William Grant Grainger-Suspect or folly

[Michael W Richards]

Many who study these cases are interested in Andersons story of the Seaside Home ID, that a witness for a Ripper murder was brought before someone held in a asylum or rest home and refused to identify him as the man he saw that night because they both were Jewish. Its an interesting possibility, and certainly re-enforces Andersons contention that it was "ascertained" that the killer was a Polish Jew.

But there is another case where a witness said to have been the only person to see the Ripper with a victim was brought before someone under arrest for a vaguely similar crime to see if an ID was possible. Another situation where the witness would likely be Schwartz or Lawende, the difference here is that this is in 1895. 7 years after the spree ended. Is this just an example of grasping at straws, is it related to the renewed Ripper interest due to the articles about Cutbush published in 1894, or is it that they decided after already having him in custody for stabbing a prostitute's abdomen in Spitalfields for a few months that it was still worth a try despite the length of time that had elapsed.

Like other "suspects" it cannot be definitively ascertained that he was even in London that Fall, but this case is interesting in that Graingers own lawyer wrote a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette stating the following; "Jack the Ripper was not a Jew, but an Irishman, educated for the medical profession, and for reasons disowned by his relatives. This man was caught in the very act, in an alley in Spitalfields".

I bring this up because Grainger is not often mentioned in the suspect discussions and it seems to me that this is only the 2nd time the police openly discussed bringing a witness in who they believe saw the victim with the Ripper just before their death. A story claims this time the witness "unhesitatingly" ID'd Grainger as the man he saw.

Is Grainger "Suspect" material?

[Scott Nelson]

I don't think the PMG piece (7 May 1895) uses the word "unhesitatingly" to describe the confrontation with the witness. In fact, I've never come across this story except in the PMG piece. This leads me to wonder if there was a witness at all in the Grainger case. Maybe the police were just feeding this story to the press.

[Abby Normal]

Many who study these cases are interested in Andersons story of the Seaside Home ID, that a witness for a Ripper murder was brought before someone held in a asylum or rest home and refused to identify him as the man he saw that night because they both were Jewish. Its an interesting possibility, and certainly re-enforces Andersons contention that it was "ascertained" that the killer was a Polish Jew.

But there is another case where a witness said to have been the only person to see the Ripper with a victim was brought before someone under arrest for a vaguely similar crime to see if an ID was possible. Another situation where the witness would likely be Schwartz or Lawende, the difference here is that this is in 1895. 7 years after the spree ended. Is this just an example of grasping at straws, is it related to the renewed Ripper interest due to the articles about Cutbush published in 1894, or is it that they decided after already having him in custody for stabbing a prostitute's abdomen in Spitalfields for a few months that it was still worth a try despite the length of time that had elapsed.

Like other "suspects" it cannot be definitively ascertained that he was even in London that Fall, but this case is interesting in that Graingers own lawyer wrote a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette stating the following; "Jack the Ripper was not a Jew, but an Irishman, educated for the medical profession, and for reasons disowned by his relatives. This man was caught in the very act, in an alley in Spitalfields".

I bring this up because Grainger is not often mentioned in the suspect discussions and it seems to me that this is only the 2nd time the police openly discussed bringing a witness in who they believe saw the victim with the Ripper just before their death. A story claims this time the witness "unhesitatingly" ID'd Grainger as the man he saw.

Is Grainger "Suspect" material?

just barely. i have him as a long shot. 6-7 years out makes it a tad nebulous for me.
but tje witness was most likely lawende. a dissected body in tje street describes eddowes, not stride, so it couldnt have been schwartz.

[Lewis C]

For me, Grainger is a viable suspect, one of the top 20 suspects, but not top 10. The reasons for suspecting him are pretty well given in the opening post of this thread. On the other hand, it doesn't seem very Ripper-like for him to have started by attacking the abdomen rather than strangling her or cutting her throat first. It is unknown where he was during the C5 murders, but he is known to have been in Ireland shortly before the murders began and shortly after they ended. As opposed to some of the suspects who are known to have lived in the Whitechapel area at the time of the murders, and others known to have lived in the London area.

[Kattrup]

Grainger is a viable suspect, in my opinion. It would be very interesting to know where he was in 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think the PMG piece (7 May 1895) uses the word "unhesitatingly" to describe the confrontation with the witness. In fact, I've never come across this story except in the PMG piece. This leads me to wonder if there was a witness at all in the Grainger case. Maybe the police were just feeding this story to the press.

The quote is from an excerpt on an article on this site. https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...morley/71.html. I havent seen that referenced article myself, if you say the word "unhesitatingly" doesnt appear in that, then Im ok with accepting your word. However, that in and of itself does not indicate that the viewing did not take place. The fact that Grainger attacked a prostitute with a knife and cut her abdomen, coupled with the fact that the probable reality is none of the investigative officers actually had any idea who Jack was in 1895, might have led them to see if they could get a witness ID. In both cases, the Seaside Home story and this story, they still maintained a belief they had a witness who saw Jack with a victim just before she was killed. Everyone believes this is either Schwartz or Lawende, but for me, Schwartz's absence from the Inquest in any format, and the remarks Lawende made about what he saw, indicate that perhaps neither of these men is who they relied on for that belief.