Talk:Towpath murders

Misinformation

This article was originally titled the Towpath Murders. An editor changed it to the Teddington towpath murders and added a statement that the girls were spotted on the towpath in Teddington. There has never been a towpath in Teddington - it runs on the opposite bank of the river at Ham and a check of any map will show that it is impossible for a towpath to run along the Teddington bank. Another source refers to the murders at Teddington Lock which is also across the river from Teddington on the towpath. It is not clear if the editor made up the title or took it from the source (which is actually about a different case). In any event it must be incorrect to state that the girls were cycling in Teddington itself. As I don't have morbid fascination with murder I am not qualified to change this, but I suggest that someone with an interest does review the title and text. Motmit (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen this post before commenting on the Teddington talk page. What you state may well be true, but without a reliable source we can't categorically state that there wasn't a towpath on the Teddington side in 1953. Reverting to "Towpath Murders" may be the best solution. I'll try and look for some sources that refer to them as such. In any case, as the murderer and victims were from Teddington, I think that reference to the killings - even if committed in Ham - should be retained in the Teddington article. Catiline63 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting concept that we need a source to state that something didn't exist. How many other places in the world didn't have towpaths in 1953? If you are interested Fred Thacker's book on Locks and Weirs on the Thames - published 1920 and 1968 makes it quite clear where the towpath goes. A quick google (page 1) shows contemporary sources - a magazine on e-bay and and Australian newspaper referring to the Towpath Murders, while a later book refers to the Thames towpath murders. Further digging may state the exact location of the towpath. Teddington only appears in wiki and its mirrors. The article also refers to Thames River whereas the piece of water between Ham and Teddington is called the River Thames. The current text in the Teddington article is vastly overkill (sorry pun) and a simple reference to a renamed article should be sufficient. Thanks for picking up on this, Reards Motmit (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out wiki etiquette. At the moment the article has that there was a Teddington Towpath, and that this claim is cited. It's insufficient reason just to say "there isn't one", which appeared to be your first claim, without a counter-source. I happen to agree with you. As I said, I think "Towpath Murders" is sufficient ans will change the entry accordingly.Catiline63 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Refs added. But if you have any more, please add them. I've retained TTM as a variant, because the RCP entry on Keith Mant (dated 2000, citing the obituaries of various broadsheets) names the killings as such. I've not been able to track down these obits, but it would be interesting to see whether they also call the killings TTM. If they do, the term was in use before the rise of wikipedia. It would be good if you could add Thacker for the bit where it says that Teddington had no towpath in 1953. Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done and thanks. Motmit (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

dud link

Have removed the following dud link from the text & pasting it here in case anyone feels like fixing it: <ref>[[Royal College of Physicians]] entry on [[Keith Mant]]; http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/heritage/munksroll/munk_details.asp?ID=5303</ref> --Technopat (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)