Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Lechmere]

Tom
Is it known when Batchelor summonsed Le Grand?
Did Batchelor not pursue the matter, or was the summons dismissed?
At Le Grand’s trial in June 1889, Sergeant James said:

I attended as a witness at Bow Street when you appeared on a summons, at the instance of Batchelor, for assaulting him in the Strand—Mr. Bridge dismissed the summons—I knew nothing about the case, I only knew your character—I gave evidence.

Regarding Le Grand’s alleged employ by the WVC…
The journal of record for the WVC’s activities was the Morning Advertiser.
On 3rd October 1888, the Morning Advertiser clearly stated that WVC employed three detectives, not two and that they had been approached by other detectives wanting to be taken on by the WVC:

An intimation at this stage reached the meeting that some private detectives wished to be engaged in the case on behalf of the Vigilance Committee, but Mr. Reeves and Mr. Aarons announced that they had already three detectives at work, and a band of twenty young gentlemen had gathered for the purpose of patrolling one section of the haunted district, with the view of assisting the police in bringing the offender to justice. The services of these gentlemen were therefore declined.

This neatly coincided with the descent of Le Grand and Batchelor into Berner Street to find the grape stalk and generally busy-body about. It fits that Le Grand and Batchelor were the detectives wishing to be engaged by the WVC.

Le Grand was a known liar and con man. Le Grand told Sergeant White that he was employed by the WVC. Why should we believe him?
Le Grand then sold his story to the Evening News, or perhaps he had managed in advance to persuade the Evening News into agreeing to pay them for any new information they uncovered (hence he had an incentive to make something of the grape stalk or possibly even invent it, along with the Batty Street stuff).
Sergeant White credulously told Swanson that he had met two detectives employed by the WVC.

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest beyond reasonable doubt that any of the three detectives employed by the WVC were Le Grand. I think there is very good reason to suppose that Le Grand was never employed by the WVC.
Le Grand never publicly claimed it.
The WVC never claimed him.
Hall, Le Grand’s employee/secretary didn't mention it.
The Evening News didn't mention it.
Le Grand’s track record as a PI would suggest he didn't get the contract.
Against that there is Swanson's very brief reference where he says that Le Grand was working conjointly with the WVC and the press, which can be easily explained by Le Grand giving White a false impression.

[Wickerman]

The 'complex conspiracy' is the alternate version of events, which has the police pressuring Diemshitz and other witnesses to stop mentioning the grapes. My version of events, which is soundly based in solid fact, is that Stride was not holding grapes because Packer did not sell her any. That's the actual fact of the matter. So we're left with either a dimwitted East Ender pulling one over on Le Grand, or Le Grand orchestrating the ruse. When you consider that Le Grand pulled exactly this same ruse in 1887 and then again in 1889, to say nothing of THAT SAME WEEK when he involved himself AND Packer in the Batty Street lodger story, it really ceases to be a matter of debate and speculation. It simply is what it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Planting evidence and publishing lies about a private citizen is pretty complex Tom, and its the stuff of novels.

The reliance you choose to place in Packer's initial statement to police may be tempered by the fact that ordinary people had a mistrust of the authorities. When approached by a policeman the common response can be, "I saw nothing, heard nothing, did nothing". In other words, "go away and leave me alone".

However, on being approached by the press, and in response to a little greasing of the palm?, who knows what a witness is prepared to say he saw.

Due to these two opposing scenario's it is risky to place too much reliance on either possibility.

It appears that you have not realized that Packer's claim to have sold grapes to Stride is a separate issue to Stride having grapes in her possession that night.
Packer did sell grapes, and Stride could have obtained them somewhere else. The latter is not dependent on the former.

Incidentally, I don't believe Packer's story either, but my reasoning is less complex.

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Sorry I didn't realize that you had a book in the works on Le Grand, another one for the want list.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think we will have to wait for the book.

Hi Lech. While I know you're referring to my Le Grand book, which is a long ways off, since my Bank Holiday Murders book will be due for sale in (hopefully) a matter of hours, I wanted to point out that it does not include any references to Packer or Le Grand. Just mentioning this to avoid any possible confusion with anyone reading this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day all

What I don't see is why Le Grand would make up, of all things, a grape stalk.

That's precisely the question that had me scratching my head back in 2007 and is why I became interested in Le Grand in the first place when virtually nothing at all was known about him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

What I am seeing Tom is this:

- LeGrand was a con-man, so he 'must' have planted the grape stalk.

- LeGrand was untrustworthy, so he 'must' have invented the lies about Packer, etc. in the press.

Something more dependable than a 'must' is required.

For Swanson to mention the grape stalk in his report means it existed, the fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief existed.
LeGrand didn't need to create some complex conspiracy, and he just as likely didn't.

The 'complex conspiracy' is the alternate version of events, which has the police pressuring Diemshitz and other witnesses to stop mentioning the grapes. My version of events, which is soundly based in solid fact, is that Stride was not holding grapes because Packer did not sell her any. That's the actual fact of the matter. So we're left with either a dimwitted East Ender pulling one over on Le Grand, or Le Grand orchestrating the ruse. When you consider that Le Grand pulled exactly this same ruse in 1887 and then again in 1889, to say nothing of THAT SAME WEEK when he involved himself AND Packer in the Batty Street lodger story, it really ceases to be a matter of debate and speculation. It simply is what it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There are many explanations - such as that Le Grand found a grape stalk and wove a story around it, latching onto pre-existing grape rumours.
My interpretation is that Le Grand was a chancer and keen to be seen as an efficient Private Detective to enhance his employment prospects. I don't think he was ever employed by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and was endeavouring to ingratiate himself into their good books. There was a report around this time of two men trying to gain employment from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and they rejected them.

Le Grand's employment by the WVC was confirmed by the police and is noted in their reports, so it's not a matter of speculation. There's other proof as well. I consider as absurd your idea that Le Grand first started digging around the dirty gutter of Dutfield's Yard and upon finding a grape stalk decided to weave a tale around it. But it's far less absurd than other ideas I've seen regarding the grapes. The finding of the grapestalk happened after the fact. We also have his involvement in the Batty Street lodger debacle to contend with.

Yes, there was a report that men applied to the WVC and were rejected...on the grounds that the WVC already had private investigators in their employ. And those men were Le Grand and Batchelor and possibly a third unnamed man.

For those interested, in the following year Le Grand would beat Batchelor in the open street as he seems to have been wont to do. Batchelor put a summons out on him but didn't pursue it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

I think we will have to wait for the book.

[GUT]

G'Day all

What I don't see is why Le Grand would make up, of all things, a grape stalk.

[Wickerman]

Hi Gut,

He couldn't have depended on dumb luck for a grape stalk to have been stuck in the gutter, so it stands to reason he planted it. There is absolute zero question that he was a con man and this was his M.O. However, I'm assuming there was actually a grapestalk. We're pretty much taking Le Grand's word for that. But I would imagine he made sure there was a crowd around to see that there was one. Courtesy of Packer, of course, and tucked up his sleeve until the moment of reveal.

Hi Wick. Le Grand worked for various newspapers off and on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What I am seeing Tom is this:

- LeGrand was a con-man, so he 'must' have planted the grape stalk.

- LeGrand was untrustworthy, so he 'must' have invented the lies about Packer, etc. in the press.

Something more dependable than a 'must' is required.

For Swanson to mention the grape stalk in his report means it existed, the fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief existed.
LeGrand didn't need to create some complex conspiracy, and he just as likely didn't.

[DRoy]

There are two possibilities about the grape story in the press. One is that nobody said it. It was press confusion. The other possibility is that somebody (probably Isaac) though he saw grapes but what he actually saw were the oblong blood clots which might have appeared as grapes under her closed hand (i.e. that she was holding them).

Tom,

Mortimer also told the press there were grapes but I don't believe she was quoted as saying she herself saw them. She could very well have been discussing what Isaac and Diemshitz had already said. I do find it interesting though that she brought it up at all.

Not that I believe the grape story, I believe you've killed it.

Cheers
DRoy

[The Good Michael]

No disputation here, but when Packer was asked about having seen anyone, I thought it was directly referring to the time he was closing shop at 12:30. I think the officer used words to the effect of, "Did you see anyone at that time."

The story about selling grapes at 11 PM came out several days later and yes, could have been a set-up by LeGrand. Unfortunately for Packer, he hadn't recognized the deceased either at the mortuary, so he becomes pretty much unreliable.

Mike

[Lechmere]

There are many explanations - such as that Le Grand found a grape stalk and wove a story around it, latching onto pre-existing grape rumours.
My interpretation is that Le Grand was a chancer and keen to be seen as an efficient Private Detective to enhance his employment prospects. I don't think he was ever employed by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and was endeavouring to ingratiate himself into their good books. There was a report around this time of two men trying to gain employment from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and they rejected them.

[Tom_Wescott]

The existence of the grape stalk appears to be a matter of fact (Swanson believed it), but how it got there is speculation.

1 - We can view the presence of the grape stalk in Dutfields Yard as supporting evidence for the claims of Diemschitz, Kozebrodski (and Packer?).

2 - We can suggest the grape stalk was planted by someone.

3 - We can argue that the grape stalk is unrelated to the crime that night, Packer sold grapes, anyone could have recently discarded it.

I'll say again that Diemshitz stated there was nothing in that hand. So he has no "claims" that need supporting. Kozebrodski spoke bad English and it would appear hat Diemshitz often did the talking for him. He was not wanted by the coroner at the inquest. And it's a simple fact, from the mouth of Packer himself, that he did not sell any grapes to a couple shortly before the murder. The entire Packer/Grape thing was an invention of Charles Le Grand who supported it by 'finding' a grape stalk in the gutter of Dutfield's Yard. There's actually better evidence of the Jersey Devil than there is that Stride was eating grapes before her death or that the police and witnesses engaged in a large conspiracy to cover-up the fact that she was holding grapes when found. Come on, guys.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Gut,

He couldn't have depended on dumb luck for a grape stalk to have been stuck in the gutter, so it stands to reason he planted it. There is absolute zero question that he was a con man and this was his M.O. However, I'm assuming there was actually a grapestalk. We're pretty much taking Le Grand's word for that. But I would imagine he made sure there was a crowd around to see that there was one. Courtesy of Packer, of course, and tucked up his sleeve until the moment of reveal.

Hi Wick. Le Grand worked for various newspapers off and on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott