William Grant Grainger and censorship

[DVV]

Many thanks Truebluedub,
one more source about Grainger, that's nice.
G was at a time my favorite suspect, and though I've changed my mind (mainly on the basis of the "story" of the attack), I still consider him a viable suspect.

Amitiés,
David

[truebluedub]

Since the print on the above is slightly small and unclear here's a transcription:

STABBING OUTRAGE IN LONDON - At Worship Street police court, London, a man named Grant was remanded on the charge of wounding in the abdomen Alice Graham in Butler Street, Spitalfields early on Sunday morning. A statement made in connection to the case gives a very serious aspect to the charge, and suspicions about "Jack the Ripper" murders have been aroused by the facts alleged to have come into possession of the police. A knife of the most peculiar pattern, marked with blood, was found thirty yards from the spot where the accused was found stooping over the woman, and there were clots of blood along the pavement between the injured woman and the place where the knife was found.

[truebluedub]

I haven't checked this thread in a while. I found this in the Irish Times of Saturday, February 16 1895 page 6
Chris Lowe

[Chris]

An interesting little postscript to Kebbell's advocacy of Grant/Grainger comes courtesy of Google News Archive Search. It seems to have appeared originally in the Pall Mall Gazette, but the report below is from a New Zealand newspaper, the Grey River Argus, of 30 June 1910.

[Chris]

Union, County, or Borough to which chargeable. St George's Union

It appears that when the Pall Mall Gazette article referred to Grant/Grainger having been removed to Banstead from Fulham Workhouse, it actually meant the Fulham Road Workhouse in St George's Union (covering Westminster and St George's, Hanover Square). Presumably the same goes for all the references to Fulham Workhouse in the article.

[Chris]

Here is the entry for Grant/Grainger in the admission register of Banstead Asylum. I think this is the only official record I've seen that calls him "Grainger" rather than "Grant". The information that he was a widower is also new to me.

No. in order of Admission 3602
Date of Admission [1891 Feb:] 12
CHRISTIAN AND SURNAME AT LENGTH. William Grainger
SEX. M.
AGE. 26
Condition as to Marriage. Widowed.
Condition of Life, and previous Occupation. Stoker
PREVIOUS PLACE OF ABODE. No fixed address
Union, County, or Borough to which chargeable. St George's Union
By whose authority sent. John Tilley 9 Feb 1891
Dates of Medical Certificates, and by whom signed. [1891 Feb] 9 H. W. Webster
Form of Mental Disorder. Has delusions of persecution and hallucinations of vision.
Supposed Cause of Insanity. Unknown
Bodily Condition and Name of Disease, (if any). Impaired
Duration of existing Attack. nine days
Age on First Attack. 26
Number of previous Attacks. [blank]
Date of Removal, Discharge or Death. 1891 Mar 26 [Recovered]
[Epileptics and Congenital Idiots columns left blank. No column for "Dangerous to others".]
[LMA H22/BAN/B/01/012]

[DVV]

Hi Martin,
to me, it's not exactly about "being wrong", it's rather about Anderson being a liar. If true, the Anderson's story should have been supported by, at least, a handful of people.

Amitiés,
David

[fido]

Just to make it crystal clear that I do not duck out of evidence challenging the reliability of Robert Anderson, let me say that, for me, the most inteesting part of the Grainger case is the newspaper report that a witness the police believed to have had a good sighting of the Ripper was called in to look at Grauinger.
This indicates that (i) Officers in charge of the Grainger case were not convinced, like Anderson, that the Ripper had been positively identified. (Grainger cannot have been Anderson's suspect, as he was not a poor Polish Jew).
(ii) The identifying witness may not have been as positive as Anderson, uncorrected by Swanson, believed.
Ergo, as I have said all along, "Anderson could have been wrong". This is, however, quite different from saying it shows Anderson WAS wrong, and it doesn't make error-filled Macnaghten, womb-seller suspecting Abberline or the completely unknown quantity Littlechild MORE reliable witnesses, let alone any non-police theorizers. I really look forward to hearing Alan Sharp on Special Branch and JtR at Knoxville, as with luck we may come away with a clearer of idea on how much weight to give Littlechild's opinion of Anderson.
All the best,
Martin F

[Chris]

And finally here is George Kebbell's closing riposte, published on 26 April.


"JACK THE RIPPER."
____________

THE PUBLIC AS POLICEMEN
____________

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

SIR,-At the risk of wearying your readers, the writer would beg to refer to one statement made by Dr. Forbes Winslow in this evening's "Pall Mall Gazette," not for the first time. "I could have caught him (Jack the Ripper) at 11 a.m. on a certain Sunday morning on St. Paul's steps." Then why in the world did he not do so?

There are times when every one is a policeman. The writer on one occasion, acting for certain firms who had been robbed, arrested, through his own agents, a certain well-known receiver of stolen goods, who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment; whilst, beyond taking the charge at the station, the police had nothing whatever to do with the matter. This course was quite open to Dr. Winslow.

Dr. Winslow says his practice of walking about in noiseless shoes has not attracted the attention of the police; but he cannot know this. However, that the Whitechapel murderer was perambulating Whitechapel in silent shoes during the time of these murders, when every one was a detective, and without inviting or receiving attention, is something Dr. Winslow may be disposed to believe, but will be seriously doubted by many, including yours truly,

GEORGE KEBBELL.

57, Gracechurch-street, E.C., April 25.

[Chris]

On 25 April Forbes Winslow retaliated again:



"JACK THE RIPPER."
______________

A CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
______________

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

SIR,-Mr. Kebbell, in discussing my communication relative to the above, writes in your issue of to-day :-

I suppose that it never occurred to Dr. Winslow that if anything would ensure the marked attention of the police it would be a man walking about the East End late at night in silent shoes.

This remark is made in reply to my statement that the pair of Canadian rubber shoes stained with blood which I had in my possession were worn by the murderer to enable him to move about unheard by any one.

Mr. Kebbell considers this a "remarkable suggestion" of mine. Noiseless shoes of the same description have for many years adorned my feet when engaged professionally or otherwise either in the West or East of London on rainy or snowy evenings. So far this fact has not attracted the "marked attention" of the police force. It would be a sorry sight if all who followed my example to protect themselves from cold were to engage the attention of the police.

There is one fact which for the moment had escaped my memory, and which is of importance to show that I had the proper clue. In October, 1888, I received a letter stating that a murder would be committed on November 9. On that morning, whilst the public were welcoming the entry of the Lord Mayor into the City, the newspaper boys were yelling in the streets, "Horrible tragedy in Whitechapel." On that day Mary Jane Kelly had been sent to her last account by "Jack the Ripper," this murder having been perpetrated in Miller's-court, Dorset-street, Whitechapel.

From August that year until July 17, 1889, there were no more murders committed. The murderer had had a lucid interval. I was brought into contact with the woman who had, on July 18, the following morning, on his return home about 3 a.m., seen the man washing the blood off his hands at a pump in the yard belonging to the house in which I had traced him.

From July 17 to August 30 I was occupied in completing my clue. One habit he had was to leave behind at his various lodgings voluminous accounts of his views of immorality, written on foolscap. I had many of these in my possession at the time.

In conclusion I would state emphatically :-

1st. That Jack the Ripper was traced by me from lodging to lodging.

2nd. That after each murder he left his lodgings, and I received pieces of ribbon and feathers from the hats of his victims.

3rd. That he was a homicidal religious monomaniac.

4th. That I knew his customs and habits and his haunts. That I could have caught him at eleven a.m. on a certain Sunday on St. Paul's steps.

5th. That I offered to communicate this to the police after completing my clue, and that they refused to listen to what I had to tell them, or, in other words, to test my views.

6th, That after the police declined to adopt my suggestions I published my clue, after giving them due warning of what I intended doing, and that from that time up to the present no more murders were committed.-Faithfully yours,

April 23. FORBES WINSLOW.

[Chris]

The next exciting instalment - on 23 April, George Kebbell responds. (It would be interesting to see the "articles appearing in various of the London daily newspapers" commenting on Grant's case "within the last few years". Cf Grant's statement, quoted in Forbes Winslow's book, that his solicitor "ever since then" [1895] "has been publishing letters in the press to the same effect" [i.e. that he was Jack the Ripper].)



"JACK THE RIPPER."
______________

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

SIR,-Dr. Forbes Winslow in last night's "Pall Mall Gazette" asks why the writer has kept the secret for twenty years. It was no secret at the time, and even within the last few years there have been articles appearing in various of the London daily newspapers commenting on the case of the man defended by the writer, and recognising that this man was the murderer.

Dr. Winslow adds: The professional etiquette existing between solicitor and client can be no reason for my remaining silent; but he can rest assured that if the information had come to me from my client; and my client alone, the secret would have died with me. I have simply stated what was common knowledge.

After reading Dr. Winslow's letter, the one thing that astonished me was to note that he admits that I am entitled to "an opinion."

However, the most remarkable suggestion Dr. Winslow up to the present has made is that Jack the Ripper wore rubber-soled shoes "to enable him to walk about without making a noise." I suppose it never occurred to Dr. Winslow that if anything would ensure the marked attention of the police it would be a man walking about the East End late at night in silent shoes.-Your obedient servant,

GEORGE KEBBELL.

57, Gracechurch-street, E.C., April 22.

[DVV]

Thanks Chris,
typical Forbes 'style...
It seems that no journalist made any attempt to clarify the alledged 1895's identification, which certainly is the best evidence against "Grainger the Ripper" (more than the asault of A Graham, which seems to bear some dissimilarities with JtR MO).

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

So many thanks, Chris,
though all that (interesting) stuff does not strengthen the candidacy of one of my well-loved suspects ...

Certainly Kebbell seems not to have had a very accurate grasp of the details, and despite his hints that Grant had confided relevant information to him, the stated grounds for his suspicion seem pretty flimsy.

There were four more exchanges between George Kebbell and Forbes Winslow, which I shall carry on posting gradually.

On 21 April, Forbes Winslow retaliated against his critics.



"JACK THE RIPPER."
____________

DR. FORBES WINSLOW AND THE POLICE
____________

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

SIR,-After an interval of twenty years it is a very difficult thing to recall to recollection all the substantial facts connected with the above case.

In reply to the communication I sent to Scotland Yard offering to catch Jack the Ripper on a certain Sunday morning on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral, I received a polite refusal from the police to co-operate with me. I had so many interviews with various members of the force at that time, and had so much correspondence, that I am unable to say positively whether the refusal was made in writing or verbally. I believe I received a letter. If so my request and the refusal will be found among the archives in Scotland Yard, if such treasures are preserved after this lapse of time.

As to whether the police were justified in their action may be an open question; in other words, ought they to have listened to the intelligent assistance of "any masters outside the force," to quote Mr. Kebbell, and to him it appears my reflections on the police were undeserved. He is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I beg in every way to differ from his views.

The man whom I am absolutely positive was Jack the Ripper was not Mr. G. Kebbell's client. He was not a Jew, as was stated by Sir Robert Anderson. I have a full description of him in my possession.

The Canadian snow shoes with rubber soles were worn by Jack the Ripper to enable him to walk about without making a noise. The photograph of the original snow shoes I have among my curiosities. I myself wear a pair of these shoes in winter to protect my feet from the snow and slosh in the London streets, and your correspondent "Olaf," if he is not blind, must have seen the same in London.

Mr. Kebbell, in his remarks to the effect that I can "congratulate myself" in doing nothing to assist the police, speaks without any knowledge of what I really did in this matter. All London were alarmed at the time at these dreadful murders occurring periodically. I did more than any man living to ferret out the mystery and to capture the madman. After I had completed my clue and Jack the Ripper was entangled in my web, and when in a few hours the monster would have been in the hands of the police, I was left in the lurch by Scotland Yard.

I now ask what has Mr. Kebbell done in the matter? He maintains that Jack the Ripper was his client. If so, why has he kept this to himself for twenty years? The professional etiquette existing between solicitor and client can hardly be an answer to this.

There were not two Jack the Rippers in the field; the veritable and only one is the one of whose identity I have every possible proof.-Faithfully yours,

FORBES WINSLOW.

57, Devonshire-street, W., April 20.

[DVV]

So many thanks, Chris,
though all that (interesting) stuff does not strengthen the candidacy of one of my well-loved suspects...
I start thinking of WGG with something like nostalgy...

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

Kebbell's letter was accompanied by one from an ally, calling himself "Olaf" and perhaps purporting to come from Scandinavia (not much changes in the world of Ripper polemic!):


SIR,-In the communication from Dr. Forbes Winslow about Jack the Ripper I read :-

"and a pair of Canadian rubber snow-shoes."

Now, Canada I know, snowshoes I know, and rubber shoes I know, but rubber snowshoes are a combination beyond me. I wonder has Dr. Forbes Winslow the faintest idea what a snowshoe is, or what it looks like. If he has, will he tell us of what use a snowshot would be on London pavements.-Yours etc.,

April 19. OLAF.