|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3064
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | 
|
Continuing to expand the witness section, I've recently spent some quality time with John Arnold (a.k.a. John Cleary) - a particularly enigmatic figure in the Pinchin Street torso investigation. He more or less "predicted" the discovery of the torso 2 days before it was found. Arnold claimed that his information was second-hand from a soldier he had met in Fleet street, but in my opinion there's a lot to be suspicious about when it comes to ol' John Arnold. The witness overview on Arnold, which I'm about to post to the main site, will be posted below in just a sec... would love to hear other people's comments on Arnold and his tangled web of lies. (Also notes on corrections and omissions would be appreciated... In particular I'd love to know the original, 1888 source for the information that chalked messages referring to Cleary were found in or around Pinchin Street [my source for that is Gordon, who doesn't mention the originating source...])
Thanks!
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3065
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 1:54 pm: |
|
John Arnold
a.k.a. John Cleary, John Leary, John Kemp, Denis Lynch
John Arnold was an enigmatic character involved in the investigation of the Pinchin Street torso murder of 10 September 1889 - indeed for a time he was a top suspect in the case.
Arnold's story begins two days before the discovery of the Pinchin Street torso, in the early morning hours of Sunday, 8 September 1889. At approximately 1.05am, a man named John Cleary, giving his address as 21 Whitehorse Yard, Drury Lane, arrived at the London offices 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 Cleary, the mutilated body had been discovered by a constable nearly two hours earlier at around 11.20pm. He himself had heard of the discovery via a Police Inspector, whom he had bumped into on Whitechapel High Street. Cleary then asked if he would receive a monetary reward for his information.
Two reporters took down his story and hurried down to the street with Cleary to call a hansom cab. At this point, Cleary slightly modified his story, saying his informant was not a police inspector, but "an ex-member of the police force." He then drew even more suspicion from the reporters as he refused to follow them to the site of the alleged murder. At this point Cleary left the scene and the reporters hurried toward Backchurch lane.
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 one last fruitless search of the area, but nothing was to be found. They returned to their offices and filed a report, after which the incident was quickly forgotten.
But when news of the Pinchin Street torso broke two days later, the Cleary debacle suddenly became of utmost importance. 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. John Cleary was no longer a crank. He was now a prime suspect.
A search was immediately begun at 21 Whitehorse yard, but no one at that residence had ever heard of a John Cleary. On Wednesday, 11 September the New York Herald published a description of the man who had come to their offices on Sudnay morning:
He was a young man, apparently between twenty-five and twenty-eight years of age. He was short, his height being about 5 ft. 4in. He was of medium build, and weighed about 140 lb. He was light-complexioned, had a small fair moustache and blue eyes. On his left cheek was an inflamed spot, which looked as if a boil had lately been there and was healing. He wore a dark coat and waistcoat. His shirt was not seen, the space at the throat being covered by a dirty white handkerchief tied about his neck. His trousers were dark velveteen, so soiled at the knees as to indicate that he blacked shoes. His hat was a round, black, stiff felt. He walked with a shuffle and spoke in the usual fashion of the developing citizens of Whitechapel, whom, in all respects, he resembled.
A report by Chief Inspector Swanson (MEPO 3/140, ff. 153-157) states that further investigation at 21 Whitehorse yard revealed that the agent who rented apartments there, a Mr. Yates, said he knew a young man named 'Leary' who had lived there until three weeks earlier, when he had been evicted for not paying his rent. Yates said that Leary was now living in Strand Buildings and that he worked for a greengrocer in Newcastle Street named Mapley. Upon investigation, the grocer Mapley said he had never known a man named Leary, but that they did have a man who once lived in Whitehorse yard and was now living at Strand Buildings. Mapley gave this man's name as Denis Lynch.
Lynch was found at No. 5, Strand Buildings, living with another man's wife. He apparently admitted to using the alias 'Leary', but asserted that he had never called at the New York Herald. Lynch was brought before Mr. Fletcher, one of the Herald reporters who had originally spoken with John Cleary, but Fletcher positively stated that Lynch was not the same man.
Swanson completed his report by stating that a woman was found "insensible" in High Street at 12 midnight on the night of 7 September, and that this occurrence may have given rise to the false report of another Jack the Ripper murder. He further noted that High Street was sometimes known as "Church lane." Nevertheless he urged that the search continue for the mysterious John Cleary.
Swanson later added a post-script to his report of 12 September, mentioning that there were reports of "some writing on a wall abt. Cleary". According to R. Michael Gordon, chalked messages were found near the crime scene which read: "John Cleary is a fool."
On the 12th September at around 1pm, a Mr. Miller from the Star newspaper arrived at Leman Street Station, asking questions about the Cleary statement. Miller said that he believed this man to have been an ex-compositor, "formerly attached to The Globe office; age 35, ht. 6ft., comp. fresh, hair and heavy moustache dark, bald, medium build, speaks peculiar, as though he has no roof to his mouth; who about 4 months ago was residing at 2 Savoy Buildings, Strand." Inspector Henry Moore noted that this was the same Mr. Miller who had found "the thigh of Annie Jackson which was thrown into garden on Thames Embankment." This presumably refers to the victim more commonly known as Elizabeth Jackson. Parts of her body had washed up in the Thames between May and June 1889.
Finally, it seemed, the mystery was solved. On 13 September, a newsvendor named John Arnold gave himself up to police at Whitehall place, after having read about the Cleary incident in the New York Herald (the paper he sold for a living). Arnold was a resident of No. 2 Harveys Buildings, Strand. 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.
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.
Arnold described the soldier he 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 ressembled that of a "Commissionaire".
Apparently, John Arnold had been known to the police in the district, as he had a reputation for drinking and gambling. He had also deserted his wife and received 21 days imprisonment as a result. Still, Swanson remarked, "I have never heard of him being dishonest. That he could be in any way connected with others or by himself in a murder is to me improbable." He also thought it might be useful to set up an trial with the Commissionaires, to see if Arnold could confirm that this was indeed the type of uniform his "soldier" had been wearing. No reports follow to indicate whether or not this trial did indeed take place.
Apparently, that is where the story of John Arnold comes to an end. He was not called to the inquest, which concluded on 24 September.
The question remains, however - was it mere coincidence that Arnold described a mutilation murder two days before the Pinchin Street torso was found, and in the very same location? It is certainly possible. Did he really get his information from a "soldier" he met in Fleet street? And if so, why did he lie in his original statement, when he said he was told about the murder by a police inspector in Whitechapel High street? There are many questions surrounding John Arnold which unfortunately must remain unanswered.
Official Sources
MEPO 3/140, ff. 134-135
MEPO 3/140, ff. 153-164
Contemporary Sources
New York Herald - 11 September 1889
Times (London) - 13 September 1889
Eastern Post - 14 September 1889
Secondary Sources
The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook (Evans and Skinner)
The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London (Gordon)
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen
Strange that the murder site was predicted twice -once in the story above, and once, reportedly, by Inspector Moore to the journalist R. Harding Davis.
Both stories involved an Inspector, and both involved the American Press. I can't help feeling there's a connection, but I've no idea what it is.
Robert |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3066
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Hi Robert -
Definitely interesting that Moore, at least according to Davis, also predicted the Pinchin Street murder. His comments can be found in the last paragraph of the following Pall Mall Gazette article, for anyone interested:
http://casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/pmg891104.html
Of course there's no way to verify Moore's 'predictive' powers, since this story surfaced nearly two months after the Pinchin Street murder. We also know that numerous points made in that article by Davis were exaggerations, or just outright falsehoods. His description of the Mary Kelly murder scene is one example.
It should also be noted that Richard Harding Davis was a notorious yellow journalist, and was implicated in William Randolph Hearst's plot to ignite the Spanish-American war, simply to increase the circulation of his newspapers. So, I would take anything he wrote with a fist-sized grain of salt. ;-)
Nevertheless, Moore repeated the story of his Pinchin Street prediction upon his retirement in 1899:
Why, once I had occasion to stand near the arch of Pinchin street Whitechapel, and I remarked to another officer, 'This is just the place for Jack the Ripper,' and sure enough, some few months later a 'Ripper' body was found there in a sack.
[ http://casebook.org/press_reports/bangor_daily_whig_and_courier/991130.html ]
Note how in Davis's story, the murder was discovered the very next week, while Moore's direct quote to the press in 1899 stated that the body was found 'some months later'. I'm sure there's a grain of truth somewhere in the story, but it seems to me as if the truth is wrapped in many, many layers of journalistic exaggeration.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Hi
I wonder if this is your John Arnold, listed in the 1881 Census.
John Arnold 20 Holborn, Middlesex, Hawker
Amelie Arnold 20 St Clement Danes, Charewoman
John Arnold 3 St Clement Danes
Mary Ann 2 mths St Clement Danes
4 Whitehorse Yard
London,Middlesex,England
Interestingly enough, there are three Wilsons,four McCartys and two Burns also listed at the same address.
The McCarty name raised my eyebrows!
He's a Dennis aged 26 born Ireland, bricklayer.
Coincidences you've just got to love them!
Anyway, hope this helps with Mr Arnold.
Regards Di |
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi
Apologies,in my last post, regarding a possible John Arnott in the 1881 census,I inadvertently missed Hopkins(7),Crips(1)and Prunker?(4)also living at 4 Whitehorse Yard with the Arnolds.
Could you please explain what a "Commissionaire " might be?
Is it a person on the door of an Hotel?
Kind of like a glorified "bouncer"?
I am interested because of the uniform.
I've often wondered whether a soldier's uniform could be mistaken for another kind of uniform.
If a commissionaire is a kind of soldier I guess I'm back at square one.
Thanks and Regards
Di |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 419
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Ditto,
The Corps of Commissionaires was a uniformed messenger service. Captain Sir Edward Walter founded the Corps in 1859 as a way to provide work for pensioned servicemen. The 1881 Guide to London said "for a consideration [commissionaires] will run a message, chaperone a young lady, attend an old one, fetch or carry a love letter, tend the baby, and do a variety of things handily and surely at a rate of sixpence an hour."
Their uniforms were said to be "as gorgeous as a major general's."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Hi Don
Thank you for the information on Commissioniares.
Very interesting.
So perhaps a man in a Commissionaire's uniform might indeed be mistaken for a soldier.
Definitely food for thought.
Regards Di |
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Hi
If Arnold was trying to make money by giving false information to newspapers he wasn't the first to do so.(I realise his information actually proved to be correct ,if a little premature)
In the Daily News, May 28, 1886 a Robert Thomas Jones, advertisement canvasser,was acquitted on the charge of fraudulently obtaining money for a false story.
Basically he had collected the fee for a story,which had been proved to be fictitious, under the name of "Lynch".
The jury, "after a brief deliberation,found that the report was a fictitious one,that it had not been written by the prisoner,and that he had no guilty knowledge of its concoction."
It is very interesting to note that Mr Harry Coran, sub editor of "The People" seemed very sure that the handwriting of "Lynch" matched that of a Hill, Oldham, Darryl and Loader all names which had been attached to other manuscripts which he had retained.
I guess the relevancy to this thread is that the name "Lynch" was used.
I suppose that there might be a hint of a possibility that these are all one and the same man, although the respective ages may preclude this.
Perhaps then, this is the man that Mr Miller from The Star" Newspaper gave the description of at the Leman Street Station.
Maybe he too had had dealings with him before.
The article can be found online at The British Library Online Newspaper Archive.
Isn't it comforting to know, that some journalists were still concerned with the truth!
So, make of it what you will.
As usual I am open to any thoughts ,opinions etc.
Regards Di |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
