Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LeGrand conspiracy

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

  • Hi Chris. Here's exactly what I wrote:

    It was decided when anyone with a brain decided to actually read ALL the evidence for themselves, and not so they could pick sides with Tom or Debs, and could see that without exception, all details fit Le Grand and ONLY Le Grand to a T, and very few fit Grainger.

    So, as you can see, I qualified it as someone with a brain AND who wasn't just picking sides and HAD read all the evidence. Of course, you had not even voiced one iota of support for the Grainger idea, so I had no cause (til now) to think you had any opinion what so ever. A couple of individuals had said they thought Debs was right, but upon further comment it became clear they had not read all the evidence. One of them has since PM'd me to tell me now that he's read it, he's convinced Jabez was talking about Le Grand. So, my point was that the people with brains who were not biased by Debs and had read all the evidence would agree with me, and that a person with no such bias who read EVERYTHING and still agreed with Debs would therefore lack a brain. You latched onto only the 'without a brain' part. But you only prove me right to come on here attacking me and backing it with yet another, Well, because you're an ******* I disagree with you.

    And you are the first person I'm aware of to actually get pissed at me for including them in list of people whose work I admire. I hope you're just having a bad week or something. And I sincerely apologize if I misremembered you making a comment about you not being well-represented in the A-Z. I seem to remember a conversation about that occuring upon the book's release. But again, my utmost apologizes if I misrepresented you. I know what it's like to have words put in my mouth or to have my statements misrepresented, and I don't like it one bit either.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      But you only prove me right to come on here attacking me and backing it with yet another, Well, because you're an ******* I disagree with you.
      No Tom, I don't disagree with you "because you're an *******."

      As with everything I post here, I say so because it's my honest opinion. The suggestion that I'm saying something I don't really believe, just in order to get at you, is just as insulting as the other stuff.

      Comment


      • Chris, personally I believe Jabez was referring to Le Grand's 2 Old Bailey convinctions in 1891.
        I fully understand what you mean by feeling like taking a holiday from the boards. But please don't EVER take a holiday from Ripperology, or at least not a long one!
        Best regards,
        Maria

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mariab View Post
          Chris, personally I believe Jabez was referring to Le Grand's 2 Old Bailey convinctions in 1891.
          I think in cases like these it's useful to consider how likely it is that the reader would guess that the writer had in mind the interpretation that's being suggested.

          In this case, Balfour wrote:
          "Known to have been the perpetrator of many serious offences, he had only been convicted of two."

          How likely is it that the reader would guess that he meant the following?
          "Known to have been the perpetrator of many serious offences, and having been convicted of a number of them, at the time I saw him he was serving a sentence for only two of his convictions."

          I'd say it's extremely unlikely the reader would guess that. In fact I'd say it would be virtually impossible.

          Comment


          • Well, it's the only explanation I can come up with in my current, very limited knowledge of Jabez' text, to which I've only had access so far through it being quoted by Tom and Debs. I'll most certainly counting on reading it in its entirety and thinking about it under calmer circumstances. (Right now I'm at the hills in Les 2 Alpes, at a friend's restaurant for internet access, with loud music playing and people talking loudly in the next room.)
            Best regards,
            Maria

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chris Phillips
              As with everything I post here, I say so because it's my honest opinion. The suggestion that I'm saying something I don't really believe, just in order to get at you, is just as insulting as the other stuff.
              Perhaps you should make a concerted effort not to feel insulted? I've seen you in action and know how thick your skin is. You survived Norder. LOL. You jump at me for something and only then state 'Well, I disagree with you..'. Would have been better if you had responded to my post to you...which was IN NO WAY INSULTING, but you didn't want to play that way.

              Maybe i'm not clear on what it is you are disagreeing with, so let me ask you this...who, if anyone, do you presently think Jabez was talking about? And what else about his statements niggle at you?

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chris
                I think in cases like these it's useful to consider how likely it is that the reader would guess that the writer had in mind the interpretation that's being suggested.

                In this case, Balfour wrote:
                "Known to have been the perpetrator of many serious offences, he had only been convicted of two."

                How likely is it that the reader would guess that he meant the following?
                "Known to have been the perpetrator of many serious offences, and having been convicted of a number of them, at the time I saw him he was serving a sentence for only two of his convictions."

                I'd say it's extremely unlikely the reader would guess that. In fact I'd say it would be virtually impossible.
                Are you genuinely interested in an explanation for this?

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott

                Comment


                • Tom

                  When I say I disagree with you, what I mean is that I think there are significant respects in which the suspect described by Balfour differs from Le Grand, and also significant differences between Balfour's description of the suspect and his description of [Le Grand] elsewhere. And therefore it's not clear whether the suspect he described was Le Grand.

                  As for the rest of it, I am stating my honest opinion here, and not playing games. I've said that twice now, so I'd be grateful if you could stop questioning it - regardless of whether or not you understand why I find that insulting.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                    Hi Phil, all
                    Just a quick one as it will take some time to write a comprehensive post about this I think.
                    These entries have been posted and discussed by myself, Chris Scott, Livia Trivia at various times on JTRforums.
                    The 1886 and 1887 entries are for a different Charles Le Grand I personally think. I will post the relevant details and thinking behind my conclusion when I get more time later today as I will have to dig out some newspaper reports I saved.
                    Basically, 'our' Le Grand was on trial for assaulting a prostitute in March 1887, the Charles Le Grand referred to in these Criminal Register entries was still serving a 6 month sentence at that time.

                    The 1878 one is a bit different and has been previously written off by me because of the Christian Nelson imprisonment 1877-84.
                    Originally posted by Debra A
                    To make it quicker, here's a link to one of the threads discussing this 86 and 87 conviction (the newspaper article I posted at the end of the thread confirms the two convictions were by the same man in both cases)



                    This Charles Le Grand was convicted in November 1886 and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, a sentence which had to be served in full as it was an imprisonment sentence and so remission did not apply, that only applied to sentences of penal servitude.
                    'Our' Le Grand appeared in the magistrates courts in March 1887, only four months later, on charges of assault.

                    Hi Phil,
                    (sorry for quoting myself twice but it was easier than trying to explain what I was trying to say, all over again)
                    I hadn't saved the original references I first saw about imprisonment sentences being served in full with no remission but I did find a couple of others, here's one of them below.
                    The only problem might be that it is dated 1893, so there is a possibility it wasn't always the case before this time.

                    Now that all sentences are worked out at home, there is no essential distinction in kind between a sentence of penal servitude and a sentence of imprisonment, but there are important minor differences between the two, which it may be convenient to sum up:
                    1. The maximum sentence of penal servitude is, necessarily, a; life one. The minimum is a term of three years, the first nine months of which are usually passed in a local, and the remainder in a convict, prison. The maximum sentence of imprisonment is two years, the whole of which is passed in a local prison. The minimum sentence is a single day. As Assizes sentences date from the day Od which the assizes open, and Sessions sentences from the day on which they are pronounced, this last is equivalent to an immediate discharge.
                    2. In penal servitude there is a possibility of a remission of a portion of the sentence, and this remission is the prisoner's right if he can earn it by marks. In imprisonment there is no remission at all, unless the Crown thinks fit to grant one as a matter of grace.

                    The Twentieth century: Volume 34 - Page 620

                    books.google.com
                    1893




                    Comment


                    • Hello Debs,

                      How kind of you to go to that trouble. Many thanks. It is most appreciated. As you say, the 1893 date does leave an open door... but unless I see anything anywhere otherwise.. I'll take this as a pretty good benchmark. Thanks, again.

                      kindly

                      Phil
                      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                      Justice for the 96 = achieved
                      Accountability? ....

                      Comment


                      • From the 1882 Electoral Register
                        Hmmm... Elias Le Grand plotted up by the Swedish Church. A long term interest in Stride?
                        Le Grand of Monmouthshire, isnít it.
                        Claims to vote at Kingís Cross indeed.
                        In 1885 he claimed to vote in Paddington.
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Must be someone else. In 1882 Le Grand was in prison.
                          Could you explain the Swedish Church reference?
                          Best regards,
                          Maria

                          Comment


                          • The Swedish Church that Stride frequented was at Prince's Square Ė where this Le Grand owned a freehold property.
                            Do we really know that Le Grand was in jail between 1877 and 1884? As Christian Nelson...

                            Actually I found the reference in the Electoral Register while looking for something else... and only posted it here in jest and to illustrate that there were other people called Le Grand around at the time.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                              The Swedish Church that Stride frequented was at Prince's Square – where this Le Grand owned a freehold property.
                              Hmmm... Small world. But then again, it's not the first time that the JTR case players collide with each other in Whitechapel.
                              Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                              Do we really know that Le Grand was in jail between 1877 and 1884? As Christian Nelson...
                              I only know that 1877 Christian Nelson was tried at the Guidhall for stealing and tring to re-sell a bunch of purses. He was condemned to imprisonment until 1884. Only documentation I personally have are the Old Bailey proceedings from 1891, where several policemen state that he was in jail from 1877 to 1884. I assume that Debra Arif has access to the documents for his release in 1884, including the exact date.
                              I've located several Charles Le Grands tried in Paris for extortion crimes in 1884-1886, and I'm going to look up the specifics when I get back to Paris in October.
                              In March 1887 he was tried for the Pasquier case (for beating her up and trying to intimidate her and her friend repeatedly) at the Magistrates Court under the name of Charles Le Grand.
                              Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                              Actually I found the reference in the Electoral Register while looking for something else... and only posted it here in jest and to illustrate that there were other people called Le Grand around at the time.
                              I think it's cool that you've posted it. It illustrates how mixed up the situation is.
                              Last edited by mariab; 08-17-2011, 10:22 PM.
                              Best regards,
                              Maria

                              Comment


                              • He seems to have been a pathetically unsuccessful criminal Ė it would appear that he was arrested every time he did something wrong and was hardly out of trouble. And isnít it odd that such a well known, and remembered (by the police) crim, managed to insinuate himself in the Ripper case without being exposed?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X