Due date

[Belloc]

May I ask if there exists any evidence relating to John/Jack Faircloth having an alibi, and whether he stated openly what his alibi was? Or do we just have to take the word of the police officials at the time?

I am curious as to what his alibi was (Knowing he traveled around a bit to look for work) and HOW it was proven that he was too far away geographically for him to have killed Elizabeth Jackson?

RD

Cambridge Independent Press, 12 July 1889, page 7

[Debra A]

he also had a mark of an old (pox?) sore on the body of his private area.

Hi RD
Just a couple of things to add to your excellent summary. This sore was in fact a primary chancre of syphilis. Faircloth also had burst eardrums and was very deaf, which is why he was dismissed from the army on medical grounds, but that has nothing to his candidacy for anything.


Faircloth was definitely a millstone dresser (his father was a miller) and his worked involved travelling around the flour mills for a few days work regrinding their millstones. He had been working at a flour mill (Allinson's? I seem to recall, or some flour brand that is still in existence at any rate) in Ipswich and this is where his eyes were blackened by Elizabeth throwing a hand brush at him. His workmates found him an odd character and were convinced that Faircloth faked not being able to read or write because they had witnessed him writing in to a small notebook at times. Faircloth was also very upset when a photograph was taken of him at a flour mill by a travelling photographer. It was reported by colleagues that he didn't like that he was the most prominent one in the group photograph.
He was also described (by himself) as having distinctive hair that stuck up like brush bristles.

I have mentioned before that I noted there was a flour mill somewhere along the Thames embankment but I forget the exact location now as it's a good few years since I looked at Faircloth.

Faircloth was released from his prison sentence for desertion in 1887 in the Chelsea area.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, I am glad you mentioned that because it seems that only the newspapers refer to him as a Stone Mason. His military and court records do indeed say he was a Miller and/or Millstone dresser.
Do you think the newspapers refer to him as a stone mason, instead of a miller because it fits more with the description of the man seen talking with Jackson a few hours before she was dismembered? i.e. a Navvy.

Some of the newspapers, such as the Evening Star, did report that he was a millstone dresser:



Hope this helps.

[The Rookie Detective]

I believe there's a chance that the witness who saw the man in overalls with the appearance of an Engineer, who randomly mentioned the murders, and then who rushed away claiming they had found a clue, and the man seen talking with Jackson; the so-called Navvy, are possibly the same individual.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

He was described, not as a stone mason, but a millstone dresser. He traveled the countryside maintaining millstones.

If you're interested this gives a general idea of the kind of tools he would have carried and gives an idea of what the job entailed.

Millstone Dressing Tools (angelfire.com)

That's great thank you for that link.

Yes, I am glad you mentioned that because it seems that only the newspapers refer to him as a Stone Mason. His military and court records do indeed say he was a Miller and/or Millstone dresser.
Do you think the newspapers refer to him as a stone mason, instead of a miller because it fits more with the description of the man seen talking with Jackson a few hours before she was dismembered? i.e. a Navvy.

I know it may just be a case of terminology, and the many references in the newspapers did not intend to blur the line so to speak, but there is a difference between those 2 professions to some extent.

By 1891, he was working with cement, and so it appears he adapted accordingly to the times.


Great link though, many thanks.


RD

[rjpalmer]

What I find most interesting is his profession as a Stone Mason.

He was described, not as a stone mason, but a millstone dresser. He traveled the countryside maintaining millstones.

If you're interested this gives a general idea of the kind of tools he would have carried and gives an idea of what the job entailed.

Millstone Dressing Tools (angelfire.com)

[The Rookie Detective]

You have made me blush RD. Thank you for the compliment but I don't see myself as investigating anything, I'm just quite nosey. And now I'm nosey and my hat is suddenly way too small
You have an impressive amount of knowledge on Elizabeth's case RD. You make some excellent observations.

I agree that if that was the last sighting of Elizabeth on 3 June, then the 'navvy' would be highly likely to be her killer, given the short amount of time between that sighting and the first set of remains being found. The only thing that would against that for me is if Elizabeth's death was abortion related I've always had an inkling that the timing of seeking ana bortion might have coincided with Elizabeth accidentally meeting her mother in Chelsea on the 31 May, her mothering discovering her pregnant state and agreeing to meet up with Elizabeth again in the future. In that scenario I pondered if the three witnesses who last saw her in that case were covering the fact that they knew what Elizabeth was contemplating and that her mother was involved and deflected attention by producing a 'navvy' when a lot of the newspapers were reporting that the killer was most likley to be be one of the rough type of men who worked on the Thames barges , canals etc. and that she was most likely killed on a boat.
Regarding the 'navvy' description, one thing I'm reminded of is that although Faircloth was reported to have only one set of clothes, he did in fact own two pairs of trousers and wore one pair over the top of the others. I can't find the reference now but I have a memory that some portion of Faircloth's clothes matched the description but maybe I've misremembered that.

Debs

Hi Debra


My apologies for not having replied to this excellent post sooner!

I do recall an incident that was reported in several newspapers relating to a suspicious individual who was seen (inside) changing his trousers and the witness described him as having overalls like an Engineer would wear. He made a bizarre and impromptu remark regarding the murders, and then ran off stating (paraphrasing) "I've got a clue!"

This just reminds me of Faircloth, although there's zero evidence to support that of course.

I also noticed you mention the description of Faircloth given by a former landlady?

What I find most interesting is that her description doesn't tell the full picture.

Based on the evidence from his military file, he had several other features that I find particularly intriguing.

John Faircloth stood at just under 5ft 8"
Complexion - DARK
Hair - Brown

In 1872, he was noted as being "slightly flatfooted"...which by 1888, COULD have had an impact on his walking (fallen ARCHES)

He had a permanent scar (Cut) on the outside of his right leg, the cause of which is undetermined.
At the time he enlisted in 1872, he also had a mark of an old (pox?) sore on the body of his private area.

And Eyes... GREY.

Now while him having Grey eyes is insignificant by itself, it does remind me of the many discussions on this site regarding the suspect having distinct eyes, and Grey eyes would look atypical compared to the mass of brown, blue and green eyes that the vast majority of the population have.

So in John Faircloth we have...

An ex-soldier (Grenadier Guards)
He also spent 4 years in the Cambridgeshire Militia before joining the army (16-20)
Distinct "Grey" eyes
A possible affected walk, due to being flatfooted
He stood just under 5ft 8" tall
The partner of Elizabeth Jackson, one of the victims of the Torso killer.
The father of Elizabeth's unborn child
A man known for violence, having cut Jackson with a knife during a previous domestic
Aged around 37 in 1888
A man with Broad Shoulders
a pock-marked face
a sometimes elaborate dress sense
who wore 2 pairs of trousers over the other, like overalls.
A man with multiple HATS
A man convicted on multiple occasions for desertion from the army
A man who used multiple names and aliases

He was also sent to trial at the age of 18 for allegedly stealing from another person; but was acquitted

In 1891 he was living in Durham and listed as living with his wife Anne.
He is listed as a labourer, working with (CEMENT?)

An ex-military, cement working, stone mason partner of a Torso victim.

Now combine that with the details of the list above and I think we are all missing something potentially significant here.


What I find most interesting is his profession as a Stone Mason.

As a Stone Mason, he would likely have the appearance of a NAVVY, a Civil Engineer working on the Railway and various waterways


I have been working on the hypothesis that the Torso Killer was a Navvy who worked for the Board of Works (and Lusk) and who had built the infrastructure at the locations where the killer chose to place the Torsos, ergo, he was involved with building the reinforced ARCH under which the Whitehall Torso where dumped and the recently constructed ARCH under which the Pinchin St torso was dumped, next to the Board of Works stone breaking yard.

The Ripper killed Coles under an ARCH on the same stretch of railway as the Pinchin St torso.

I already have a person of interest in a man named John Donnelly, but that is not for this thread.

BUT... John Faircloth does draw my attention also.


And so my question is... how watertight was his alibi?

If there's any doubt in his alibi, then I feel we may have a key suspect in Faircloth, that has been potentially staring us in the face for years.

The fact you say he had a brother who worked on the railway, is another interesting detail that I don't think should be overlooked.


Is there a chance that his alibi is wrong and he managed to fool the police; hence why he then slip under the radar?

What if he was the man who murdered his partner in Elizabeth Jackson?

Could it have been Faircloth who was seen talking with Jackson shortly before she was dismembered?


There's more going on here than we realize.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Fascinating yes, shame he an alibi which was checked out by the police.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor


May I ask if there exists any evidence relating to John/Jack Faircloth having an alibi, and whether he stated openly what his alibi was? Or do we just have to take the word of the police officials at the time?

I am curious as to what his alibi was (Knowing he traveled around a bit to look for work) and HOW it was proven that he was too far away geographically for him to have killed Elizabeth Jackson?

Regards

RD

[Debra A]

You have made me blush RD. Thank you for the compliment but I don't see myself as investigating anything, I'm just quite nosey. And now I'm nosey and my hat is suddenly way too small
You have an impressive amount of knowledge on Elizabeth's case RD. You make some excellent observations.

I agree that if that was the last sighting of Elizabeth on 3 June, then the 'navvy' would be highly likely to be her killer, given the short amount of time between that sighting and the first set of remains being found. The only thing that would against that for me is if Elizabeth's death was abortion related I've always had an inkling that the timing of seeking ana bortion might have coincided with Elizabeth accidentally meeting her mother in Chelsea on the 31 May, her mothering discovering her pregnant state and agreeing to meet up with Elizabeth again in the future. In that scenario I pondered if the three witnesses who last saw her in that case were covering the fact that they knew what Elizabeth was contemplating and that her mother was involved and deflected attention by producing a 'navvy' when a lot of the newspapers were reporting that the killer was most likley to be be one of the rough type of men who worked on the Thames barges , canals etc. and that she was most likely killed on a boat.
Regarding the 'navvy' description, one thing I'm reminded of is that although Faircloth was reported to have only one set of clothes, he did in fact own two pairs of trousers and wore one pair over the top of the others. I can't find the reference now but I have a memory that some portion of Faircloth's clothes matched the description but maybe I've misremembered that.

Debs

[The Rookie Detective]

Some good points.
I had considered that Elizabeth was actually wearing her underwear when her body was dismembered as her drawers were still in position on her legs. Elizabeth was destitute and homeless so would have been carrying all her posessions about with her at all time, indeed her little blue linen bag was found with some of her remains.

Elizabeth did accept poor relief and was in the workhouse a few weeks before her death. Her reluctancy was probably based on the fact that her parents were long term inmates of Chelsea workhouse and at that point in time were unaware Elizabeth was pregnant.

It was Elizabeth's partner John Faircloth who stated that Elizabeth was not happy about her pregnancy and wanted to 'shunt' the
child but perhaps he had some ulterior motive for saying this? The pair apparently had a violent relationship, Faircloth once suposedly injuring Elizabeth in the arm with a knife and she blackening both his eyes after throwing a scrubbling brush at him during a row. Fairlcoth was a strange character and had recently left prison in 1887 after serving a few months sentence for desertion from the army. He'd hidden out in Lancashire for seven years after deserting the army, becoming known as 'Lancashire Jack.' Men he worked with at the flour mill in Ipswich that Elizabeth accompanied him to thought he was a strange character and quite secretive. They believed he could read and write but that he pretended he couldn't. They also recalled a time when Faircloth became quite upset when his photograph was taken at one of the flour mills he was working at. Faircloth was treated for syphilis during his time in the army, he was deaf, pox marked, his arms scarred with mettel marks and much older than Elizabeth - not much of a catch.
Although he had the alibi that he was tramping the country for work at the time Elizabeth met her death and was too far away but I did note that one source states that Faircloth had a brother who worked on the railway and he certainly may have.
Coincidentally, Faircloth also had a brother who came to live at Horselydown where the first portions of Elizabeth's body were recovered, He moved from the family's native home of March in Cambridgeshire but I can't place him there before the end of 1889.
So that's another scenario I think about-that Faircloth was somehow involved in Elizabeth's death.

Thank you kindly for your response to my post.

As always, your post is a work of absolute genius and perfection; balanced, factual, fascinating, suspenseful, dynamic, concise, intriguing, and thoughtful all in one.

It is no understatement when I say that you're the leading light in this investigation and I find the sheer level of your knowledge and understanding absolutely astonishing.


Regards to Jack Smith's (Fairclough) brother; I had no idea that was the case and it's the finer details that make the difference.

My first reaction to him having had a firm alibi for the duration of the time that covers the period over which Elizabeth would have been murdered; was to question the validity of that claim.
It's very clear from his statement that he traveled around various different areas of the country in a relatively short period of time and so my instinct tells me that his alibi may be up for questioning.

In terms of the date of her death, we are at least sure that she was alive on the 3rd June.

Both Jenny Lee & Elizabeth Pomeroy saw Elizabeth talking with a man on the evening of the 3rd June around 9pm

Description -

Peak Clothed Cap
Dark Moleskin Trousers
Dark Cloth Coat
Height 7"or 8"
Appearance of a "Navvy"

This man was seen talking with Elizabeth by multiple witnesses near 14 Turk Street, Chelsea; the lodging house at which she (and the witnesses) were staying.

Ann Dwyer who rented the lodging house had known Jackson for "20 months"
Jenny Lee lodger at 14 Turk Street lodging house had known Jackson for "2 years"
Elizabeth Pomeroy another lodger at 14 Turk Street had known Jackson for "4 years"

That would confirm that they had seen Elizabeth Jackson talking with a man on Monday 3rd June around 9 pm.

Elizabeth was seen wearing the clothes matching those she was found wearing when her body was discovered.

Those multiple sightings are significant because her remains were first found in the river at separate locations in the early hours of Tuesday 4th June.

That would suggest the man seen talking with Jackson on the evening of 3rd June was her killer; or the man who had led her to her killer.

I say that because of the time frame required.

The killer of Nichols for example, would have needed no more than a few minutes...but with Jackson, the killer would have needed considerably longer to carry out a full dismemberment of her body.

So Elizabeth was...
deposited in the water
seen talking to a man resembling a "Navvy" (ergo, a "Navigator" or civil laborer who worked on the CANALS or RAILWAYS)

And so how long would it take for the killer to have taken Elizabeth to a location, murdered her, dismembered her, and then deposited her into the water?

It would be fair to assume that her head was also deposited in the same manner, but perhaps weighed down so as to avoid identification, hence why it was never found.

I believe that the killer made a mistake and never intended for Elizabeth to be recognized.

It would seem logical that because Elizabeth was seen by multiple witnesses talking with a man who looked like a man who worked on the canal/waterway or railway, and who was subsequently found in the river; it is more than likely that he was her killer.

And if he was her killer, where did he take her from the location she was last seen at?

Was her killer a Navvy working on the canal or any construction on the embankment of the river itself?

But we can't dismiss the railway...

Of course, in combination with the other torso murders and the ripper murders, there may be a tantalizing clue in terms of the fact that multiple victims were found within very close proximity to the train line.

Are we on the "right track?"


RD

[Debra A]

I love how the mention of "Maybrick" appears to have killed this thread a few years back ha ha!

It would appear that Elizabeth was openly against her pregnancy and was far from happy that she was expecting.

Based on this account of her apparent mindset at the time, does it give more significance to her potential motivation in the lead up to her murder?

If Elizabeth was instead joyful, it would lend more weight to her having met a foul end right at the point she was happy with her child on the way. However, the opposite seems to be the case, and this lends more credence to the idea that Elizabeth may have looked to abort her unborn child.
There is some evidence to suggest that she was suffering from some form of depression. While this could be put down to hormonal changes during her pregnancy, it could also be consistent with a woman suffering from depression.

When you take into account her observed mental state, behavior, and negativity towards her baby, could there be a scenario where she went somewhere to have her baby aborted?

Crucially, the evidence proves that she didn't die due to having an abortion; but that doesn't rule out her intention to seek help to have her baby aborted.

When you also factor in that she refused poor relief, it would also suggest that she wanted to go it alone and perhaps didn't want to admit she needed help and support. This must have put immense pressure on her and I believe that she may have got to her breaking point and sought to have her baby aborted.

She was last seen by her landlady wearing the same coat her dismembered body was found in and I believe she was murdered very soon afterward, which suggests she was dismembered with her coat on.
That would seem rather odd if she had gone somewhere to have her baby aborted. If she was found naked then that would make more sense but she was wearing her coat when she was dismembered.

Why would she be wearing her coat when she was murdered? Does that suggest she was outside when she was attacked? Judging by the type of coat she was wearing, it would appear obvious that she was pregnant and so advertise to her killer that she was with child.

Did she intend to have an abortion and not go through with it?

If my memory serves me well, a male fetus (around 5 to 6 months gestation) was found relatively soon afterward floating in the river and so this is likely to have been her unborn child (although this can never be proved of course)

The nature of the vertical cuts to the left side of her uterus would indicate that the killer was aiming for the birth canal and targeting that area for a reason.
A botched abortion; while not appearing to be the cause of death, could still have been the premise of the circumstances leading up to her death.

Is there a scenario where she changed her mind at the last minute but the killer wasn't intending to let her go?

Or was she simply randomly attacked, murdered and dismembered and her unwanted pregnancy bore no significance to the cause of her untimely demise?


RD

Some good points.
I had considered that Elizabeth was actually wearing her underwear when her body was dismembered as her drawers were still in position on her legs. Elizabeth was destitute and homeless so would have been carrying all her posessions about with her at all time, indeed her little blue linen bag was found with some of her remains.

Elizabeth did accept poor relief and was in the workhouse a few weeks before her death. Her reluctancy was probably based on the fact that her parents were long term inmates of Chelsea workhouse and at that point in time were unaware Elizabeth was pregnant.

It was Elizabeth's partner John Faircloth who stated that Elizabeth was not happy about her pregnancy and wanted to 'shunt' the
child but perhaps he had some ulterior motive for saying this? The pair apparently had a violent relationship, Faircloth once suposedly injuring Elizabeth in the arm with a knife and she blackening both his eyes after throwing a scrubbling brush at him during a row. Fairlcoth was a strange character and had recently left prison in 1887 after serving a few months sentence for desertion from the army. He'd hidden out in Lancashire for seven years after deserting the army, becoming known as 'Lancashire Jack.' Men he worked with at the flour mill in Ipswich that Elizabeth accompanied him to thought he was a strange character and quite secretive. They believed he could read and write but that he pretended he couldn't. They also recalled a time when Faircloth became quite upset when his photograph was taken at one of the flour mills he was working at. Faircloth was treated for syphilis during his time in the army, he was deaf, pox marked, his arms scarred with mettel marks and much older than Elizabeth - not much of a catch.
Although he had the alibi that he was tramping the country for work at the time Elizabeth met her death and was too far away but I did note that one source states that Faircloth had a brother who worked on the railway and he certainly may have.
Coincidentally, Faircloth also had a brother who came to live at Horselydown where the first portions of Elizabeth's body were recovered, He moved from the family's native home of March in Cambridgeshire but I can't place him there before the end of 1889.
So that's another scenario I think about-that Faircloth was somehow involved in Elizabeth's death.

[The Rookie Detective]

I love how the mention of "Maybrick" appears to have killed this thread a few years back ha ha!

It would appear that Elizabeth was openly against her pregnancy and was far from happy that she was expecting.

Based on this account of her apparent mindset at the time, does it give more significance to her potential motivation in the lead up to her murder?

If Elizabeth was instead joyful, it would lend more weight to her having met a foul end right at the point she was happy with her child on the way. However, the opposite seems to be the case, and this lends more credence to the idea that Elizabeth may have looked to abort her unborn child.
There is some evidence to suggest that she was suffering from some form of depression. While this could be put down to hormonal changes during her pregnancy, it could also be consistent with a woman suffering from depression.

When you take into account her observed mental state, behavior, and negativity towards her baby, could there be a scenario where she went somewhere to have her baby aborted?

Crucially, the evidence proves that she didn't die due to having an abortion; but that doesn't rule out her intention to seek help to have her baby aborted.

When you also factor in that she refused poor relief, it would also suggest that she wanted to go it alone and perhaps didn't want to admit she needed help and support. This must have put immense pressure on her and I believe that she may have got to her breaking point and sought to have her baby aborted.

She was last seen by her landlady wearing the same coat her dismembered body was found in and I believe she was murdered very soon afterward, which suggests she was dismembered with her coat on.
That would seem rather odd if she had gone somewhere to have her baby aborted. If she was found naked then that would make more sense but she was wearing her coat when she was dismembered.

Why would she be wearing her coat when she was murdered? Does that suggest she was outside when she was attacked? Judging by the type of coat she was wearing, it would appear obvious that she was pregnant and so advertise to her killer that she was with child.

Did she intend to have an abortion and not go through with it?

If my memory serves me well, a male fetus (around 5 to 6 months gestation) was found relatively soon afterward floating in the river and so this is likely to have been her unborn child (although this can never be proved of course)

The nature of the vertical cuts to the left side of her uterus would indicate that the killer was aiming for the birth canal and targeting that area for a reason.
A botched abortion; while not appearing to be the cause of death, could still have been the premise of the circumstances leading up to her death.

Is there a scenario where she changed her mind at the last minute but the killer wasn't intending to let her go?

Or was she simply randomly attacked, murdered and dismembered and her unwanted pregnancy bore no significance to the cause of her untimely demise?


RD

[Debra A]

I had a look for other flour mills in case it was significant. There are two others I found along the river between the two mentioned, but neither are significantly near a site where remains were recovered. So probably just another of those strange coincidences that history seems to be filled with (if you look hard enough).

Yes, I agree, Joshua, coincidence only. It's similar to the factory close to where the Rainham remains cropped up that had dealings with James Maybrick and his cotton .

[Joshua Rogan]

I didn't know about the mills at Horsleydown and near the Albert Bridge. Thanks for that.

I had a look for other flour mills in case it was significant. There are two others I found along the river between the two mentioned, but neither are significantly near a site where remains were recovered. So probably just another of those strange coincidences that history seems to be filled with (if you look hard enough).

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Errata, there's a lot of variables in there...

I believe the uterus itself was found intact, albeit with a six inch incision in the side and missing a foetus. Or two. Can't discount twins, although only one placenta was found;

"The parts found were: (1) two large flaps of skin, the uterus and placenta..."

"The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus; both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder. The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall. The organ was much dilated the vessels on the inner surface large and open and the mucus membrane swollen and softened. The uterus measured 10in. long by 7.5 in. wide. The circumference of the os externum was 4in…
....The cord measured 8in. and the distal ends showed a clean cut. The vessels contained fluid blood."

Although she may have been destitute, it seems Liz wasn't exactly stick-thin. Her mother described her as;

"about 5ft. 5in. in height, very well formed, stout and plump"

But then, she was pregnant, and I'm sure it's possible to be malnourished without being a skeleton.
Anyway, does that change the calculations at all?