental is the fact that Superintendent Arnold ordered the removal of the GSG and in 1887 was involved in another famous murder case. The case of Israel Lipski.

Arnold ordered the removal??????

I thought that honour belonged to Warren.

[jerryd]

Hi GUT,

As Superintendent, Arnold made the order to the dismay of some in the City of London police force, Charles Warren upheld the order and had it removed.

[jerryd]

Here is his report to the Home Office on November 6:


I beg to report that on the morning of the 30th Sept. last, my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings at No. 108 Goulston Street, Whitechapel which consisted of the following words: "The Juews are not [the word 'not' being deleted] the men that will not be blamed for nothing", and knowing in consequence of suspicion having fallen upon a Jew named 'John Pizer' alias 'Leather Apron' having committed a murder in Hanbury Street a short time previously, a strong feeling existed against the Jews generally, and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by persons passing in & out of the Building. Had only a portion of the writing been removed the context would have remained. An Inspector was present by my directions with a sponge for the purpose of removing the writing when the Commissioner arrived on the scene"

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

As Superintendent, Arnold made the order to the dismay of some in the City of London police force, Charles Warren upheld the order and had it removed.

G'day Jerryd

But it was Warren who made the ultimate call.