William Grant Grainger and censorship

[Debra A]

Thanks for all this information, Chris.
Excellent work, as always.

[Chris]

First, here is the indictment for his trial at the Central Criminal Court in 1895, with the list of witnesses on the back [CRIM 4/1118, no 62].

This answers one question that was asked over the way on jtrforums.com - who was the prison warder, who identified the knife as one that had belonged to Grant/Grainger when he was in custody for a similar offence at Holloway?

A search in the 1901 census for the last-but-one name on the list of witnesses, Alfred Wallington, brings up a man of that name described as a
Prison Warder, aged 37, born at St James, London, living with his wife Harriet at 438 Caledonian Road, Lower Holloway, Islington.

In 1891 he was recorded as Alfred H. Wallington, Prison Warder, living with Harriet at 5 Pentonville Cottages, Lower Holloway. Apparently he was the Alfred Henry Wallington who married Harriet Jane Crawford at Wandsworth in the first quarter of 1890.

[Chris]

The recent discussion about William Grant on jtrforums.com relates to Jabez Spencer Balfour's account of a Ripper suspect, which was quoted by Tom Wescott in his article "Le Grand: The New Prime Suspect," in Casebook number 2 last year.

Balfour said the suspect was a fellow prisoner who had been pointed out to him "at Portland, and afterwards at Parkhurst." Tom identified this prisoner as Charles Le Grand, who served time at both Portland and Parkhurst. If I understand correctly, the fact that Le Grand served time at Portland was a deduction from a newspaper report from 1892 which described a prisoner at Portland, unnamed but identifiable from the description of his crime as Le Grand. Balfour and Le Grand are known to have been at Parkhurst Prison at the same time, as they are both listed there in the 1901 census.

Recently Debra Arif suggested the alternative possibility that the man pointed out to Balfour might have been William Grant, who was also at Parkhurst at the date of the 1901 census:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=12794

However, Grant was not known to have served time at Portland; nor, for that matter, was Le Grand known to have been at Portland at the same time as Balfour.

Jabez Spencer Balfour's book, "My Prison Life" (1907) is available at the Internet Archive:

http://www.archive.org/details/myprisonlife00balfgoog

According to this account, he was admitted to Portland on 10 June 1896 (pp. 52, 64), and remained there until 8 November 1897 (p. 104).

Today I checked the Home Office correspondence register for 1896 (HO 46/117) for details of Criminal Petitions received in that year. Le Grand seems to have been a prolific writer of petitions. There were no fewer than four from him, under the name Charles Grande - on 23/27 February, 22 May, 20 July and 28 September. This is definitely the right Grande, because the file number - 66343 - is the same one that is written beside his name in the Calendar of Prisoners for 1891 (HO 140/130). All four were written from Portland, so Le Grand was indeed at that prison at the same time as Balfour.

There is also a petition, on 28 May, from one W. Grant. Again, we can check that this is the man we are interested in because the file number - A57340 - is the same one that appears beside his name in the Calendar of Prisoners for 1895 (HO 140/162). And this petition was also written from Portland. The date is less than a fortnight before that of Balfour's arrival, so we can be fairly certain that William Grant, too, was at Portland with Balfour.

Below is an extract from the register, showing the records of Le Grand/Grande's and Grant's petitions in May:

[Colin Roberts]

I posted the following, yesterday, in JTRForums.com:

The St. George Hanover Square Union Workhouse, Fulham Road, Parish of St. Luke Chelsea: The so-called 'Fulham Road Workhouse'

I had a quick look for Grainger in the Fullham Workhouse records (well, the records of the workhouse on Fullham Rd if that is the right one?) Not come across him there yet though.

A bit confusing this one.
Fulham Workhouse was on Fulham Palace Road. The workhouse that is on Fulham Road is St George Hanover Square Workhouse. So that may be why you haven't found him yet.

There are three Poor Law Constituencies / Registration Districts that are involved, - in some way, shape, or form - in this somewhat confusing set of circumstances:

Populations, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891

Fulham Poor Law Union / Registration District
- The Parish of St. Paul Hammersmith: 97,239
- The Parish of All Saints Fulham: 91,639

Total: 188,878

~~~

Chelsea Poor Law Parish / Registration District
- The Parish of St. Luke Chelsea: 96,253

Total: 96,253

~~~

St. George Hanover Square Poor Law Union / Registration District
- The Parish of St. George Hanover Square, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 78,364
- The Combined Parish of St. Margaret & St. John the Evangelist, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 55,539
----- {The Parish of St. Margaret, Liberty of the City of Westminster: 21,433}
--------- {The Parish of St. Margaret (Detached), Liberty of the City of Westminster: ?}
--------- {The Parish of St. Margaret, City of Westminster¹: ?}
----- {The Parish of St. John the Evangelist, City of Westminster¹: 34,106}
- The Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, City of Westminster¹: 235

Total: 134,138

¹ The City of Westminster, which consisted of the 'base' portion (i.e. the non-detached portion) of the Parish of St. Margaret, the Parish of St. John the Evangelist, and the Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, was situated within the boundaries of the Liberty of the City of Westminster.

The so-called 'Fulham Road Workhouse' belonged to neither the Fulham Poor Law Union, nor the Chelsea Poor Law Parish - i.e. the parish, in which it was situated; but, instead, belonged to the St. George Hanover Square Poor Law Union.

~~~

I will expound on this somewhat confusing set of circumstances, as it is actually more of an 'anomaly' than the seemingly typical instances of ... let's say ... the Whitechapel Union Workhouse being situated within the boundaries of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town.

I will do this, when I am able to set aside the necessary amount of time.

~~~

But, for now; the 'bottom line':

The Pall Mall Gazette references, ...

These are the dates Grainger was in the workhouses according to the PMG ...

[ATTACH]12206[/ATTACH]

... to "Fulham Workhouse" are very misleading.

They would suggest, more or less, that prior to his admissions thereto, and upon his discharges therefrom, Grainger was spending his time in the vicinity of 'Fulham'.

However, I am inclined to believe that he was probably spending that time in the City of Westminster, in the vicinity of 'Millbank'.

--- More to Follow ---

[lynn cates]

good work

Hello Chris. Lovely work! Thanks for posting this.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Next, here is the entry from the register of licences, recording his early release on 30 September 1902. If I am interpreting the remarks correctly, the licence was revoked on 4 November 1904 and he was sent to Wandsworth Prison a few days later [PCOM 6/21, entry 62243].

[Chris]

Here are a couple more documents relating to Grant.

First, here is the indictment for his trial at the Central Criminal Court in 1895, with the list of witnesses on the back [CRIM 4/1118, no 62].

[Debra A]

Thank you very much for posting these workhouse records, Chris.

[Chris]

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.

I noted the following from the Fulham Road Workhouse creed register a couple of years ago but never got around to posting it. In the light of the interesting discussion on jtrforums.com I'm doing so now:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=12794

f. 73
No. of Case. 86
NAMES. Grainger William
Class. 1
When Born 1864
Parish. [M]
Occupation. Stoker
Description. [Single]
Religious Creed. [C. England]
Name of Informant. Self
Observations. Badderly
Date of
Admission. 3 Sept 89
Discharge. 27 Sep. 89
Date of
Admission. Badderly / 28 Sep 898
Discharge. Infy 8 Oct 89
Date of
Admission. Badderly / 24 Oct. 90
Discharge. 29 Oct 90
Date of
Admission. [?]West / 22 Nov 90
Discharge. 4 Dec. 90
Date of
Admission. Elkerton / 30 Jan. 91
Discharge. 12 Feb 91
Date of
Admission. To Banstead Asylum
Discharge.
Date of
Admission. Wray / 26 Mch 91
Discharge. 26 Mch 91
Date of
Admission. Badderly / 18 Apl 91
Discharge. 22 Apl 91
[Columns for further dates left blank]
[Fulham Road Workhouse (St George's Union) Creed register 1889-1890, WeBG/SG/121/9]

[DVV]

Thanks so much, Chris and Chris,

Kebble really seems convinced...
However, as I remember the circumstances of the attack, they do not fit at all the Ripper MO.

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

That version continues with the contribution from Forbes Winslow that was published by the Pall Mall Gazette on 19 April, posted above:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...0&postcount=24

I should say that the part of the article on Forbes Winslow is the same in essence at the 19 April contribution, but seems to have been reworded pretty extensively.

I was flabbergasted to read Kebble's claim that Grant "had removed parts of the body which had always been the objects of attack in the earlier cases". No wonder people were surprised that she recovered!

But seriously, I think this recalls the original subject of the thread, which was why the evidence in the case was considered "unfit for publication". The most explicit statement I can see about the injury was that it was an "internal wound".

[Chris Scott]

Hi Chris
That's the one!
Thanks for posting so I can transcribe for the Press Reports
The version I saw also had a long bit about Forbes Winslow but it was the "Canadian Moccasin" sory again
Chris S

[Chris]

Chris

Thanks for posting this. At genealogybank.com I found another version of the same report, from the Beaumont Enterprise and Journal of 15 May 1910, in which the illegible section reads as follows:



That version continues with the contribution from Forbes Winslow that was published by the Pall Mall Gazette on 19 April, posted above:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=36290&postcount=24

[Chris Scott]

Earlier in the thread there was mention of George Kebble's statement.
This article (with unfortunately a damaged section) may be of interest

Spartanburg Herald Journal
15 May 1910

CURIOUS CONTROVERY ARISES OVER RIPPER MURDERS IN LONDON

London, May 14.
A curious controvery has arisen over the "Ripper" murders.
Sir Robert Anderson, ex assistant commissioner of the metropolitan police, has declared that the assassin of the unfortunate Whitechapel and Spitalfields women was a Jew, and that the police could not get evidence because those of his race who knew of his guilt refused to give evidence.
Mr. George Kebble, the well known city solicitor, yesterday declared that this was inaccurate, and that the man arrested proved to be of Irish birth, was found guilty of the minor charge (his victim recovering), and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Mr. Kebble added that he believed the man died in prison.
Seen at his office, Mr. Kebble told your representative his reasons for contradicting Sir Robert Anderson.
"I cannot understand him making that statement about a Jew," he remarked, "because he must remember the circumstances perfectly well.
"Moreover, he must have had the knife with which the man attacked the woman, a very curious weapon, and if it is not in the criminal museum has probable got it still.
"The newspapers came out one afternoon with the bills announcing 'Arrest of the Ripper.' Next morning someone who had interested himself in the matter asked me to represent the man.
"When he was brought up at the Old Worship Street police court I found that the woman was in such a critical condition that we all expected he would have to answer the capital charge.
"He had been caught in the very act of mutilation, with the knife in his hand, and he had removed parts of the body which had always been the objects of attack in the earlier cases.
"To the surprise of every one the woman recovered, and as the police could not obtain evidence to convict the man of the murder he was for the time charged with the minor offence.
"When he was committed for that I got into communication with his friends.....

ILLEGIBLE SECTION

He had been under suspicion some time before he was arrested, and that was how they were able to get him."
"Have you any doubt from your knowledge of the case, as his legal representative, that he was the guilty man?" Mr. Kebble was asked, and he immediately replied with emphasis;
"I have no doubt whatever; it was always assumed that he was the man. And the most significant is that there were no more murders."

[Chris]

In his book, Recollections of Forty Years (1910), Forbes Winslow writes that after Kebbell had refused an invitation to his house for a face-to-face meeting with Grant, "I attended at Bow Street the next day, with Grant in attendance, and made an application to the presiding magistrate to stop this unjustifiable cruelty in stating that Grant was Jack the Ripper. The magistrate said it was actionable, and, having fully informed him of the circumstances connected with my application, I withdrew."

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.winslow.html

Courtesy of Google News Archive Search, here are some brief press reports from New Zealand concerning Grant's meeting with the magistrate, based on Press Association material. No doubt it was more fully reported by the Pall Mall Gazette.

JACK THE RIPPER MURDERS.
The man mentioned by Mr George Kebbell was visited by Dr. Forbes Winslow. He will make a statement before the Bow Street Magistrate today that he was not connected with the "Ripper" murders, and denying the mutilation of a woman, for which he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He will add that the authors of the outrage were hooligans, who attacked him.
[Ashburton Guardian, 27 July 1910
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...AG19100727.2.2]

"JACK THE RIPPER" CASE.
LONDON, 27th July.
Mr. R. H. Bullock-Marsham, Police Magistrate at the Bow-street Court, stated that Dr. Forbes Winslow's protege, mentioned yesterday, might sue the writers of any slanderous letters in the newspapers connecting him with the "Jack-the-Ripper" murders.
[Evening Post, 28 July 1910
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...P19100728.2.69]