Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LeGrand conspiracy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LeGrand conspiracy

    Has anyone brought up the possibility of LeGrand working with Tumbelty for the foul deeds?
    My thoughts go like this:

    Tumblety, after not being able to procure the specimans he desired for his collection through "official" channels (the story of the American Dr at the Nichols inquest) enlists the services of PI/Pimp/shady charactor LeGrand for the purpose. perhaps in his capacity as a pimp, Legrand was already helping Dr. T procure male prostitutes?

    LeGrand then gets someone to help him with the deeds? (GH, chapman, some other lacky?
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

  • #2
    No, because it's only a possibility in the sense that all things are possible. The true Le Grand theory is strong enough without having to muck it up with Tumblety and complicated theories involving the IWEC. But it doesn't seem many people have really taken the time to absorb the simple truths about why Le Grand makes such a good suspect.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Last edited by Tom_Wescott; 01-07-2011, 10:42 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      IWEC theory

      Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      The true Le Grand theory is strong enough without having to muck it up with Tumblety and complicated theories involving the IWEC.
      Tom, as you've insisted so many times (remember the “Lynn Cates stolen theory“?), you yourself are the one who came up with the “complicated theories involving the IWEC“! My own theory (which I'm the first to admit it's based on yours, but complements it ingeniously) provides a comprehensive explanation on why Pipeman's physical description was included in Schwartz's testimony, even if Schwartz's testimony is not entirely truthful. Also you're the one who discovered that the WVC was approaching the IWEC, so it should not come to you as a big surprise that you got me interested in the relations/conflicts between these 2 organizations.
      If truth be told, you did had a bit of a problem with Pipeman's physical description in a witness' testimony which is considered controversial, and I'm the one who came up with a comprehensive resolution for this problem, so I'd say you should be really thankful to me for saving your as* in this case. (The last part about the “thankful“ being obviously a joke.)
      Plus, Berner Street is a complex issue (due to the many different players involved), but my theory is not “complicated“ in the least, it's super crystal-clear.
      Last edited by mariab; 01-08-2011, 06:05 AM.
      Best regards,
      Maria

      Comment


      • #4
        Well the tall stori- er, simple truths are becoming less complex as we head further into the new year, so that's a blessing. By Christmas we should have Tumblety bungling Nichols, his sidekick Le Grand succeeding on his behalf with Chapman but bungling Stride, then the Flemish giant - sorry, that's a rabbit - the Fleming giant, all 6 foot seven of him, taking over for Eddowes and Kelly.

        Three tall men in concert, making short work of the canonical five.

        This could catch on - if we are not careful.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mariab
          Tom, as you've insisted so many times (remember the “Lynn Cates stolen theory“?), you yourself are the one who came up with the “complicated theories involving the IWEC“!
          I don't recall ever having endorsed a theory that could be called 'complicated'.

          Originally posted by mariab
          If truth be told, you did had a bit of a problem with Pipeman's physical description in a witness' testimony which is considered controversial, and I'm the one who came up with a comprehensive resolution for this problem, so I'd say you should be really thankful to me for saving your as* in this case.
          My memory isn't what it used to be, but again I don't recall ever having a 'problem' with Pipeman's physical description in a witness' testimony. In fact, I don't even know what it means. But if you provided a 'comprehensive resolution' to my 'problem', I thank you for that.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
            I don't recall ever having endorsed a theory that could be called 'complicated'.
            That's correct, and neither have I.

            Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
            My memory isn't what it used to be, but again I don't recall ever having a 'problem' with Pipeman's physical description in a witness' testimony. In fact, I don't even know what it means. But if you provided a 'comprehensive resolution' to my 'problem', I thank you for that.
            Tom, I apologize. My joke was quite a bit off. What I meant is that the circumstantial evidence about Pipeman matching Le Grand's physical description contains a problem if Schwartz concocted his story from scratch, but my “theory“/suspicion that William Wess might have thrown in the Pipeman-part possibly to intimidate Le Grand is not only a plausible scenario, but it also covers all possibilities. Of course, it requires to be researched (as it will).
            Best regards,
            Maria

            Comment


            • #7
              'Le Grand' was the stupidest crook that ever was born.

              Oh, I'll just go and terrorise Lady So and So in Grosvenor Square.

              Yeah, sure.
              allisvanityandvexationofspirit

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stephen Thomas
                'Le Grand' was the stupidest crook that ever was born.

                Oh, I'll just go and terrorise Lady So and So in Grosvenor Square.

                Yeah, sure.
                ????

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
                  'Le Grand' was the stupidest crook that ever was born. Oh, I'll just go and terrorise Lady So and So in Grosvenor Square.
                  Yeah, sure.
                  That he was. But is there any other kind of crook? Plus he probably thought he was very smart. Concocting intricate schemes (“complicated theories“?), which most of the time (duh) didn't work as planned. Still, the grapestalk almost worked, as the urban legend very stubbornly remains in some casebook threads – and in From Hell.
                  It might even be that some folks might have given in and payed him extortion money. Tom Wescott and Debra Arif know the details pertaining to this.
                  Best regards,
                  Maria

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Quote Stephen Thomas:
                    Oh, I'll just go and terrorise Lady So and So in Grosvenor Square.

                    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                    ????
                    Yours truly,
                    Tom Wescott
                    You know perfectly well that he means the 1st Baroness Bolsover, blackmailed by Le Grand. She was the widow of Arthur Cavendish Bentnick (deceased in 1877) and she had 3 sons, Henry, William Augustus, and Charles, plus a stepson named William John Arthur Charles James (now that's an impressive bunch of names), 6th Duke of Portland. He was the stepson of the Baroness Bolsover and not the MP George Cavendish Bentinck, who opposed W.T. Stead's movement because he allegedly enjoyed prostitutes, as he was implicated in the Cleveland Street scandal. The MP George CB was the only son of Lord Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, and the cousin of Baroness Bolsover's stepson*. So it might be true (or not) that Le Grand had met Baroness Bolsover, as he claimed in his letter(s).
                    (*Courtesy of Debra Arif, from Monahan's book.)
                    As for Lord Frederick Cavendish, the murder victim at Phoenix Park, Debs says that he was probably related with the Cavendish Bentincks from their grandmother's side or before, but much earlier than the 1880s/1890s. Doesn't appear that they were related politically.
                    Best regards,
                    Maria

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, I know to whom he's referring, though I don't see how that makes him the stupidest crook. The amount of crimes Le Grand must have gotten away with is staggering. He was off his rocker by the time of the Grosvenor Square fiasco.

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        The amount of crimes Le Grand must have gotten away with is staggering. He was off his rocker by the time of the Grosvenor Square fiasco.
                        I suspect this too about more crimes by him having remained undetected (so far). Obviously, like most criminals, he decompensated in the end (before he got arrested for good), but even at Berner Street he certainly didn't illustrate modest wants: Starting out a detective agency, directing the WVC, informer for The Evening News, possibly playing both sides of the street pertaining to the IWEC, planting evidence and indoctrinating several witnesses in a murder investigation, plus a full time job as a pimp and an intimidator of the girls working for him. That's quite a lot of tasks for one guy. Something had to give?
                        Best regards,
                        Maria

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mariab View Post
                          Quote Stephen Thomas:
                          Oh, I'll just go and terrorise Lady So and So in Grosvenor Square.



                          You know perfectly well that he means the 1st Baroness Bolsover, blackmailed by Le Grand. She was the widow of Arthur Cavendish Bentnick (deceased in 1877) and she had 3 sons, Henry, William Augustus, and Charles, plus a stepson named William John Arthur Charles James (now that's an impressive bunch of names), 6th Duke of Portland. He was the stepson of the Baroness Bolsover and not the MP George Cavendish Bentinck, who opposed W.T. Stead's movement because he allegedly enjoyed prostitutes, as he was implicated in the Cleveland Street scandal. The MP George CB was the only son of Lord Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, and the cousin of Baroness Bolsover's stepson*. So it might be true (or not) that Le Grand had met Baroness Bolsover, as he claimed in his letter(s).
                          (*Courtesy of Debra Arif, from Monahan's book.)
                          As for Lord Frederick Cavendish, the murder victim at Phoenix Park, Debs says that he was probably related with the Cavendish Bentincks from their grandmother's side or before, but much earlier than the 1880s/1890s. Doesn't appear that they were related politically.
                          Hi Maria,...Fairly accurate, except I said that I got only the name of the M.P. from Monaghans book and none of the other stuff which is all my own bumph. I said they may be cousins and I said that the Bentincks took on the double barelled Cavendish c 1801...from female intervention, and if the Cavendish's of Phoenix Park were related it was way out there and not significant.
                          ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                            Fairly accurate, except I said that I got only the name of the M.P. from Monaghans book and none of the other stuff which is all my own bumph.
                            Hi Debs, many apologies for not stating more clearly in my improvised footnote that you got only the MPs name (George Cavendish Bentinck) from Monaghan, and that all the rest is from your own research.
                            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                            I said they may be cousins and I said that the Bentincks took on the double barelled Cavendish c 1801...from female intervention, and if the Cavendish's of Phoenix Park were related it was way out there and not significant.
                            Oh, I wasn't aware at all that we're not sure if Baroness' Bolsover stepson Cavendish Bentinck and the MP Cavendish Bentinck were cousins. I assume that this is easy to establish, if one has the patience to go through their family tree? (What fun.)
                            As for the Cavendish Bentincks being related to Lord Frederick Cavendish of Phoenix Park fame, even if they were related, it looks like the MP Cavendish Bentinck and Lord Frederick Cavendish pursued different political agendas.
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mariab View Post

                              Oh, I wasn't aware at all that we're not sure if Baroness' Bolsover stepson Cavendish Bentinck and the MP Cavendish Bentinck were cousins. I assume that this is easy to establish, if one has the patience to go through their family tree? (What fun.)
                              Try it sometime, Maria!
                              ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X