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

[John G]

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?

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Cogidubnus]

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

[Debra A]

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/modules/eh3107/occupations.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."

[Debra A]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

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).

[MrBarnett]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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/modules/eh3107/occupations.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.

[Debra A]

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.

[MrBarnett]

Second attempt.

[Debra A]

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.

https://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?

[Debra A]

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?

[Harry D]

Glad I cancelled my pre-order.

[MrBarnett]

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.