We have him...

[m_w_r]

Hi Chris,

I think it's quite possible - initially, I had speculated that the fifteen-year prisoner might have been James Crick, who was convicted of rape at the Central Criminal Court in December 1889, but his modus operandi seems to have been very boat-oriented, and it's difficult to believe that the police might have thought him to have been Jack the Ripper. I'd post something up here - the case was reported in the newspapers, and is worth reading - but I appear to have exceeded my allocation on the server.

Regards,

Mark

[Chris]

Thanks for the useful link. I think the interesting thing is that the Belgian, whoever he was, was meant to have been convicted in about October 1891; the Western Mail, however, has a very similar sort of story a clear eight months before that. The "imprisoned for another offence" and "chain of evidence nearly complete" aspects of both stories certainly match, and it's almost as if the police were bouncing optimistically from one suspect to another, post-conviction for separate offences, with each new individual more suspicious than the last ... it seems that the press might have thought so, anyway.

Just a thought. Could the Western Mail article from February 1891 actually be referring to the same man?

According to Gerry Nixon's dissertation, Le Grand had previously been sentenced to two years' hard labour in June 1889:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-legrand.html

Certainly he was still in prison in February 1891, as he appears (as Chas C. Grandy - though his age, 27, appears to be incorrect) in the 1891 census of Wormwood Scrubs [RG 12/44, f. 153v].

The length of the sentence doesn't agree with the February 1891 article, but perhaps this possibility is worth considering, in view of the similarity of the wording.

[Phil Carter]

I was maybe being a little sarcastic there Phil...
Anyway, I once checked out the availability of the Parkhurst prisoner archives and was told that individual records weren't available, but there was a nice museum there. If the Portland records are available then definitely worth checking out in my view....that's if Portland prison wasn't a mistake in the article.

Debs,

Hmm. Portland Prison is quite a little speciality. Its an unusual prison. I will ask the Nat Arch in the morning. Also, I will contact the prison itself.

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

I was maybe being a little sarcastic there Phil...
Anyway, I once checked out the availability of the Parkhurst prisoner archives and was told that individual records weren't available, but there was a nice museum there. If the Portland records are available then definitely worth checking out in my view....that's if Portland prison wasn't a mistake in the article.

[Phil Carter]

Debs,

National archives .. just saw MIke's earlier posting..sorry!

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Well done Michael! Did you not follow Mike's link?

You would like Le Grand(e), Grandy, Charles Grant etc. He claimed he was a private tech involved in the Parnell comission too.

Ditto.. well done Mike.

Debs, what are the rules and regulations on prisoner's records at HM Portland for ex? Are they still kept there or have they been sent off to one place where all prison records are kept?

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

Well done Michael! Did you not follow Mike's link?

You would like Le Grand(e), Grandy, Charles Grant etc. He claimed he was a private tech involved in the Parnell comission too.

Ive been looking through the Old Bailey records Mike and in November there is a prosecution of a man called Charles Grande (?) aged 38, case ref # t18911116-56, the case is about some cheque forgeries he was accused of....but at the bottom of the transcript it states;

" GUILTY .*

Twenty Years' Penal Servitude on the first conviction (page 28), and Seven Years on the present indictment, the sentences to run concurrently.

The twenty year sentence caught my eye based on the last few posts. I have no idea where this "page 28" they refer to can be found though.

Could this be the guy?

Best regards

[Mike Covell]

Debs has more knowledge on this man than I do.

[Chris]

Not definitely, but highly likely I think. I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but there can't have been many men of foreign nationality sent down for 20 years penal servitude for threatening ladies with violence in late 1891, like LeGrand was.

I suppose Danish/Belgian is a fairly understandable confusion.

[Debra A]

So this refers to "Le Grand of the Strand", does it? How interesting.

Not definitely, but highly likely I think. I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but there can't have been many men of foreign nationality sent down for 20 years penal servitude for threatening ladies with violence in late 1891, like LeGrand was.

[Mike Covell]

If you find anything Mike let me know, this has got me interested now.

I would think based on the first press snippet posted that an arrest and conviction if in London would mean he is on the Old Bailey records somewhere...if the article is 1892 then the case would have come to court in late 1891 based on the article content and the "6 months earlier" line,...... and that last post by Mike with the mention again about "missing evidence" suggests to me something of the comments made by a senior investigator complaining that a lack of "power" of the London Police.....(dissimilar to that of the Police in France, which I believe was the comparison), ...prevented them from arresting the man.

Best regards all.

[Mike Covell]

Apparently so.

[Chris]

So this refers to "Le Grand of the Strand", does it? How interesting.