Talk:Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Died from asphyxiation?

How could coroner Alison Thompson tell that Mrs Thomas died from died from asphyxiation just by examining an unknown skull? The head injury & the probability the skull did belong to Mrs Thomas I understand, but how can you tell anything about asphyxiation from the skull only? Hepcat65 (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The original inquest recorded an open verdict - the cause of death and the identity of the body couldn't be determined at the time. By the time the 2011 inquest was held, the trial of Kate Webster had been held and she had confessed to the crime and given details of how it was committed, i.e. by throwing her mistress down the stairs and strangling her. Therefore it was possible to record the cause of death as asphyxiation, as that was how Kate Webster admitted she had killed Mrs Thomas. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article nom?

While the above issue needs to be addressed, somehow, I really think you should nominate this for WP:GA. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a great read. Well done whoever was responsible for this. 86.159.192.149 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Servants as status symbols?

In the Background section it says Employing a live-in domestic servant at her house was thus probably as much a status symbol as a fulfilment of a practical need. Would it not have been usual at that time for a retired teacher to employ at least one servant? In the Social impact of the murder section it is observed that At the time, about 40 per cent of the female labour force was employed as domestic servants for a very wide range of society, from the wealthiest to respectable working-class families. A gripping read by the way. --catslash (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all servants were the same. Better-off working class families had servants too, but not the live-in kind; if you were "respectable working class" you might hire a local girl for a few hours a week to help with the laundry. If you could afford a live-in servant that marked you out as wealthy enough to definitely not be working-class (and from all accounts Mrs. Thomas was keen to appear wealthier than she actually was). A teacher's salary wasn't very generous - no change there - and there's no indication that Mrs. Thomas was employed, so I would guess that she was probably living off the estate of her late husband(s). Prioryman (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

John W. Webster; what happened to him?

The last mention of her son is his been sent to the Wexford workhouse sometime in March/April 1879. Any idea what became of him? Did Ms. Webster's uncle eventually take him in? Fergananim (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not come across any record of his fate. I would imagine that he was probably adopted, perhaps changing his surname - being known as the son of one of the country's most reviled murderers would not have been a good thing. Prioryman (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SURNAME

Except for quotes, I have replaced all instances of "Mrs. Thomas", and most of "Miss Loder" and "Kate Webster", with bare surnames, as per WP:SURNAME:

After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms".

The FAR does discuss this:

• I believe, throughout, it should refer to the victim as just "Thomas", not "Mrs. Thomas" (apart from first mention) - e.g. Part of Mrs. Thomas's remains

• A couple of comments about this. First, virtually all of the sources I used referred to the victim as "Mrs. Thomas" (see e.g. [1]) Second, I did actually start writing the article referring to her as "Thomas" before realising that this introduced room for confusion - as it is a male first name it raises the question of "who is this Thomas person and what does he have to do with the story?" I presume this is why other writers have virtually all used "Mrs. Thomas".

I think the first point is wrong-headed; the sources relied on most heavily are rather old, and there was until recently a genteel convention in prose to give women a prefix even when men had none. That is not the convention on Wikipedia. As to the second point, I think any confusion would be momentary ("Thomas, a widow ..." in the second sentence?) and does not justify such a thoroughgoing exception to the convention. In fact I experienced a reverse confusion: when I first read "Mrs. Thomas" I assumed that "Mr. Thomas" would also feature in the narrative, only to find he was already dead. It is jarring to see "Mrs. Thomas" when the other women are mentioned with no title. It seems in particular to emphasise the difference in class and station between "Mrs. Thomas" and "Webster" or "Kate Webster", in a manner which might be suitable for the authors of some of the referenced sources, but is not suitable for WP:NPOV.

Otherwise, great article! jnestorius^(talk) 21:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thanks for your assistance! Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

TFAR draft

For WP:TFAR on 2 March 2012 (hopefully). Text is 1,202 characters total including markup. Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The murder of Julia Martha Thomas was one of the most notorious crimes in Britain in the late 19th century. Thomas, a widow who lived in Richmond in west London, was killed on 2 March 1879 by Kate Webster, her Irish maid (pictured left). Webster dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard. Part of Thomas's remains were subsequently recovered but her severed head was only found in October 2010 during building works being carried out for the naturalist Sir David Attenborough. After the murder, Webster posed as Thomas for two weeks but was exposed and fled to her family home in Ireland. She was arrested on 29 March and stood trial in London at the Old Bailey in July 1879, where she was convicted and sentenced to death. She confessed to the murder the night before she was hanged on 29 July at Wandsworth Prison. The case attracted huge public interest and was widely covered by the press in Great Britain and Ireland. (more...)

I've now nominated it for Today's Featured Article for 2 March 2012; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 2. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment from TFAR:

Does anyone else feel like "the case attracted huge interest" is too informal/colloquial? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The article text says: "The murder had a considerable social impact on Victorian Britain. It caused an immediate sensation and was widely reported in the press." --Ettrig (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a replacement for huge? --Ettrig (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How about "significant"? Or "extensive"? Silverseren^C 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Thomas' final resting place

The article gives the statements:

• "...the unidentified remains were laid to rest in Barnes Cemetery on 19 March."
• "It was later rumoured that a "ghostly nun" could be seen hovering over the place where Thomas had been buried."
• "...there was no record of where the rest of her body had been buried."

Although it could make sense literally, at first reading the last statement seems to contradict the earlier two. Maybe it should say the exact location was not recorded (since we know she was buried in Barnes Cemetery). Is there confirmation that, despite the claimed rumours, the location of her grave is unknown? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we know she was buried in Barnes Cemetery; the problem is that the cemetery was abandoned decades ago and the burial records seem to have been lost. Her body was buried before it was identified and the burial plot doesn't seem to have been marked. So we know the rough location of the grave, i.e. within the cemetery somewhere, but the exact site is unknown. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Great job!

I just wanted to say great job to the editors of this article; I (and others, I'm assuming) probably wouldn't have stumbled across it without the FA status, so congrats on getting it there and producing such a well-put-together and fascinating read. Thank you! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that it's the 133rd anniversary today, what a neat coincidence if that wasn't intentional! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! (And yes, it was intentional!) Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that. Nicely done! 74.113.238.18 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. Congratulations to those involved! Tufaceous (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote Of The Day

“ This lady is scary looking. ”

Hits For The Day: 160346

Alarbus (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Constance Kent

This story reminds me of the Constance Kent case which happened around 1860. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cartman Gets an Anal Probe vs. Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Please see Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe#Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe_vs._Murder_of_Julia_Martha_Thomas. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see the two mentioned in the same sentence... Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Julia Martha Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925011010/http://mattfullerty.com/katewebster_williammarwood_themurderessandthehangman.aspx to http://mattfullerty.com/katewebster_williammarwood_themurderessandthehangman.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)