Worth a look?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we have so many ‘suspects’ who were simply around at the time it doesn’t mean that we might not, at some point, have a huge piece of luck and look at one of these people and find something of interest.

For example, would we think someone worthy of further research who was…

A local man
Lived less than ½ mile from one of the murder site
37 at the time of the murders
Knew someone connected to one of the murders
Market Porter
Father a butcher
Died ‘insane’ in a workhouse in 1902

[John Wheat]

As we have so many ‘suspects’ who were simply around at the time it doesn’t mean that we might not, at some point, have a huge piece of luck and look at one of these people and find something of interest.

For example, would we think someone worthy of further research who was…

A local man
Lived less than ½ mile from one of the murder site
37 at the time of the murders
Knew someone connected to one of the murders
Market Porter
Father a butcher
Died ‘insane’ in a workhouse in 1902

Hi Herlock

I would say in terms of finding the Ripper this man would not be worth further research. Just because he lived less than half a mile from one of the murder site as so did many other people. Again a lot of other people would have known someone connected to the murders. Many people would have been Market Porters, many people would have had fathers who were butchers. Died 'insane' in a workhouse in 1902 is interesting but that's about it. 37 at the time of the murders actually to me sounds quite old. A doubt a serial killer would start at the age of 37. There would likely have been other murders before the Ripper murders for a suspect of 37. Overall I don't think there is anything remarkable about this man to suggest he could be the Ripper. I would suggest that generally people could be more discerning when looking at suspects.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I would say in terms of finding the Ripper this man would not be worth further research. Just because he lived less than half a mile from one of the murder site as so did many other people. Again a lot of other people would have known someone connected to the murders. Many people would have been Market Porters, many people would have had fathers who were butchers. Died 'insane' in a workhouse in 1902 is interesting but that's about it. 37 at the time of the murders actually to me sounds quite old. A doubt a serial killer would start at the age of 37. There would likely have been other murders before the Ripper murders for a suspect of 37. Overall I don't think there is anything remarkable about this man to suggest he could be the Ripper. I would suggest that generally people could be more discerning when looking at suspects.

Cheers John

Hello John,

I certainly don’t disagree with your assessment but the point that I was really trying to make was that we have so many ‘suspects’ that it’s not too difficult to find one if you look. Just to be clear by the way….this is an actual person and not a hypothetical one.

This guys route to work made him pass one of the murder scenes close to the time of a murder. He also certainly had a connection to the events immediately after one of the murders. Now….what if further research found that he’d once threatened a woman with a knife…or that his mother was a prostitute…or that he associated with prostitutes?

The question for me would be - is there anything else that can be discovered about him which might raise an eyebrow?

Probably not…but you never know.

[The Rookie Detective]

Duplicate post

[John Wheat]

Hello John,

I certainly don’t disagree with your assessment but the point that I was really trying to make was that we have so many ‘suspects’ that it’s not too difficult to find one if you look. Just to be clear by the way….this is an actual person and not a hypothetical one.

This guys route to work made him pass one of the murder scenes close to the time of a murder. He also certainly had a connection to the events immediately after one of the murders. Now….what if further research found that he’d once threatened a woman with a knife…or that his mother was a prostitute…or that he associated with prostitutes?

The question for me would be - is there anything else that can be discovered about him which might raise an eyebrow?

Probably not…but you never know.

Hi Herlock

Yes I got what you were attempting to do. I agree that there would have to be something else eg that he'd once threatened a woman with a knife or that he associated with prostitutes.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

As we have so many ‘suspects’ who were simply around at the time it doesn’t mean that we might not, at some point, have a huge piece of luck and look at one of these people and find something of interest.

For example, would we think someone worthy of further research who was…

A local man
Lived less than ½ mile from one of the murder site
37 at the time of the murders
Knew someone connected to one of the murders
Market Porter
Father a butcher
Died ‘insane’ in a workhouse in 1902

yes. of course. who is this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The man I was alluding to is Thomas Pearman.


John Richardson:

"I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. A man in the market told me of the murder and I went to the adjoining yard and saw it from there. The man's name is Thomas Pearman and he told me there had been a murder in Hanbury Street, but he did not say that it was at my house."


This short bio was posted by Walter Crow on JtRForums today:

“I believe this is Thomas Pearman (born c. 1851) a porter who lived at 30 Hare Street (now Cheshire Street), Bethnal Green. His 0.5 mile walk to the the market would've taken him directly past 29 Hanbury Street. His father was a butcher. In July 1902, he was moved from London Hospital to Stepney Workhouse with cause of admission listed as insane where he died two days later.”


The objection that stands out of course is that Pearman (if guilty) would hardly have told Richardson about the murder before the body had been discovered by Davis but it could be suggested that he might have heard someone else talking about the murder at Hanbury Street which would have given him a legitimate reason for telling a coworker whose mother lived in that street? Might Richardson even have mentioned that number 29 was sometimes where prostitutes took their clients?

[Lewis C]

I think he's worth considering. The Richardson connection doesn't mean much to me, but if he lived in the area, was the son of a butcher, and was committed for insanity, he's a better suspect than most. 37 is slightly older than what I'd guess the Ripper was, but not old enough to make me hesitate. Puckridge, Tumblety, Stephenson, and Mann were all a good deal older than that, though in their cases, their age does seem to me that it should be a consideration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think he's worth considering. The Richardson connection doesn't mean much to me, but if he lived in the area, was the son of a butcher, and was committed for insanity, he's a better suspect than most. 37 is slightly older than what I'd guess the Ripper was, but not old enough to make me hesitate. Puckridge, Tumblety, Stephenson, and Mann were all a good deal older than that, though in their cases, their age does seem to me that it should be a consideration.

The subject is full of suspects with nothing in their favour apart from the fact that they were around at the time Lewis. Then someone does a bit of research and finds that the ‘suspects’ mother had an affair or that he’d once threatened someone with a knife and ‘hey presto’ we have another suspect and another book. There’s nothing about Pearman that makes me in the least suspicious of him (just like Cross or Mann or Hardiman) but how much more would I need to know before I could knock up a book proposing him? I thought that it might be interesting to see if someone could discover anymore info on him to incorporate into a ‘theory’ just as an exercise to show how easy it is to come up with a new ‘suspect.’

We did something similar a whole about John Richardson. I don’t for a minute think that he was the ripper but he has more going for him than Cross (which isn’t saying much of course)

[Herlock Sholmes]

What probably happened - Pearman walked along Hanbury Street sometime close to 6.30 on his way to the market. He sees the gathered crowd and police presence and learns from locals that there has been a murder. He gets to the market and informs John Richardson who heads for Hanbury Street where he’s interviewed by Chandler at around 6.45.

Question - But why didn’t he know which house the murder had occurred in if he’d walked past the scene on his way to the market?

‘Create-a-suspect’ answer - He killed Annie went home to clean up then went to the market. Obviously he couldn’t have known when the body would be discovered so he couldn’t tell Richardson straight away. He’s only free to tell Richardson about the murder after he heard someone else mention it. Perhaps Pearman had the other man with him when he told Richardson and the other man had only heard of the murder ‘on the grapevine’ and didn’t know the address?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just noticed over on JtRForums in the London Hospital Records for 1888 (posted by Jose Oranto) in the December list is a Jane Pearman.

Was she related to Thomas? A girlfriend with an STD? A wife with a knife wound? A mother whose health had been slowly deteriorating?

Ok, probably none of the above….but what if?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A guilty man trying to deflect attention away from himself?


Liverpool Daily Post, 11th October 1888


“Up to eleven o'clock last night there had been no further arrests, and there is now no person in custody. The police do not appear to be any nearer the detection of the murderer.

Shortly before closing time yesterday morning three men in the Black Swan public house, Hanbury street, George Lucas, James Miller and Thos. Pearman, being struck by the demeanour of a stranger who was present, submitted him to interrogation, and finally to a search. The three men assert that they took from him a large clasp knife, and that with the assistance of a constable they conveyed him to Commercial street Police Station, where two more knives, four rings, some hair pins, and some money was found upon him. After inquiries had been made, however, the man was liberated.”

[mpriestnall]

Worth a look is worth a book is what I say!

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Richardson spoke to Chandler at 6.45 he must have arrived back in Hanbury Street just before that. Worrying that the woman who had been killed in Hanbury Street might have been his mother he’d have left the market straight away. So Pearlman would probably have told him just after 6.30 which meant him passing along number 29 at just before 6.30. Isn’t that a bit late for a market worker to being work?

[The Rookie Detective]

If Richardson spoke to Chandler at 6.45 he must have arrived back in Hanbury Street just before that. Worrying that the woman who had been killed in Hanbury Street might have been his mother he’d have left the market straight away. So Pearlman would probably have told him just after 6.30 which meant him passing along number 29 at just before 6.30. Isn’t that a bit late for a market worker to being work?

Pearman wasn't a market Porter, he was a "Fellowship Porter"

This is evidenced by the baptism record of one of his daughters Beatrice in May 1887, when the family were living at 1 White Street (now Vallance Road) that runs from the eastern of Hanbury Street, and then runs North to South up to the Bethnal Green Road/Whitechapel Road.

The family were at 30 Hare Street (now Cheshire st) in 1891, which is practically the same location and may be the same house, but enumerated differently in the census.

A Fellowship Porter worked at the Docks and was responsible for dealing in "measured" quantities of "dry' goods coming in and out of the docks, I.e salt, coal, corn etc...
They were recognizable by their distinctive "white coats" that they wore when moving "clean" or "dry" goods.

Fellowship Porters were different from other Dock porters in that they were allowed to operate within the City of London Square Mile, for which they had the monopoly on.

However, over time; and as the docks expanded and organised labour groups came into the fold, and coupled with corruption, the Fellowship found themselves on the brink of extinction.

They were officially abolished by the City of London Commission in 1894, and as a result many of their former members fell into destitution and poverty.

It was reported that a former Porter after having lost all his work from the Fellowship being abolished, and being giving a final payment as a form of severance pay, purchased alcohol and drank himself to death in the Holborn Infirmary toilets.

I would suggest that seeing as Thomas Pearman had a wife (Ann) and at least 3 children, coupled with having lost his work as a former Fellowship Porter, that this may have been the catalyst for the impact on both his mental and physical health from the abolishment of the Fellowship in 1894 to his eventual demise in the infirmary in 1902.

Thomas was born in Stourbridge, but is not to be confused with another man of the same name also born in Stourbridge who was born a few years later, and who can be found in Wandsworth prison in 1901. He is a red herring.

Ultimately Thomas died of Atrophy, which is specifically a physical deterioration of the body, and despite being labelled as insane, it was his poor physical health that killed him.

Fascinating character indeed.

But for me, not the Ripper.