Why did he take the trunk to Whitechapel?

[Robert St Devil]

I saw your answer for ,,john cleary is a fool.,, jerryd. Either there was an actual john cleary, or john arnold had been passing himself as john cleary for some time.

,,another horrible murder,, would make me expect to find a c5 murder, not a torso killing.

[David Orsam]

Thanks. OK, this is no prediction since the article is published later.

Arnold's story wasn't a prediction either. It was a statement that a murder had already occurred.

[jerryd]

I saw your answer for ,,john cleary is a fool.,, jerryd. Either there was an actual john cleary, or john arnold had been passing himself as john cleary for some time.

,,another horrible murder,, would make me expect to find a c5 murder, not a torso killing.

John Cleary was three-fold. It was the name John Arnold signed in his statement to the New York Herald and the name of the man that Claude Mellor knew as an ex-compositor that worked for the Globe. Claude Mellor was a journalist that happened to find the thigh of Elizabeth Jackson in the garden of the Shelley estate. Mellor became alerted when he heard the name "John Cleary" involved with Back Church Lane. And finally, John Leary (no C) was the alias of Dennis Lynch.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;381287]

Hello Pierre.

Are you reading the first question from the pov that Munro knows who Jack the Ripper is? I would think that was his primary concern, if another autumn of terror was going to begin.

Hi Robert,

No, he didn´t think it was the work of Jack the Ripper. So, if Munro knew who he was, he probably did not know that it was the same man who performed the Torso killings, if it was.

I don,t know how to read the 2nd question. Is he asking about the ,body, or the ,there,?

He is asking what it means that the body part if found in a place near Berner Street and in Whitechapel. What does it mean that we find a torso in the area where Jack the Ripper killed his victims?

And I am asking the same question. And I have more questions.

1. What does it mean that Arnold says a policeman/an ex policeman / a soldier told him about a horrible murder in Backchurch Lane?

2. What does it mean that this victim is found near Berner Street in Whitechapel?

3. What does it mean that the trunk is found a year after the murder of Annie Chapman?

4. What does it mean that this victim is not murdered on the street but somewhere else and, if we believe Munro, brought to Whitechapel?

5. What does it mean that he did not prefer to do a murder in the streets Whitechapel, but to perform it somewhere else, if he was the Whitechapel murderer?

6. Or did he do it in a house somewhere in Whitechapel?

7. Munro does not seem to think so: "Why did he take the trunk to Whitechapel?" he asks. Did he know anything about the killer, since he assumes the victim was not killed in Whitechapel?

8. Or did he think that the witness statement of Arnold was correct and therefore the victim was not murdered in Whitechapel?

9. Did he actually think that the person that Arnold met was the killer?

10. And if Munro thought so and knew the killer, did Arnold´s the description of the man match the appearance of the killer that he knew?

11. If it did, why did he say that he did not think it was the work of Jack the Ripper?

Do you think the decomposition suggests that she was murdered & dismembered on the same day, or murdered one day/dismembered another day?

I haven´t got the faintest idea, Robert.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

John Cleary was three-fold. It was the name John Arnold signed in his statement to the New York Herald and the name of the man that Claude Mellor knew as an ex-compositor that worked for the Globe. Claude Mellor was a journalist that happened to find the thigh of Elizabeth Jackson in the garden of the Shelley estate. Mellor became alerted when he heard the name "John Cleary" involved with Back Church Lane. And finally, John Leary (no C) was the alias of Dennis Lynch.

Just the right thing for a new theory by Fisherman.

Regard, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Did he know anything about the killer, since he assumes the victim was not killed in Whitechapel?

No of course Monro didn't know anything about the killer; isn't that obvious from his memorandum?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381285]

I know, Steve. It is no news to me. Don´t say "you will love this" because it is not a matter of how I "feel". It is a matter of how the sources are passed on to us.

My Dear Pierre, it seems that either you did not appreciate the irony or failed to understand it with regards to you quoting a witness who's statements must be view with a heavy degree of scepticism over the reliability of both the man has a witness and the statements themselves.

it would seem that this gentleman, for whatever reasons used several different names: John Cleary, John Leary, John Kemp, Denis Lynch.

In addition he gave more than one version of his story, that in itself must cause us to look at those versions and consider which if any may be accurate.

At first he claimed he was approached by a police inspector, who gave him the information, he soon changed this to an ex police officer and finally to a solder.

Using what you have shown us is the correct way to work, there appears to be a tendency in his statements, that being to hide the identity of the man he claims approached him.

why would this be?

We can postulate that this was either to protect the person whom informed him, or that no such person existed and so a change of statement from a police officer was required to hide this.

I would say there is a small range of interpretations for how the man looked. The exact description is to be found in the same book. John Arnold made this statement to the police:

"...a man dressed as a soldier, in black uniform, black cord shoulder trap lightish buttons cheese cutter cap, brass (?) ornament in front of cap like a horn,..."

The first comment I would make is that this is not the exact statement, it is the one he gave to the police, having given significantly different ones before hand to the press.

The original statement was a police inspector, a police inspector would in all likelihood not be dressed as a solder.
He later changed this twice, the description of the uniform he finally gave the police, closely matches that of the Commissionaires whose office was close by his place of work.
He would have seen men in that uniform most days and it would be easy for him to use it.

Therefore it is not THE EXACT Description, it is ONE he gave to the police.

What leads you, from a scientific point of view to conclude that the final report to the police is any more reliable than his initial report?



The second issue is related, he gave 3 versions of what happened, we are Total dependent on his reporting of this story are we not for any details?

Is there any independent source which backs his story that he was:

1. Approached by a person at all
2. That this approach gave him the information he claimed.

The next issue revolves around the actually description he gave the police, I note that you did not give it all:

" a man dressed as a soldier, in black uniform, black cord shoulder strap, lightish buttons, cheese cutter cap, brass ornament in front of cap like a horn. Cannot say whether there was a band round or not, age about 35 to 36. Height 5ft. 6 or 7. compl. fair. Fair moustache, good looking, carrying a brown paper parcel about 6 or 8 inches long... I cannot say if he belonged to the regulars or volunteers... If I talked to the soldier for ten minutes or so, I might recognise his voice, but I am not certain that I could identify him from a number of persons. "


Pierre I have underlined the part I find interesting.

This matches fairly closely the combined descriptions of PC Smith and Lawende; indeed the only point where there is a difference is the age estimation, around 5 years older, which may not be significant in a man.

However the estimation of 35-36 seems very precise and could, and I only say could imply the description is fabricated, drawing on those earlier published descriptions.

Another point I find interesting.

On another thread you dismissed the 3 earlier descriptions of PC Smith, Lawende and Schawrtz as being insignificant, you explained this more fully:

B) And obviously they are not reliable, since they differ.

C) And so they are not significant, i.e. the substantial significance is very low. Not just "for me" but for anyone.

There you dismissed the statements from 3 individuals, because they were different from each other. You did not consider even one was worth looking at.
In this case we have 3 different descriptions from one individual of the same incident.

That must make them at the very least questionable!

[B]Now, the question is how the man could know, if he did, that a victim would soon be found in Backchurch Lane/Pinchin Street. What do you think about that, Steve?

Pierre the question should be did the man exist?
Until that can be established there is no other question to answer

I will however provide an answer to the question, so it cannot be said I am avoiding giving an answer.

Pure coincidence- they do happen.

Recent example one person matches 90% of the clues you have provided- coincidence



Regards,

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381306][QUOTE=Pierre;381285]

My Dear Pierre, it seems that either you did not appreciate the irony or failed to understand it with regards to you quoting a witness who's statements must be view with a heavy degree of scepticism over the reliability of both the man has a witness and the statements themselves.

I see the words "irony", "failed", and "scepticism". These words give a certain bias to the text above.

it would seem that this gentleman, for whatever reasons used several different names: John Cleary, John Leary, John Kemp, Denis Lynch.

Just as Lechmere and others. Yes, indeed. Those were the days.

In addition he gave more than one version of his story, that in itself must cause us to look at those versions and consider which if any may be accurate.

Not more than one version of his "story", no. A story is a narrative built up from many statements and phrases and very often a chronology. He only varied in the description of one single man. Stick with the sources, Steve.

At first he claimed he was approached by a police inspector, who gave him the information, he soon changed this to an ex police officer and finally to a solder.

Here the bias is to try and fill the text with many words to make it look like a story about a "story". But it is only a story about describing two professions here.

Using what you have shown us is the correct way to work, there appears to be a tendency in his statements, that being to hide the identity of the man he claims approached him.

why would this be?

He is scared? Worried? Nervous?

We can postulate that this was either to protect the person whom informed him, or that no such person existed and so a change of statement from a police officer was required to hide this.

Here the word used by you is "either". This word gives exclusively two options, as if there were no other possible options. This is naturally wrong. There are many options. But since the bias in your answer is to contradict Pierre, whatever Pierre says, this silly little "either" is used by you.

The first comment I would make is that this is not the exact statement, it is the one he gave to the police, having given significantly different ones before hand to the press.

It is not "significantly different", since every description is a description of a man in uniform. So the validity for the type of appearance of the man is high. This, however, does not mean that Arnold saw a killer!

The original statement was a police inspector, a police inspector would in all likelihood not be dressed as a solder.He later changed this twice, the description of the uniform he finally gave the police, closely matches that of the Commissionaires whose office was close by his place of work.
He would have seen men in that uniform most days and it would be easy for him to use it. Therefore it is not THE EXACT Description, it is ONE he gave to the police.

And Arnold was not sure - or the newspapers gave the wrong statements. And now you also add the commissionaire. You want to increase the variation so you can contradict what I say. That is your bias.

What leads you, from a scientific point of view to conclude that the final report to the police is any more reliable than his initial report?

Police reports are higher in the source hierarchy than newspaper articles. But the problem of the variation is another thing. We can not know if it is a real variation or variation created by journalists. If it is the variation of Arnold, he used more than one description for the man. But we can not know if it is a real variation.

And we do not know if Arnold was prepared to witness about a policeman when sitting among policemen writing his statement.

The second issue is related, he gave 3 versions of what happened, we are Total dependent on his reporting of this story are we not for any details?

Is there any independent source which backs his story that he was:

1. Approached by a person at all
2. That this approach gave him the information he claimed.

Yes, the police source. It is not dependent on newspaper articles. Newspaper articles are not independent. They use syndicated material and copy each other. But the police source can still have a tendency: not wanting to say he saw a policeman when among policemen. Remember Crossmere? Well, there you see the problems of these types of sources.

The next issue revolves around the actually description he gave the police, I note that you did not give it all:

" a man dressed as a soldier, in black uniform, black cord shoulder strap, lightish buttons, cheese cutter cap, brass ornament in front of cap like a horn. Cannot say whether there was a band round or not, age about 35 to 36. Height 5ft. 6 or 7. compl. fair. Fair moustache, good looking, carrying a brown paper parcel about 6 or 8 inches long... I cannot say if he belonged to the regulars or volunteers... If I talked to the soldier for ten minutes or so, I might recognise his voice, but I am not certain that I could identify him from a number of persons. "


Pierre I have underlined the part I find interesting.

This matches fairly closely the combined descriptions of PC Smith and Lawende; indeed the only point where there is a difference is the age estimation, around 5 years older, which may not be significant in a man.

However the estimation of 35-36 seems very precise

So NOW Arnold seem very "precise"! Just because it fits your own opinions!

And this is not a thread about Smith, Lawende and Schwartz.

Pierre the question should be did the man exist?
Until that can be established there is no other question to answer

Bias again: Steve is trying to deny the existence both of a man in the past and of my questions.

I will however provide an answer to the question, so it cannot be said I am avoiding giving an answer.

Pure coincidence- they do happen.

What do you know about this? Suddenly, what you just denied existed does exist. A question to be "answered"! Do you have sources for your statement about "pure coincidence"?

Recent example one person matches 90% of the clues you have provided- coincidence

I did not "provide clues". You constructed them.

How many proselytes do you think you have managed to save this time?

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381306]

it would seem that this gentleman, for whatever reasons used several different names: John Cleary, John Leary, John Kemp, Denis Lynch.

Hi Steve,

Just to be clear, John Arnold used the name of John Cleary in a statement to the New York Herald. He afterwards claimed he used the name John Kemp but we know that not to be true as he signed the statement with the name of John Cleary. There is also a John Cleary, totally different person, that was mentioned by Mr. Mellor. Dennis Lynch is a completely separate individual that was questioned by Donald Swanson in the search for John Arnold. He was a hired hand of Mr. Matley that was a green grocer in Newcastle Street. Lynch did odd jobs for Matley with a horse and cart. Arnold was a news vendor his entire life.

[Elamarna]

Pierre.


I have stuck with the sources, they give very different accounts of what Arnold claimed happened.
If it is impossible to see that, there is little I can do to shake a rigidly set view point.

to claim:

"But it is only a story about describing two professions here."


Is missing the issue that the statements differ from each other markedly. You may as well say there is no difference between the ambulance service in uk, in other parts of the world paramedics, and fire fighters because they both wear uniforms,they are however distinctly different professions, who dressed differently.



It is claimed I am being bias by offering only two options, and while there may indeed be others, posts should not go on forever.

However please suggest some others for us to consider.


"It is not "significantly different", since every description is a description of a man in uniform. So the validity for the type of appearance of the man is high."

That is an opinion, only one. others will and do disagree. in addition see above.


"This, however, does not mean that Arnold saw a killer!"


Agree on that.



"And now you also add the commissionaire"


Actually Swanson did, not me.


"Yes, the police source. It is not dependent on newspaper articles. Newspaper articles are not independent. They use syndicated material and copy each other."


Sorry that cannot be not correct, it is a report of Arnolds statement, it uses the same source, that being Arnold himself.

Therefore the ONLY source that this happened is Arnold himself!

For the post to suggest that is an independent source from Arnold, which is the question which was asked, is quite frankly utterly ridiculous.



"So NOW Arnold seem very "precise"! Just because it fits your own opinions!"



I have made a suggestion no more, not because it fitted any opinion I had, but because giving an age of 35-36 seems precise to me.



To ask if the man exists is not bias.
If he does, we can attempt to find an answer to the question proposed; if he does not there can be NO answer, there being no question.

Coincidence, no sources it is an opinion, like most of what is posted in the thread I am replying to.


"I did not "provide clues". You constructed them."



My dear Pierre, you indeed did provide clues, if you like I will provide a list of the post which included them.
Such would be a pointless exercise, given you know you gave them, and would certainly bore everyone.

Given you have made it clear that Craig's thread is wrong in its conclusion; why are you so upset?

"How many proselytes do you think you have managed to save this time?"


What a truly strange thing to say?

Why the you use language which, some people may not understand?
The obvious love for terms from ancient Greece and and biblical terms is very illuminating, personally I find it endearing.

Assume you use this in the sense of newcomers to the site, if that is the case, I do not think I have saved anyone.

Any newcomers will read all the arguments given and decide for themselves which they think are the most reasonable/plausible theories.

regards

steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=jerryd;381315]

Hi Steve,

Just to be clear, John Arnold used the name of John Cleary in a statement to the New York Herald. He afterwards claimed he used the name John Kemp but we know that not to be true as he signed the statement with the name of John Cleary. There is also a John Cleary, totally different person, that was mentioned by Mr. Mellor. Dennis Lynch is a completely separate individual that was questioned by Donald Swanson in the search for John Arnold. He was a hired hand of Mr. Matley that was a green grocer in Newcastle Street. Lynch did odd jobs for Matley with a horse and cart. Arnold was a news vendor his entire life.

jerry

thank you very much for the correction, so he used two names and claimed to use a third.

steve

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381320]

jerry

thank you very much for the correction, so he used two names and claimed to use a third.

steve

Hi Steve,

Which third name did he claim to use?

[Elamarna]

Sorry Jerry,

I may have misunderstood your post, or you mine, probably me.
You said Arnold use that name and , Cleary.

you then posted:

"He afterwards claimed he used the name John Kemp but we know that not to be true as he signed the statement with the name of John Cleary."

That was what I meant by saying he claimed to use another name.



steve

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps he didn't realise that Pinchin Street wasn't in Whitechapel.

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps he didn't realise that Pinchin Street wasn't in Whitechapel.

Perhaps he was unaware that Charles Lechmere had lived in his stepfather's home a few yards away.

Perhaps he had a thing about paint.