8 September 1889

[Pierre]

Dear Pierre,

This appears to be a summary of the link you gave.
No Question are asked , nor comments made.
I am therefore a little bemused as to the reasoning behind the thread.
May one ask what is your aim with this particular thread?

Respectfully

Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, it is a shorter summary. And I can understand your bemusement.

But I honestly didnīt come to think of any questions to pose about it. I just found it interesting, and perhaps mostly since it seems to have happened a year after the murder of Annie Chapman.

So here is a question: Could it have anything to do with the murder of Chapman?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre,

This appears to be a summary of the link you gave.
No Question are asked , nor comments made.
I am therefore a little bemused as to the reasoning behind the thread.
May one ask what is your aim with this particular thread?

Respectfully

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi,

Two days before the discovery of the Pinchin Street torso on Sunday 8 September 1889 a witness, John Arnold, arrived at the London office of the New York Herald.

He said he had information on a new Jack the Ripper murder which had just been discovered in Backchurch lane.

According to Arnold, a mutilated body had been discovered by a constable at around 11.20 pm.

Arnold said he had heard of the discovery via a Police Inspector, whom he had bumped into on Whitechapel High Street.

Two reporters took down his story and hurried down to the street with Arnold to call a hansom cab.

At this point, Arnold slightly modified his story, saying his informant was not a police inspector, but "an ex-member of the police force."

When the Herald men arrived at the scene they found no trace of murder.

They questioned two police officers who were patrolling the area, but neither had heard of any disturbances. The reporters made a search of the area, but nothing was to be found.

But when news of the Pinchin Street torso broke two days later, the statements of Arnold were remembered.

Pinchin street is an extension of Backchurch lane, and in fact the mutilated torso was discovered very near to where the two 'intersect'. The fact that this man 'predicted' a mutilation-murder in that location just two days earlier seemed like more than mere coincidence.

They searched for Arnold, who had given a false name (Cleary) and found him. He admitted that on Saturday, the evening of 7 September, he had been drinking at the King Lud public house. Soon after he left the pub he was approached near Fleet Street by a man dressed as a soldier. This man told him,

"Hurry up with your papers, another horrible murder ... in Backchurch Lane."

Arnold said he immediately ran up to the offices of the New York Herald to report the information, but that he did not wish to follow the reporters to the scene of the crime because it was past 1am and his lodgings would soon close for the night.

Arnold described the man he had met:

... 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.

Swanson remarked that this description most closely resembled that of a "Commissionaire".

Source: http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/john-arnold.html
Regards, Pierre