Worth a look?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Thanks Chris.

Born in the same town as Bury.

[Lewis C]

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, there's a little more to this than just that he was there. He also had a father who was a butcher, was insane, and was close enough to the right age. It could be that if he's looked into further, it is found that he had no problem with sanity until after the murders, or that there's no indication that his insanity led to violence. Or something else might be found to tell us he's not worth looking into further. For now, I'm not ready to reject him out of hand.

My problem with Richardson is that I think that the case against him pretty much depends on an earlier TOD for Chapman, which I think is unlikely. If it could be proven that Chapman was already dead when John sat on the porch to fix his boot, I would consider him a viable suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, there's a little more to this than just that he was there. He also had a father who was a butcher, was insane, and was close enough to the right age. It could be that if he's looked into further, it is found that he had no problem with sanity until after the murders, or that there's no indication that his insanity led to violence. Or something else might be found to tell us he's not worth looking into further. For now, I'm not ready to reject him out of hand.

My problem with Richardson is that I think that the case against him pretty much depends on an earlier TOD for Chapman, which I think is unlikely. If it could be proven that Chapman was already dead when John sat on the porch to fix his boot, I would consider him a viable suspect.

There’s no reason for suspecting Richardson but he’s got more going for him as a suspect than Cross. Then again, Mrs Fiddymont is a better suspect than Cross.

Hi Lewis,

I wouldn’t disagree. My initial reason for mentioning this was to show how easy it is to come up with a ‘suspect’ but it’s perfectly true to say that any ‘he was around at the time’ type suspect might be just one piece of information away from beginning to raise eyebrows. That said of course, any suspect might be raised in people’s estimation with another piece of information. Imagine if we discovered that Druitt had been sacked from the school because he’d been discovered to have been consorting with prostitutes? So yes, it would be worthwhile finding out more if only to file him away in the ‘no reason to suspect’ file.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

I wouldn’t disagree. My initial reason for mentioning this was to show how easy it is to come up with a ‘suspect’ but it’s perfectly true to say that any ‘he was around at the time’ type suspect might be just one piece of information away from beginning to raise eyebrows. That said of course, any suspect might be raised in people’s estimation with another piece of information. Imagine if we discovered that Druitt had been sacked from the school because he’d been discovered to have been consorting with prostitutes? So yes, it would be worthwhile finding out more if only to file him away in the ‘no reason to suspect’ file.

Hi Herlock,

I realized a few hours after my last post in this thread that I partly missed the point you were getting that. That you weren't so much talking about Pearman per se as using him as an example to show how one can easily put anew suspect forward. It would be fine if people were just digging, because it may well be the Ripper isn't anyone we've identified yet. So I like hearing about these new possibilities. The problem arises when the choice of suspect affects how one views the evidence rather than vice versa.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thomas Pearman was born in 1850 in Stourbridge.

His father (also named Thomas) was a butcher who ran a shop on the High Street. (1851 Census)

At some point in the 1870's Thomas relocates to Bethnal Green in London, possibly after his father's death in 1871.


By 1876 Thomas is in London and marries Ann Harriet Howes in Poplar on 08/08/1876.

The couple stay together for 26 years until Thomas's death in 1902. They have 7 (confirmed) children between 1878-1897.

Here is the list...


Thomas Samuel Pearman
Born 17/05/78
Bap 09/06/78 at Christ Church, Watney St
Father - Thomas
Mother - Ann Harriet
Address - 132 Roman Road
Father's Occupation - Fellowship Porter


Sarah Caroline Pearman (deceased in 1884 aged 4)
Born 16/01/80
Bap 15/02/80 at Christ Church, Watney St
Father -Thomas
Mother - Ann
Address - 29 Old Bethnal Green Road
Father's Occupation - Fellowship Porter


Madeline Pearman (deceased later the same year age 0)
Born -?
Bap 19/02/82 at Christ Church Watney St
Father - Thomas
Mother - Ann
Address - 16 Toy's Buildings, Mansford St, Bethnal Green
Father's Occupation- Fellowship Porter


5 year gap between next child; which is understandable considering the loss of both Madeline in 1882 aged 0, followed by losing Sarah aged 4 in 1884 (Whitechapel)


Beatrice Ann Pearman
Born - 14/04/87
Bap- 01/05/87 at St James the Great, Bethnal Green Rd
Father - Thomas
Mother- Ann
Address - 1 White Street, Bethnal Green
Father's Occupation - Fellowship Porter


Bertie Pearman
Born - 15/02/90
Bap - 04/01/91 at St James the Great, Bethnal Green Rd
Father - Thomas
Mother - Ann Harriet
Address - 32 Hare Street, Bethnal Green
Father's Occupation- Fellowship Porter


Henry George Pearman
Born-?
Bap - 30/11/94 at St Mary, Whitechapel High Street
Father - Thomas
Mother - Ann Harriet
Address - 141 Black****??? Buildings
Father's Occupation- Fellowship Porter


May Victoria Rose Pearman
Born-?
Bap - 21/11/97 at St Mary, Whitechapel High Street
Father - Thomas
Mother - Ann
Address- 35 Eastman Street.
Father's Occupation- Porter.



Imterestingly, Thomas is listed on his son Henry's baptism record in 1894 as a Fellowship Porter, despite the group having been abolished earlier that same year.

We know that Thomas was certainly a long standing member of the Fellowship because on 25/10/1877 he received his Freedom of the City admission certificate for which he paid £2 and 6 shillings.
This in effect granted him the Fellowship Porter status.

Okay, so moving on...

Based on the 7 children's baptism records it would appear that the family moved around a lot. However, most of the addresses listed are within very close proximity and therefore may be the same address, but listed differently on different documents.

White St, and Hare St (Cheshire St) for example, are roads that intersected and therefore may be the same house.
Mansfold Street also intersects with Old Bethnal Green Road (and still does today)


Here's the census data...



1881- Census 393 Bethnal Green Road

note Thomas is living with his wife, son and his mother in law.
Harriet Howes - widow - baker
Ann Pearman - 24
Thomas Pearman 28 - son in law - Fellowship Porter
Thomas Pearman 2 - Grandson
Sarah Pearman 1 - Granddaughter



1891 Census - 30 Hare Street

Thomas 39 occupation- Porter
Ann (wife) 32
Thomas - Son - 13
Beatrice - Daughter- 3
Bertie - Son - 3 months



1901 Census- 35 Eastman Street (block 2)

Thomas- 50 - occupation- labourer - born Stourbridge
Ann H (wife) 42
Beatrice 13
Herbert (Bertie) 10
Henry 6
May V R 3



According to the various other records I have found, the family moved to 35 Eastman St circa 1897 and lived there for around 5 years before Thomas died in 1902 in the infirmary.

Ann can subsequently be found as a widow in the 1911 census living with 2 of her children.


Thomas was admitted to the Stepney Workhouse on the 22/07/1902 after being transferred from the London Hospital.
He is listed as insane.
He died 2 days later on the 24/07/1902.
Cause of death - Atrophy and Asthenia

(both of which imply severe physical deterioration)


Thomas was buried at Wood Grange cemetery.


So that's what I have thus far.

However...

Interestingly, there was another Thomas Pearman who got married at St James the Great in Bethnal Green on 6th October 1879.

He is not the same man, as this Thomas is listed as a plumber (or shunter?)

But his wife's name is what caught my eye...


Mary Ann Cox


Can you imagine...




But there's more...

Another intriguing piece of data...

In the 1861 census there was yet another Thomas Pearman whose father was also called Thomas Pearman; the senior Thomas being a Blacksmith.

It appears that the census has Thomas (junior) as being a 10 year old "Doll Maker."

I may be reading the transcription wrong, but a 10 year old Doll Maker born in 1850/1851 sounds particularly fascinating to me, especially when I consider my new thread that discusses Anatomical Models (that arguably look similar to dolls)

What has this Thomas got to do with anything though?

Well, when we consider that this Doll making Thomas is living at 29 Fashion Street, it does beg the question; is THIS the correct Thomas, and the Thomas born in Stourbridge a red herring?

Probably not, but we still have another Thomas Pearman living in Fashion St in 1861 that is currently unaccounted for.


Fascinating indeed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the research Chris. Like Cross, our Mr Pearman looks like a normal, law abiding family man.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks for the research Chris. Like Cross, our Mr Pearman looks like a normal, law abiding family man.

I'm inclined to agree Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm inclined to agree Herlock.

Guilty as charged then.

[Losmandris]

There were likely hundreds of Thomas Pearmans out and and about at the time. One of which was probably the murderer. We could well find details for many of them even for the culprit but it will be unlikely/near impossible that any of those details would include some kind of conclusive evidence of guilt.

Loving this thread btw. It is bringing these people back to life and looking at how and where they lived, that to me at least makes this topic so fascinating. The actual murders sometimes come secondary to these incredible insights.

[Lewis C]

Thanks for the research Chris. Like Cross, our Mr Pearman looks like a normal, law abiding family man.

Herlock, that's what I thought as I read through RD's post. It sounds like Pearman had a healthy, enduring marriage, which isn't what I would expect of the Ripper. I also wouldn't expect him to have 7 children with the same wife.

[Paddy Goose]

Guilty as charged then.

You are guilty of Lechmere envy.

just like Cross

he has more going for him than Cross

xercise to show how easy it is to come up with a new ‘suspect

Like Cross