Dear Boss

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"You mean Le Grand, hailed far and wide as the best suspect to date? "

Yes. And no.

"I don't know what you mean by 'oversimplify'."

...and...

"...the geeks who try to take me on don't know sh*t about the Ripper crimes in general and Berner Street inparticular."

THAT is what I mean by oversimplification, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

What did I oversimplify? Since I was speaking to you when I wrote 'geeks', I was not counting you in that bunch. I'm selective in who I allow to abuse me. It's not an oversimplification to say that many idiots who have not done their homework have made me a focal point of assault with their nutso theories and horrendous grasp of the facts, whereas I made a particular study of the Stride case BEFORE coming on here and flapping my chops. That's why you don't see me too often on Eddowes threads trying to tell Monty that he doesn't know crap about the City Police, because I'd end up being made a fool of. Was that undersimplified enough for you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

What I meant, Tom, was that much as most of us know that killers of prostitutes are regularly also users of prostitutes, we cannot simply allow ourselves to deduct that Jack was a man who had experience (sexually) of socializing with them. It does not follow, simple as that.
It is no way a bad suggestion - it is quite good - but we should not jump the gun in this, or any other, issue.

There are other examples that I could mention, one of them being that you on an adjacent thread tried to close the subject of what William Marshall would have thought to be middle age. You were sure, although there was no substantiation at all for it, that he would ONLY have regarded people of his own age (52) as being middle-aged.
I - and some other poster - dug up the fact that people in their mid forties were seen as PAST middle age, even regarded by a 75-year old Walter Dew, but you simply declined to recognize this. And that is of course your choice, if you want to handle matters in this way. But it does leave me with the feeling that you sometimes choose the solutions that fit your reasoning, and then you don´t listen to counterarguments, no matter if your own arguments lack any underbuilt whereas your counterpart´s ditto have lots of substantiation behind them.
It´s annoying, it´s not good tone - and it´s to oversimplify matters.

Don´t tell me you did not ask, Tom ...

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

In any event, when my book comes out, some people will think he was the Ripper, some like myself will be satisfied that he is merely the best suspect to date, and some will not see him at all as the Ripper, but will be moved by other evidence, such as that Le Grand was behind the 'From hell' letter/kidney, Batty Street Lodger story, and was most likely Pipeman. Those who don't think Stride was a Ripper victim should have no trouble at least accepting Le Grand as Stride's killer. So, I'm hoping there will be something in there for everyone.

Er, I thought this was the Dear Boss thread. Or was Lofty Le Grand lurking behind that one too? Quit with the Ben/Hutch impressions, will you Tom? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but you will end up flattery on your face if you are not careful.

How can anyone have 'no trouble' accepting Le Grand as Stride's killer? The idea is beyond preposterous - a stranger who is Pipeman's lofty double succeeds in squeezing fruit-based lies from at least three bogus witnesses, to put a mythical grape-buying suspect in his place, and they all fall in with his plans, just like that? Who was he? Derren Brown (look him up) or Tommy Cooper (look him up)?

Come on Tom, start looking at your theory without the pebble glasses. It's not working. The old Red Demon would have seen it in a heartbeat if anyone else had proposed such tosh. It wouldn't even make a decent novel.

Now - Dear Boss anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Who was he? Derren Brown (look him up) or Tommy Cooper (look him up)?"

Easily Cooper - just like that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Quit with the Ben/Hutch impressions, will you Tom?

...And just when I thought we were getting on so well, Caz.

Just so as to avoid confusion, everyone, I'm not writing a book, the Hutchinson theory did not originate with me, and anyone is welcome to have trouble with it, providing they outline that trouble on the appropriate thread.

...Which isn't this one.

So Dear Boss it is.

Unless...!

[Abby Normal]

...And just when I thought we were getting on so well, Caz.

Just so as to avoid confusion, everyone, I'm not writing a book, the Hutchinson theory did not originate with me, and anyone is welcome to have trouble with it, providing they outline that trouble on the appropriate thread.

...Which isn't this one.

So Dear Boss it is.

Unless...!

maybe this one will get us back on track.
The question has always been on my mind as to why, if the letter was written by the killer, why did he ask for them to hold it back till he got to work again?

Pretend you're the killer. You have finally commited a murder to your satisfaction with Chapman. No real witness, you got the trophy, you got away clean (perhaps even in broad daylight). Its been awhile and you've heard about Leather Apron-the first real well known suspect, stealing your glory. you are itching to get to work again but the chance has not arisen yet. So you write the letter to take the credit, give the correct name and mess with the press/police/public. But, you dont want it to stir things up and make it harder for yourself to procure your next victim, so you ask the CNA to hold it back till you succeed (and thus also proving you are who you say).



IMHO, a hoaxer, would have no idea or inclination to say this, and it would only inhibit their ultimate goal to "keep the story alive".

[D.B.Wagstaff]

Or . . .

Perhaps, to heighten the suspense? Or maybe the letter is a hoax and the writer has no idea when the next murder might take place, so he asks them to hold back on releasing the letter until the next murder takes place, to muddy the waters a bit.

[Tom_Wescott]

Er, I thought this was the Dear Boss thread. Or was Lofty Le Grand lurking behind that one too? Quit with the Ben/Hutch impressions, will you Tom? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but you will end up flattery on your face if you are not careful.

You're an observant woman, Caz, so I know you must have recognized that I was directly responding to a post from Maria regarding her hopes for my book. In fact, I generally don't post about Le Grand at all unless it's in response to someone else's post, or happens to be quite on topic.

The idea is beyond preposterous - a stranger who is Pipeman's lofty double succeeds in squeezing fruit-based lies from at least three bogus witnesses, to put a mythical grape-buying suspect in his place, and they all fall in with his plans, just like that?

There's no idea here, it's recorded fact. Le Grand fit the description of Pipeman...Le Grand clearly succeeded in gaining the compliance of Packer and the two sisters. The four of them together created a case for a man to have been seen with Stride prior to her murder. The entire event was believed by the police then and researchers now to have been fictional. This is documented history, Caz, so I fail to see how you can regard it as preposterous. Perhaps you're not a curious person, but I am, and I was struck by this years ago, wanting to know WHY Le Grand made this effort. My curiosity led to the discovery that he was a bonafide Jack the Ripper suspect. Perhaps I missed something, but has YOUR personal curiosity and research led to the discovery of a new suspect? Can any of my regular naysayers make that claim? I think not. This is why posts such as yours (and the many like it) come off as making the author look quite petty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
You're an observant woman, Caz, so I know you must have recognized that I was directly responding to a post from Maria regarding her hopes for my book. In fact, I generally don't post about Le Grand at all unless it's in response to someone else's post, or happens to be quite on topic.
Wow, Tom, give all the blame to me – I can totally take it. (Isn't there even a song sung by Rita Hayworth in some movie called like that?)
Caz, I apologize. We got from the “Dear Boss“ letter to Le Grand via the Lusk letter and kidney, for which some people (not necessarily me) suspect the WVC (as in Joseoh Aarons and Le Grand) to have been involved in a scheme, so the discussion was indeed related. Still, it's all totally my responsibility, so, give it to me people, all together!
Caz, regarding Le Grand (whom I've never claimed to consider as the “main“ Ripper suspect), somebody DEFINITELY squeezed fruit-based lies from at least three bogus witnesses to put a mythical grape-buying suspect in his place. Only, as almost always with such schemes, it didn't quite fall in with the way it was planned.
I assume that the “Red Demon“ thing is something similar to the “Saddam“/“Mephisto“ thing – and not so much like the “Maria Birchwood“ thing.

[Tom_Wescott]

No blame, Maria. Caz has been on the boards longer than myself (which pretty much means longer than ANYONE), so she knows the thread to not go off topic has yet to be created. She evidently has a bone to pick at present. I'm happy to answer any and all questions about Le Grand, or whatever, regardless of the thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

There's no idea here, it's recorded fact. Le Grand fit the description of Pipeman...Le Grand clearly succeeded in gaining the compliance of Packer and the two sisters. The four of them together created a case for a man to have been seen with Stride prior to her murder. The entire event was believed by the police then and researchers now to have been fictional. This is documented history, Caz, so I fail to see how you can regard it as preposterous. Perhaps you're not a curious person, but I am, and I was struck by this years ago, wanting to know WHY Le Grand made this effort.

Here is my original point again, Tom (ie not the edited version you chose to quote and respond to):

How can anyone have 'no trouble' accepting Le Grand as Stride's killer? The idea is beyond preposterous - a stranger who is Pipeman's lofty double succeeds in squeezing fruit-based lies from at least three bogus witnesses, to put a mythical grape-buying suspect in his place, and they all fall in with his plans, just like that?

So you can see that the ‘idea’ I was talking about is the one which has us all ‘accepting Le Grand as Stride’s killer’ - as if that is recorded fact.

If it were recorded fact, I doubt you would have needed to fanny about all this time, gathering 'evidence' for the prosecution. Your ‘idea’ involves Le Grand being Pipeman, being Stride’s killer, and coaxing lies from an assortment of strangers to put a mythical suspect in his - ie the murderer’s - place. It’s Hutch and Lewis’s lurker all over again. If the descriptions matched because they were one and the same, with Le Grand doing for Stride and Hutch for Kelly, they were both taking a helluva chance, putting themselves under the spotlight like this, with the risk that someone would recognise them from the scenes of crime. And for what? Pipeman was never positively identified as far as we know, and nor was Lewis’s lurker.

Believe me, I have asked myself - and you - WHY Le Grand would have ‘made this effort’ if he had been guilty of murdering Stride, and I’m still coming up empty. It makes perfect sense, however, if his game was promoting the need for vigilance committees and private detectives - ie men like himself and his sidekick - by making the police appear incapable of doing the job without them.

Caz, I apologize. We got from the “Dear Boss“ letter to Le Grand via the Lusk letter and kidney, for which some people (not necessarily me) suspect the WVC (as in Joseoh Aarons and Le Grand) to have been involved in a scheme, so the discussion was indeed related.

I know how you got to Le Grand, Maria, but there is a separate thread for the Lusk letter, and none of this was related to the Dear Boss discussion - unless Le Grand was supposed to have had a hand in that letter too.

Caz, regarding Le Grand (whom I've never claimed to consider as the “main“ Ripper suspect), somebody DEFINITELY squeezed fruit-based lies from at least three bogus witnesses to put a mythical grape-buying suspect in his place. Only, as almost always with such schemes, it didn't quite fall in with the way it was planned.

See my response to Tom. Regardless of the precise role played by Le Grand in spreading the grape rumours, you don’t know that it was DEFINITELY to put a mythical suspect ‘in his place’ - not at all. You don’t know where Le Grand’s ‘place’ was when Stride was being murdered, any more than I do or Tom does.

If the plan was to spread rumours that would fool the press and the public into believing the police were fools, he did a fair job of it - despite Packer’s poor performance. But it makes no sense as a plan by Stride's killer to fool the police if they knew the rumours were false.

The bone I had to pick concerned Tom's bold assertion posted to this thread. But I would have picked it regardless of where he chose to post it.

Consider it picked - now back to Dear Boss!

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz wrote:
If the plan was to spread rumours that would fool the press and the public into believing the police were fools, he did a fair job of it - despite Packer’s poor performance. But it makes no sense as a plan by Stride's killer to fool the police if they knew the rumours were false.
Hello Caz,
I'm not the one who's convinced that Le Grand murdered Stride. I'm prepared to go as far as considering it a possibility, especially with Pipeman's description ressembling Le Grand's. But since we don't even know if Schwartz' testimony was truthful, there is a serious probability that Pipeman never existed. My first suspicion pertaining to Le Grand is, like you said, that he spread the rumors to promote the WVC, for financial gain, and for hate of the police. And I absolutely believe that he ought to be researched very thoroughly, as well as Joseph Aarons.
On the other side, in the possibility that Le Grand might have murdered Stride himself, Le Grand's motivation for muddling the waters DOESN'T necessarily require to make sense. Things that assailants of such caliber do usually don't make much sense, even if their motives for acting are identifiable.
And by the way, I'm looking forward to reading your editorial in Examiner 4.

[Stewart P Evans]

Newbie

No blame, Maria. Caz has been on the boards longer than myself (which pretty much means longer than ANYONE), so she knows the thread to not go off topic has yet to be created...
Tom Wescott

I remember her coming onto the boards as a newbie, now that is going back a bit.

[Tom_Wescott]

So you can see that the ‘idea’ I was talking about is the one which has us all ‘accepting Le Grand as Stride’s killer’ - as if that is recorded fact.

Huh? That's not what you said. You said, 'How can anyone have 'no trouble' accepting Le Grand as Stride's killer?' That's quite a different statement. You're saying that no one would believe Le Grand is Stride's killer, and it IS recorded fact that people HAVE believed him to be so. As for the rest of your post, it was way off the mark.

I remember her coming onto the boards as a newbie, now that is going back a bit.

You were on the Casebook back in 1997? I thought you didn't get involved with the boards for some years after.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott