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

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

Well, obviously, a pierman at the Temple is a pierman who works at Templeman' s Wharf. Sorry, only joking! I realise it's very tenuous, but still thought it was an interesting reference, especially as I have no idea what a pierman of the Temple was!

Temple Pier was a place where boats could moor on the Thames opposite the Temple. And a pierman’s a bloke what looks after pier?

I could almost believe your very imaginative suggestion if it wasn’t for the fact that we are looking for a wharf opposite the Greenwich Peninsular, where the authors claim an HB knackers yard sat on the riverside (I don’t think one did).

[Debra A]

Wrong in what sense? I have given the reasons for returning the book. It has nothing to do with me disagreeing about the suspect and pushing my own agenda if that is what you meant? I don't have a suspect or theory to push. This is about discussing the evidence given to support the theory that is being queried by most. If people can't separate the two then I don't know what else can be said.

Hi Debra,
Let me begin with an apology.
I was in no way trying to criticise or cast aspersions on your decision to return the book.
Errors can creep in to books and articles, even those written by acknowledged experts in their field.
I think I am correct in saying that even the last edition of the A-Z had a few errors in it.

I understand that there is some healthy debate about the book on the "JTR Forums", but I confess that tring to find my way through the site is so awkward that normally just give up pretty quickly, but I will certainly have another go and try and find your comments on the book.

The point I was trying to make is that the JTR case is an absolute morass of conflicting evidence, differing interpretations and the ability of intelligent people to
draw completely different meanings, from a statement, an identification, a view of some marginalia etc.
Christer Holmgren's research into Cross/Lechmere is a good case in point.
I have my reasons for doubting that Cross/Lechmere was anything but what he claimed to be, a man heading to work who came across a body
However, if Christer ever writes a book setting out his theories and research, I will certainly buy it.

I am sure that there are people who have already dismissed the book by Grey and Wise because it tries to tie in the Whitchapel murders with the Thames torso murders.
I was only making a plea for people to read the book and make up their own mind, there was no insult or slight intended.

Hi
An apology isn't needed.
Yes, mistakes creep in all the time. But when someone tries to sell me a theory based on a mistake then I have every right to call it out, don't I?

[Debra A]

The problem seems to be that some think if you don't agree with the version of events in [for example] Grays' book that you must agree with the version of events in [for example] Christer's theory, but it doesn't work like that. I really wish people would treat us like individuals with the ability to assess source information for ourselves. I am tired of being patronised all the time.

[MrBarnett]

The issues that we have been raising have for the most part been matters of fact rather than interpretation. I’m surprised people might think otherwise.

The one significant interpretation has been in connection with Hardiman’s occupation on a census. The authors look at the way it is presented and conclude from it that Hardiman was a horse slaughterer and therefore must have worked for Harrison, Barber. But there are examples of old ladies whose occupations are presented in the same way. Is it likely that they too were horse slaughterers?

I’d really like to get to the bottom of the ‘Templeman’s’ Wharf thing. That might turn out to be the biggest gaffe of all.

[rjpalmer]

I’d really like to get to the bottom of the ‘Templeman’s’ Wharf thing.

It appears that you might have already smoked it out. Hempleman's Jetty in Rainhill somehow became Templeman's Wharf (?) The name similarity is a little striking. One report rather ingloriously calls F.S. Hempleman's plant a 'manure factory,' though it evidently made chemical fertilizers.

[MrBarnett]

It appears that you might have already smoked it out. Hempleman's Jetty in Rainhill somehow became Templeman's Wharf (?) The name similarity is a little striking. One report rather ingloriously calls F.S. Hempleman's plant a 'manure factory,' though it evidently made chemical fertilizers.

Thanks, RJ, that’s what I suspect. And I think they have located TW in the Royal Victoria dock because that’s where Hughes lived?

How pleased the authors must have been to discover a ‘Rainham’ find opposite the riverbank of the Greenwich Peninsular where they claim there was an HB slaughter yard (I don’t think there was).

[Debra A]

Gary, I've had a chance to have a look through the papers this morning and I didn't see 'Templeman's wharf' come up in any article related to the Rainham case. I also checked for Victoria Docks and the only mention in connection with the case I could find was at the inquest reported in the Illustrated Police News 21 May 1887, Hughes was described as a licenced lighterman of 0 (other number not legible) Pickford-terrace, Victoria Docks.

[John G]

Temple Pier was a place where boats could moor on the Thames opposite the Temple. And a pierman’s a bloke what looks after pier?

I could almost believe your very imaginative suggestion if it wasn’t for the fact that we are looking for a wharf opposite the Greenwich Peninsular, where the authors claim an HB knackers yard sat on the riverside (I don’t think one did).

Ah, good point! As far as I can ascertain the only wharf opposite the Greenwich Peninsula is Trinity Buoy Wharf, established in 1803 by Trinity House as its Thames-side workshop.

[Joshua Rogan]

It appears that you might have already smoked it out. Hempleman's Jetty in Rainhill somehow became Templeman's Wharf (?) The name similarity is a little striking. One report rather ingloriously calls F.S. Hempleman's plant a 'manure factory,' though it evidently made chemical fertilizers.

On period maps Hempleman's is shown as a "fish manure factory". Elsewhere it's described as a "blood and fish manure factory" and "artificial manure manufacturers"

There was a chemical manure works at the entrance to Victoria Docks, for what it's worth.

I think John G's suggestion is reasonable that Templeman's Wharf, Victoria Docks could be a confusion with Temple Pier, Victoria Embankment, rather than the factory, but either are plausible. Or even a muddle of elements from both.

[John G]

Okay, this is from Drew Gray's book:

"On 5 June a human thigh, similarly wrapped to the Rainham Torso, washed up by Temple Pier by the new Victoria Embankment Embankment and Waterloo Bridge." (Gray, Wise, 2019)

This bit is indeed correct: Waterloo Bridge is by the Victoria Embankment close to Temple Pier. It is no where near the Greenwich Peninsula, which is 7.5 miles away.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks, RJ, that’s what I suspect. And I think they have located TW in the Royal Victoria dock because that’s where Hughes lived?

How pleased the authors must have been to discover a ‘Rainham’ find opposite the riverbank of the Greenwich Peninsular where they claim there was an HB slaughter yard (I don’t think there was).

Was there no HB presence in Greenwich at all, at the time, or just no slaughter yard? I've found a reference to them a few years later (1908) described as "Harrison Barber of Blackwall Lane East Greenwich" and it concerns the inquest into the death of an employee.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, Joshua it could be either, I suppose, but it certainly looks wrong.

[MrBarnett]

Was there no HB presence in Greenwich at all, at the time, or just no slaughter yard? I've found a reference to them a few years later (1908) described as "Harrison Barber of Blackwall Lane East Greenwich" and it concerns the inquest into the death of an employee.

I think the yard in question was in the hands of a rival company in October, 1886. Perhaps Drew has discovered that HB took it over within the next six months?

This aspect of their claim is something I am trying to get to the bottom of.

[rjpalmer]

On period maps Hempleman's is shown as a "fish manure factory". Elsewhere it's described as a "blood and fish manure factory" and "artificial manure manufacturers"

In 1891, Frederick S. Hempleman can be found living in Southend-On-Sea (Prittlewell) and is described as a 'chemical manufacturer.' Maybe Bill Bury delivered the much needed manure, along with Joe Barnett's gutted fish entrails from Billingsgate.

[Joshua Rogan]

In 1891, Frederick S. Hempleman can be found living in Southend-On-Sea (Prittlewell) and is described as a 'chemical manufacturer.' Maybe Bill Bury delivered the much needed manure, along with Joe Barnett's gutted fish entrails from Billingsgate.

And when Joe lost his job, he was forced to find an alternative source of entrails...?