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

[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?

[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).

[John G]

Yes, John, I’m aware of those discoveries. It’s one in the Victoria Docks - Templeman’s Wharf - I’m questioning.

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!

[MrBarnett]

In response to a question asked above, a thigh was found near the Victoria Embankment. Here's another reference: " A pierman at the Temple observed yesterday a parcel floating near the pier, and having secured it, found it contained a human thigh, wrapped up with a piece of coarse cancas and tied with a piece of cord corresponding with that round package found in the Thames off Rainham Ferry some weeks ago..." (St James Gazette, Monday 6 June, 1887)

It was the trunk of the body that was found by Edward Hughes, whilst his barge was lying alongside the jetty at Hempleman's factory: see Inquest Report, Chelmsford Chronicle, Friday 20 May, 1887.

Yes, John, I’m aware of those discoveries. It’s one in the Victoria Docks - Templeman’s Wharf - I’m questioning.

[John G]

In response to a question asked above, a thigh was found near the Victoria Embankment. Here's another reference: " A pierman at the Temple observed yesterday a parcel floating near the pier, and having secured it, found it contained a human thigh, wrapped up with a piece of coarse cancas and tied with a piece of cord corresponding with that round package found in the Thames off Rainham Ferry some weeks ago..." (St James Gazette, Monday 6 June, 1887)

It was the trunk of the body that was found by Edward Hughes, whilst his barge was lying alongside the jetty at Hempleman's factory: see Inquest Report, Chelmsford Chronicle, Friday 20 May, 1887.

[barnflatwyngarde]

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31704

Thanks Dave, much appreciated.

[Cogidubnus]

Just got an email to confirm that the book has been posted through my letter box. For some weird reason the word "anticlimax" springs to mind!

Hi John
My email just arrived to say I'll be getting the book on Monday...

[I][B]
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.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31704

Cheers

Dave

[barnflatwyngarde]

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.

[MrBarnett]

Hempleman's factory is right because Hempleman was on the inquest jury. I don't know about Templeman's wharf offhand and have no means to look it up at present. Parts of the Rainham torso were found in the Regent's canal and also Victoria embankment. I don't know where Templeman's wharf was.

In the first paragraph of M. J. Trow’s chapter on the Rainham Mystery he tells us:

‘In the May of 1888 [Edward] Hughes was working in the Victoria Dock that ran from Bugsby’s Reach where the Greenwich Marshes jutted north and made the river bend to Albert Docks lying alongside.’

Then in the next paragraph he tells us: the

‘That morning, Hughes was on his barge lying alongside the jetty at Hempleman’s factory.’

It’s not made clear that the Victoria Dock and Hempleman’s factory, Rainham are several miles apart.

Could a misunderstanding of these two paragraphs have lead Drew and Andrew to create a fictitious discovery of body parts in ‘Templeman’s Wharf’, Victoria Docks - conveniently across the river from where they believe a Harrison, Barber slaughter yard was located?

[John G]

Just got an email to confirm that the book has been posted through my letter box. For some weird reason the word "anticlimax" springs to mind!

[Debra A]

Debs,

Was there a ‘Rainham’ find at Templeman’s Wharf as well as one near Hempleman’s factory?

Hempleman's factory is right because Hempleman was on the inquest jury. I don't know about Templeman's wharf offhand and have no means to look it up at present. Parts of the Rainham torso were found in the Regent's canal and also Victoria embankment. I don't know where Templeman's wharf was.

[John G]

I posted this newspaper clip when we were discussing the 'rose tattoo', I think it refers to the same thing Trow described as a rose tattoo, although admittedly there's not much information forthcoming on this case.A lot of papers described the tattoo fund on teh Bedford Square torso as being two inches above her wrist in red and black, described as a 'half bracelet' I haven't seen a contemporary mention of it resembling a rose as yet.



It was Trow who called a chapter in his book 'girl with the rose tattoo' so to give some idea of the influence of Trow's work is that the authors of the new book mention the case that was 'known as the girl with the rose tattoo.'

Thanks Debra, I remembered that you'd addressed this issue before. I have to say, considering that Drew Gray is an academic, an academic with a doctorate no less, it would be astounding if he'd been significantly "influenced" by the work of another author, rather than, say, undertaking original research.

[MrBarnett]

Debs,

Was there a ‘Rainham’ find at Templeman’s Wharf as well as one near Hempleman’s factory?

[Debra A]

Northampton Mercury 15th June 1889

This event occurred on 12th June for anyone who has the book.

[Debra A]

I enjoyed Trow's book, which seemed to be reasonably well researched, although I believe it did contain inaccuracies, such as the Tottenham victims tattoo, which if memory serves, your research indicated wasn't a tattoo- a bit of a problem, when you consider that the chapter was entitled, "Girl with the Rose Tattoo!

I've ordered Drew's book because I assumed it would be extremely well researched and detailed-he his a doctor , after all, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I made a wise decision!

I posted this newspaper clip when we were discussing the 'rose tattoo', I think it refers to the same thing Trow described as a rose tattoo, although admittedly there's not much information forthcoming on this case.A lot of papers described the tattoo fund on teh Bedford Square torso as being two inches above her wrist in red and black, described as a 'half bracelet' I haven't seen a contemporary mention of it resembling a rose as yet.



It was Trow who called a chapter in his book 'girl with the rose tattoo' so to give some idea of the influence of Trow's work is that the authors of the new book mention the case that was 'known as the girl with the rose tattoo.'