William Grant Grainger and censorship

[truebluedub]

What makes the evidence in Grainger's trial unfit for publication in the Old Bailey's proceedings while the press could print lurid details on the Ripper's crimes. Here's the link to see for yourself: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...-318#highlight

Kind regards,
Chris Lowe

p.s. has anyone confirmed whether WGG was in the Cork workhouse during the Autumn of terror.

[Christine]

Probably because there were living women on the stand talking about having a knife stuck into their privates, possibly suffering permanent mutilations.

Jack's victims were beyond embarrassment, plus they were streetwalkers to begin with.

[Stephen Thomas]

Does anyone have information on Grainger?

http://www.comedy-zone.net/triviazone/crime/page3.htm

[truebluedub]

Hi Stephen,
Grainger was born in Cork in 1858 and went to see in 1873, he joined Cork City Artillery in 1883 and was dismissed from them in 1889 for being of bad character. From 1887-1889 he was in and out of Cork and Fulham Workhouses. As the court transcript says in 1895 he was found guilty of assaulting Alice Grahame. Newsreports show the nature of this attack was slashing her abdomen. According to the Pall Mall Gazette he was i.d.ed by an eyewitness to one of JTR's crimes. Sugden has concluded this was Lawende.
In 1910 his lawyer, Kebbel, claimed Grainger had died and was JTR while Forbes Winslow claimed that he had been cleared. Both said he had medical training.

Kind Regards,
Chris Lowe

[Debra A]

p.s. has anyone confirmed whether WGG was in the Cork workhouse during the Autumn of terror.

Hi Chris,
These are the dates Grainger was in the workhouses according to the PMG article you mentioned.



Debs

[truebluedub]

Thanks Debra

[DVV]

Hi all,
about WGG's whereabouts, this extract from The Times, March 28 (1895): He had been traced backwards and forwards between London and Cork workhouses."
[/I]Intriguing comings and goings, may be. Could this really refer to 1888? (Then we could imagine our man travelling restessly from Cork to London...)

According to one document found out by Chris Scott and shared on boards (2003), WGG was born in 1860, which seems to be confirmed by The Times, in which he is said to be 34 in March 1895. 1858 comes from the A Z, I think. Anyway, both suits JtR.

As to Forbes Winslow's statement that WGG has been cleared, it is worth to remind Forbes personnality. At least a little bit cranky...
As far as we know, WGG has not been cleared by Lawende, nor by his whereabouts "between London and Cork workhouses", as stated in court.
So what could have happen next?

Really a good suspect (unfortunately some 1895 articles about him are not available in casebook), and apart from his suspect'status, there is much to say about Lawende's identification...


Amitiés,
DVV (broken-English poster)

[DVV]

Just forgot to notice the little problem I have with WGG's name.
So, as showed by Dabra A (many thanks, I was eager to read it), PMG gives "Grainger", while in The Times says "William Grant", indicating Grant as the surname. The same in 1901 census from the Parkhurst prison: William Grant.
So, William Grant Grainger or William Grainger Grant?
I mean: WGG or WGG?

Both would be welcome, if found in a London workhouse record...

Thanks again,
David.

[Chris]

I thought it might be useful to post the full text of the article in the Pall Mall Gazette, 7 May 1895:

A WHITECHAPEL "RIPPING" CASE.
__________
EXHAUSTIVE POLICE INQUIRIES.
__________
SOME CURIOUS COINCIDENCES.
__________
Since the cessation of the Whitechapel murders there has been no lack of theories accounting for the disappearance of the author of those crimes, "Jack the Ripper," as he is called, in consequence of a series of letters so signed, purporting, rightly or wrongly, to come from the murderer. The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead. Latterly, however, the police have been busy investigating the case of William Grant Grainger, who was caught in the act of wounding a woman in the abdomen, in a street close by Buck's-row, the scene of the first of the real series of Whitechapel murders, those outrages in which the victims were killed and left horribly mutilated in the streets. Grainger's crime so much resembled the former outrages that infinite pains were taken to trace his antecedents. Nothing was found, however, to warrant placing him upon his trial for any previous outrage, and on March 27 last he was brought up at the Old Bailey charged with feloniously wounding Alice Graham. Police-constable Fraser related that at two in the morning on February 10 he was in Butler-street, Spitalfields, and heard a moaning. He went to the bottom of the street, and in Tenter-street found the woman Graham lying on the pavement, bleeding. The prisoner was stooping over her, and another constable was approaching from the other end of the street, blocking the prisoner's egress. On seeing Fraser, prisoner stood up and stepped away a few feet. The woman, who alleged she was bleeding to death, was taken on an ambulance to the hospital, and Fraser arrested the man, who

SAID NOTHING UNTIL ON THE WAY TO THE STATION,

when he volunteered remarks to the effect that the woman had been extortionate. The officer afterwards returned to the spot and found a knife. The woman's story, as she subsequently related it, was that the man was a stranger to her, except that she had previously seen him treating women. On the night of the stabbing she had met him in the street at 10.30, and had wandered about with him from public-house to lodging-house, trying to get a room. It was while on the way to a coffee-house in White's-row at two in the morning that prisoner dragged her down "some yard," as she described it, threw her on the ground, and ripped her in the stomach. She was quite sober, she asserted, and although prisoner had been drinking he was not drunk. The house-surgeon at the London Hospital described the wound as a serious one, but not dangerous to life. It was an inch and three-quarters long. The Recorder, declaring that the facts would have fully justified a verdict of wounding with intent to murder, had such an indictment been preferred, sentenced Grainger to ten years' penal servitude. There the matter rests, and must rest doubtless for all time; but the results of the police inquiries concerning the prisoner are, perhaps, worth recording. He is a man of about 37, 5 ft. 10 in. in height, slim-built, with grey eyes, pale complexion, no beard, and a black moustache. He has scars on cheek and throat, and dancing women, crowns, anchors, and so on, tattooed on his arms and hands. He was born at Cork, and left home at the age of fifteen to go to sea. In December, 1883, he enlisted in the Cork City Artillery, and attended the trainings annually from 1884 to 1889 inclusively. In 1889 he was discharged, his character being bad. The

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS OCCURRED CHIEFLY IN 1888,

but of course there is nothing inconsistent with Grainger being in London during 1888 as well as at his artillery training, for that training only lasted one month or less. But although there is nothing inconsistent with his presence in London in 1888, there is nothing to prove that he was here, and nothing, indeed, to prove where he was at all. He desribes himself as a ship's fireman, but the ships he has been on cannot be traced. His mother is unable to give the name of any ship, and states that for years he has not stayed with her for longer than a week at a time once in two years. When in Ireland, according to a Royal Irish Constabulary report from Cork, he had been known to associate with loose women, and had been frequently stripped and robbed by them; and the last time he was with his mother he told her that about four years before his clothes were all stolen from him at Whitechapel. Even this does not give any idea whether he was in Whitechapel in 1888, because the mother cannot say how long ago it was that he spoke of the incident, which had occurred four years earlier. All the police could do was to compare the dates of the Whitechapel murders with the dates on which Grainger's whereabouts were known, with this result :-

May 16, 1888-July 7, 1888. - Grainger in Cork Workhouse.
July 9, 1888-August 4, 1888. - Grainger with the militia at Cork.
August 7, 1888. - Murder of the woman Turner, who was found dead with thirty-nine stabs, apparently bayonet wounds - a crime which is generally classed with the "Ripper" series, although it has a marked difference from the rest.
August 31, 1888. - Murder of the woman Nicholls in Buck's-row.
Sept. 8. - Murder of the woman Chapman in Hanbury-street.
Sept. 30. - Murders of the woman Stride in Berner's-street, and Edowes in Mitre-square.
Nov. 9, 1888. - Murder of the woman Kelly in Miller's-court.
March 25, 1889-April 9. - Grainger in Cork Workhouse.
April 23-June 6, 1899. - Grainger again in Cork Workhouse.
June 10-July 6, 1889. - Grainger with the Cork Militia.
July 17, 1889. - Murder of Alice McKenzie in Castle-alley.
Sept. 3-Oct. 8, 1889. - Grainger in Fulham Workhouse.
Sept. 10, 1889. - Discovery of a human trunk under an arch in Pinchin-street.
Jan. 29, 1890-March 5. - Grainger in Cork Workhouse.
Oct. 24-Oct. 29. - Grainger in Fulham Workhouse.
Nov. 22-Dec. 4. - Grainger again in Fulham Workhouse.
Jan. 30, 1891-Feb. 12. - Grainger again in Fulham Workhouse.

On February 12, the man was removed to Banstead Asylum, where he was detained until March 26. After that he is traced once more to Fulham Workhouse, yet again to Cork Workhouse, to St. Pancras Workhouse in 1893, to Stepney police cells in custody for drunkenness in 1894, and to Spitalfields cells for drunkenness last January. It will be noticed that

GRAINGER'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR

at the time of each of the undoubted Whitechapel murders, the murders accompanied by mutilation. But on the 10th September, when the Pinchin-street corpse was found, and on 13th February, 1891, when the body of Frances Coleman was discovered in Swallow-gardens, Grainger was, on the former occasion, in Fulham Workhouse, and on the latter in Banstead Asylum. It is a little curious, therefore, to find, on referring back to the newspaper reports of those two cases, that both of these at the time were regarded by many as having no connection with the "Ripper" crimes. Both were absolutely different in their characteristics from the former murders. The body of Coleman was left unmutilated, for instance. Added to these circumstances, there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable; and the enquiries were at length pulled up in a cul-de-sac. We have not given this statement with any view of holding a brief against Grainger. On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing at all tangible to show that he ever stabbed any woman besides Alice Graham. But the statement may not prove uninteresting as a record of the enormous pains which the police devote to anything like a clue to that series of crimes, which will doubtless remain an impenetrable mystery for all time. One other small step may be suggested, for it does not appear to have been taken. Cannot a specimen of Grainger's handwriting be compared with some of the "Ripper" letters? There could be nothing conclusive about it, because, of course, the authenticity of those letters is regarded, rightly, with the greatest distrust. But it would, all the same, be an interesting experiment.

[Chris]

I think there are a number of interesting things in that report.

Apart from the factual information about William Grant (is he ever called "Grainger" elsewhere?) and his crime - and the statements that the "one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer" had identified him, and that Swanson, as early as 1895, "believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead" - I think that, as the author of the article says, it is interesting "as a record of the enormous pains which the police devote to anything like a clue to that series of crimes" - and were still devoting more than a year after Macnaghten wrote his memoranda.

I am not clear how much was said in court about the possibility of a connection to the Ripper crimes. The Times, 28 March 1895, reported a comment of the prosecuting counsel that "the crime bore a strange resemblance to the Jack the Ripper murders, and the police had turned their attention to the matter without result", and also the claim that Grant had described himself as a "ship's engineer" (but that this had not been confirmed), had been traced backwards and forwards between the London and Cork workhouses and had been in an asylum.

But surely the bulk of the detailed information could not have been presented in court, and must have been passed to the author of the article by a police contact. It would be interesting to know why it was thought worthwhile to pass all those names and dates (including some errors) to the press, unless someone still thought, after all that investigation, that Grant might have been involved in the Whitechapel murders.

[Scott Nelson]

There are no police records of Grant's attempted identification as well. Maybe he didn't pan out very well as a suspect.

[Chris]

There are no police records of Grant's attempted identification as well. Maybe he didn't pan out very well as a suspect.

Fair enough, but as far as I know there are no police records of Grant being investigated at all in relation to the Ripper murders. I don't know whether any of the information in the report has been verified, but it seems unlikely to have been invented, so I assume it's correct that the police did go to considerable lengths to trace Grant's movements.

The thing is that apart from this article, we wouldn't have any plausible indication that the police considered Grant seriously as a suspect. I can't help wondering how many other police suspects there were that we just don't know about - and just how long the police went on investigating people in this way.

[DVV]

I agree, Chris,
the fact that the PMG article (7 May 1895) prudently states: "But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable", strongly indicates that the story is not a journalist's invention.
"So lapse an interval" might also explain why no police officials (involved in the ripper's chase in 1888) have expressed opinions "in favour" of WGG.
Some of them were no more active, some others had already expressed their own theory, and perhaps in 1895 some others were not eager to talk about the matter, who was a complete failure for the Yard.

Amitiés,
DVV

[DVV]

In 1910 his lawyer, Kebbel, claimed Grainger had died and was JTR


Chris Lowe

Hi Chris and all,
where is Kebbel's statement to be found?
Thanks,
Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

where is Kebbel's statement to be found?

Apparently it was in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette (15 April 1910), to which Forbes Winslow responded (19 April 1910). That information was posted by Wolf Vanderlinden in 2003. I assume more information has been published - somewhere - on Grant than I'm aware of.

Kebbel's letter was referred to in the "Mentor" column in the Jewish Chronicle, 22 April 1910, as follows:

It will be remembered that the statement made by Sir Robert Anderson, in the course of a series of articles contributed to Blackwood's, to the effect that "Jack the Ripper" was a Jew, was referred to by the present writer in this column. My chief object in calling attention to Sir Robert Anderson's assertion was to contest his placing upon our community the double ignominy of producing a monster like "Jack the Ripper" and the further statement that he would have been brought to trial but for the fact that the only person who knew him was himself a Jew, and refused because of race-kinship to give evidence of identification. I pointed out the utter ridiculousness of the latter statement under the circumstances, and I ventured to doubt the accuracy of Sir Robert's belief as to "Jack the Ripper" being a Jew. I did this from abundance of internal evidence and the paucity of external evidence. Now I see that Mr. George Kebble has written to the papers to say that Sir Robert was mistaken; that a man believed to be "Jack the Ripper" was caught red-handed, tried and sentenced, and that he was not a Jew. With one thing and another, Sir Robert's articles appear to have got him into hot water.