Why did he take the trunk to Whitechapel?

[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.

[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.

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381289]

Hi Jerry,

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

Regards, Pierre

Yes, published after but happened in August.

...an account of a night he spent upon the scene of the Whitechapel murders, towards the end of August...

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;381288]Hi Jerry,

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

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381286]

Hi Jerry,

It is not three different people - it is three descriptions for one person.

It's actually three different people.

Could you please elaborate a bit on your opinion about finding himself "in hot water"?

Not at this time. Sorry, Pierre.


Do you happen to have a source for that prediction?

Yes, but it is a journalists report and may or may not be reliable.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/18891104.html

Kind regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

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.

I don,t know how to read the 2nd question. Is he asking about the ,body, or the ,there,?
Do you think the decomposition suggests that she was murdered & dismembered on the same day, or murdered one day/dismembered another day?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;381240]Th

e John Arnold story has many twists and turns. He does appear unreliable because he doesn't pinpoint the actual informant. Instead he states three different people informed him of the murder, as Elamarna pointed out.

Hi Jerry,

It is not three different people - it is three descriptions for one person.

Recent research I've done has shown that it is possible Arnold was informed by any one of the three. His news stand at the Charing Cross Post Office was close to Scotland Yard and also 'A' division's station. He was known to the police in the area. Also, directly across the street from his residence was the office of the Commissionaires. He would most likely have been familiar with their uniform. Why he changed his story about who informed him is another story. If it was a police inspector or ex- officer, he may have found himself in hot water.

Could you please elaborate a bit on your opinion about finding himself "in hot water"?

I've also thought that he may have overheard Inspector Henry Moore relating the story of his recent visit with R. Harding Davis. Strange that Inspector Moore also predicted a murder under those same arches.

Do you happen to have a source for that prediction?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381234]

Pierre you will love this, the first report said a police inspector he knew, he changed it to the above you quote, and later said it was a solder.

I know, Steve. It is no news to me. Donīt 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.

all in Evans and Skinner, the chapter on Pinchin street. my kindle version is numbered different to yours obviously, so little point in giving page refs sorry

I would suggest that makes his report somewhat unreliable?

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,..."

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?

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

Why didn't 'they' write "John Arnold is a fool." if that was his name?

Also, how does John Arnold know Dennis Lynch? If Dennis Lynch is the one living under all these aliases at these two addresses, who is he to John Arnold?

- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -
Does Blotchy Skin come to mind for anyone else when you read into the description of John Cleary?

Hi Robert,

Lynch entered the picture when Donald Swanson was trying to locate Arnold. The search, of course, took them first to the location John Arnold gave as his address, #21 Whitehorse Yard. The residents in Whitehorse Yard recalled a man named John Leary that was working for a green grocer in Newcastle Street [west end]. That man is Dennis Lynch using the alias of Leary. Lynch did odd jobs for Mr. Matley and drove a horse and cart delivering items for Matley.

In the 1881 census is a John Arnold with his wife and two young children living at #4 Whitehorse Yard. If this is THE John Arnold then it is possible he used the Whitehorse Yard address because he lived there at one time.

To give you an answer to your question about the chalked up writing. I don't know! We can only guess and mine would be that they knew Arnold by his alias of John Cleary. One news report states the writing was discovered on Tuesday but before any news of the "John Cleary" story broke.

[Robert St Devil]

If newspaper reports at the time are correct, somebody was not pleased with Arnold's mistake and chalked "John Cleary is a fool" on several nearby dead walls to the Pinchin Street arch. With John Arnold using the alias of "John Cleary" I feel that adds a little credibility to his story.

Why didn't 'they' write "John Arnold is a fool." if that was his name?

Also, how does John Arnold know Dennis Lynch? If Dennis Lynch is the one living under all these aliases at these two addresses, who is he to John Arnold?

- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -
Does Blotchy Skin come to mind for anyone else when you read into the description of John Cleary?

[jerryd]

The John Arnold story has many twists and turns. He does appear unreliable because he doesn't pinpoint the actual informant. Instead he states three different people informed him of the murder, as Elamarna pointed out. Recent research I've done has shown that it is possible Arnold was informed by any one of the three. His news stand at the Charing Cross Post Office was close to Scotland Yard and also 'A' division's station. He was known to the police in the area. Also, directly across the street from his residence was the office of the Commissionaires. He would most likely have been familiar with their uniform. Why he changed his story about who informed him is another story. If it was a police inspector or ex- officer, he may have found himself in hot water. I've also thought that he may have overheard Inspector Henry Moore relating the story of his recent visit with R. Harding Davis. Strange that Inspector Moore also predicted a murder under those same arches.

If newspaper reports at the time are correct, somebody was not pleased with Arnold's mistake and chalked "John Cleary is a fool" on several nearby dead walls to the Pinchin Street arch. With John Arnold using the alias of "John Cleary" I feel that adds a little credibility to his story.

[Elamarna]

According to the newspaper the witness had told them that the man in uniform he had met was an ex member of the Metropolitan Police.

Pierre you will love this, the first report said a police inspector he knew, he changed it to the above you quote, and later said it was a solder.

all in Evans and Skinner, the chapter on Pinchin street. my kindle version is numbered different to yours obviously, so little point in giving page refs sorry

I would suggest that makes his report somewhat unreliable?

Steve

[David Orsam]

No, that is no problem. Arnold met the man on Saturday and the murder could have been committed on the 8th. The man Arnold met just predicted the murder.

The prediction doesnīt have to be connected to the murder and the man did not have to be the killer. But he predicted it.

It wasn't a prediction though Pierre. The report in the New York Herald, based on what Arnold had told it at 1:05am on Sunday morning, was as follows:

"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 [on Saturday evening]".

So it wasn't a prediction of a murder to come. It was a statement that a murder had already taken place.

And Monro did not say that the victim was killed on the 8th. Based on the state of the body as on 10 September he thought it had taken place "36 hours or more previously" which, he said, enabled him to say that the woman was "probably" murdered on the Sunday night.

[Pierre]

There's a slight problem with timing here though Pierre.

John Arnold's statement says that he was told about a murder "On Saturday night". This was Saturday 7 September 1889. Which means that this murder could not have been committed on Sunday 8 September 1889, the anniversary of the Chapman murder.

No, that is no problem. Arnold met the man on Saturday and the murder could have been committed on the 8th. The man Arnold met just predicted the murder.

The prediction doesnīt have to be connected to the murder and the man did not have to be the killer. But he predicted it.

Arnold called at New York Herald Offices at Sunday 8th and told them he had met a man in uniform who said "Hurry up with your newspapers...Another horrible murder". Arnold asked "Where" and the man said "In Backchurch Lane".

According to the newspaper the witness had told them that the man in uniform he had met was an ex member of the Metropolitan Police.

The went and looked at the site on the 8th but found nothing. Two days later it was found and Monro said the victim was killed on the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

[RockySullivan]

It's theorized that the torso was kept close to the dump site, so he might not have taken the trunk to whitechapel at all, it may have already been there