Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? by Drew Gray and Andrew Wise

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One of the arguments made in the book, in favour of the suspect Hardiman, is that some of the Rainham Torso body parts were found in the canal at Camden, apparently close by to the Metropolitan Cattle Market, opposite Harrison, Barber Slaughterhouse in Brandon Street.

    Okay, the parts referred to were found in Regent's Canal, near St Pancras Lock, which is 1.5 miles from Brandon Street, so not that close. Moreover, the canal was 9 miles long, and we have no idea how far the body parts may have floated.

    This seems a bit tenuous to me. Moreover, is it seriously being suggested that he would dismember a victim at his place of work? If not, what exactly is the connection supposed to be?
    Last edited by John G; 06-16-2019, 04:58 PM.

    Comment




    • For those of you who don’t get across to JTRF, here’s the point I’m making about the census entries.

      At the top is Hardiman’s occupation in 1881 and the authors claim that the word ‘knacker’ proves that he was a horse slaughterer. It seems to be the only evidence they have to support the claim.

      The second is the occupation of a 67-year-old lady from Clerkenwell.

      So either there were little old ladies killing and butchering horses in Victorian London or the authors have got it wrong.
      Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-16-2019, 10:38 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


        For those of you who don’t get across to JTRF, here’s the point I’m making about the census entries.

        At the top is Hardiman’s occupation in 1881 and the authors claim that the word ‘knacker’ proves that he was a horse slaughterer. It seems to be the only evidence they have to support the claim.

        The second is the occupation of a 67-year-old lady from Clerkenwell.

        So either there were little old ladies killing and butchering horses in Victorian London or the authors have got it wrong.
        Sorry Gary

        In my case at least the photo's not showing up on this casebook posting

        Dave

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


          For those of you who don’t get across to JTRF, here’s the point I’m making about the census entries.

          At the top is Hardiman’s occupation in 1881 and the authors claim that the word ‘knacker’ proves that he was a horse slaughterer. It seems to be the only evidence they have to support the claim.

          The second is the occupation of a 67-year-old lady from Clerkenwell.

          So either there were little old ladies killing and butchering horses in Victorian London or the authors have got it wrong.

          Here's a link to a detailed 12 page teaching guide on the way occupations were recorded on census entries.
          https://www.le.ac.uk/eh/teach/ug/mod...ccupations.pdf


          This quote from it confirms exactly the point you are making, Gary:

          "Male Occupations
          Though the occupations of working men tended to be fairly accurately recorded throughout the
          nineteenth century there was a tendency in the returns to omit the branch of employment or the
          material being worked upon. With terms such as labourer, weaver, or spinner, these problems were
          overcome by either adding a vague heading or placing them under the most common industry of the
          area in which the return was made."


          ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post
            Moreover, is it seriously being suggested that he would dismember a victim at his place of work? If not, what exactly is the connection supposed to be?
            Yes, that seems to be the suggestion, John. Apart from Elizabeth Jackson, a woman we are told absolutely nothing else about, who they suggest was dismembered in Battersea Park. The supposed Battersea Park lime clue puzzled me the most.
            ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Debra A View Post

              Yes, that seems to be the suggestion, John. Apart from Elizabeth Jackson, a woman we are told absolutely nothing else about, who they suggest was dismembered in Battersea Park. The supposed Battersea Park lime clue puzzled me the most.
              There seems to be no logic behind this suggestion that if the killer (supposing there was a killer) murdered the victim in a park, why not simply leave the body in situ? and why bother to dismember the body, and then go to all the trouble of transporting it to the river for disposal.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk



              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

                Sorry Gary

                In my case at least the photo's not showing up on this casebook posting

                Dave
                That’s annoying, Dave. They appeared when I first posted them, but now all I see are the two empty boxes. The complexities of posting on Casebook have defeated me (again).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Debra A View Post

                  Yes, that seems to be the suggestion, John. Apart from Elizabeth Jackson, a woman we are told absolutely nothing else about, who they suggest was dismembered in Battersea Park. The supposed Battersea Park lime clue puzzled me the most.
                  Yes, Debs/John, and what a silly suggestion it is.

                  And why like Trow do they focus on the Brandon Street (s/b Road) yard when there were two others nearby, including the company’s head office at 186, York Road? I don’t get the impression they bothered to spend too much time researching HB. All they had to do was look on JTRF.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Debra A View Post


                    Here's a link to a detailed 12 page teaching guide on the way occupations were recorded on census entries.
                    https://www.le.ac.uk/eh/teach/ug/mod...ccupations.pdf


                    This quote from it confirms exactly the point you are making, Gary:

                    "Male Occupations
                    Though the occupations of working men tended to be fairly accurately recorded throughout the
                    nineteenth century there was a tendency in the returns to omit the branch of employment or the
                    material being worked upon. With terms such as labourer, weaver, or spinner, these problems were
                    overcome by either adding a vague heading or placing them under the most common industry of the
                    area in which the return was made."

                    Thanks Debs.

                    I hadn’t seen that explained before, but I’ve seen those annotations so many times it was obvious why they were there.

                    I’ve cut and pasted that on the Forums. Hope that’s OK.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      Thanks Debs.

                      I hadn’t seen that explained before, but I’ve seen those annotations so many times it was obvious why they were there.

                      I’ve cut and pasted that on the Forums. Hope that’s OK.

                      No problem, Gary.
                      ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                      Comment




                      • Second attempt.
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          There seems to be no logic behind this suggestion that if the killer (supposing there was a killer) murdered the victim in a park, why not simply leave the body in situ? and why bother to dismember the body, and then go to all the trouble of transporting it to the river for disposal.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                          I hate to say it, but I agree with you on that point, Trevor. Did he also take brown paper and cord in to the park to wrap some of the remains I wonder?
                          ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                            Yes, Debs/John, and what a silly suggestion it is.

                            And why like Trow do they focus on the Brandon Street (s/b Road) yard when there were two others nearby, including the company’s head office at 186, York Road? I don’t get the impression they bothered to spend too much time researching HB. All they had to do was look on JTRF.
                            A lot of the book seems to be based on things mentioned in Trow's book doesn't it?
                            One of my biggest dislikes was statements made that went something along the lines of 'an arm that was linked to the Thames torso series', 'a case that was known as the girl with the rose tattoo' and similar. Linked and known by who?
                            Last edited by Debra A; 06-17-2019, 09:14 AM.
                            ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                            Comment


                            • Glad I cancelled my pre-order.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Debra A View Post

                                A lot of the book seems to be based on things mentioned in Trow's book doesn't it?
                                One of my biggest dislikes was statements made that went something along the lines of 'an arm that was linked to the Thames torso series', 'a case that was known as the girl with the rose tattoo' and similar. Linked and known by who?
                                It does. The HB chapter demonstrates little more knowledge of the firm than could be acquired by reading Trow and spending an hour or so googling the subject.

                                Trow’s book is a better read and puts forward a cat’s meat man/knacker suspect.

                                Drew and Andrew have discovered an existing cat’s meat man suspect, erroneously identified him as a knacker, and built their house of cards on that basis.


                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-17-2019, 09:53 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X