LeGrand conspiracy

[tji]

Tom


I don't feel so bad now about you being so much smarter than myself. I have 15 years to catch up!

You are assuming it is an age thing why Chris is smarter than yourself?

Out of curiosity, as it hasn't been brought are you are all thinking the difference in the complexion is just ill health or maybe a tan for the change?

I've got to say that I had a few visions of Police being armed with 'tickling feathers' on their beat "We will get you to smile!!"


Tj

[Debra A]

Debs,

Didn't we discuss this about the police gazette description of Le Grand in 1884 and you decided it was taken upon his entry to prison in 1877? This is why myself and (presumably) Maria kept referring to '30 years' difference between descriptions - 1877 to 1907. But you're correct, it would only be 1877 to 1891.
As for Le Grand and Nelson being or not being one and the same...is there really any debate on the matter? Chris? Debs? Clack?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

We discussed the photograph of Nelson, and when it might have been taken?
I thought it would have been taken in 1877, on his entry to prison, yes. Interestingly, a photograph of Nelson was apparently shown at the 1891 of Le Grand, so the jury were not just working on a written description to determine if they were the same man. If Le Grand's description was taken in 1891 then his facial scars weren't prominent enough even then to have been used in the distinguishing marks column?

There are discrepancies Tom, that's what I'm saying. From a research point of view it is useful to keep these sort of discrepancies in mind. If not, one might automatically disregard a record that could relate to Le Grand c 1877-84, presuming he was locked up at that time period.

[Hunter]

I couldn't resist posting this description of the "Marks" on another man who had been convicted of horsestealing. Was it considered unusual to show one's teeth when smiling a century ago?
[ATTACH]12273[/ATTACH]

Yes, considering the condition that many people's teeth were in. It was more expedient to pull one than to fill it or crown it.

Not many pearly white smiles in the photographs back then.

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

I don't feel so bad now about you being so much smarter than myself. I have 15 years to catch up!

Debs,

Didn't we discuss this about the police gazette description of Le Grand in 1884 and you decided it was taken upon his entry to prison in 1877? This is why myself and (presumably) Maria kept referring to '30 years' difference between descriptions - 1877 to 1907. But you're correct, it would only be 1877 to 1891.
As for Le Grand and Nelson being or not being one and the same...is there really any debate on the matter? Chris? Debs? Clack?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

I couldn't resist posting this description of the "Marks" on another man who had been convicted of horsestealing. Was it considered unusual to show one's teeth when smiling a century ago?
[ATTACH]12273[/ATTACH]

That's hilarious! All he had to do remain incognito was to keep his mouth shut then?..and if he happened to sprout an overnight mole as well, they would have no chance of ever recognising him again.

[mariab]

Oh, you referred to the police updating the “distinguished marks“ descriptions, Debs?
Like Chris, I can imagine them updating them on release, otherwise it might have been too time-consuming? I assume Monty might know about such practices?

[Chris]

One point that Rob mentioned to me, which I thought was a good one but can't answer myself-were the distinguishing marks sections for prisoners filled in on the first entry to prison, say in Le Grand's case in 1891 and just retained within a file and referred to for future use, should the need arise, like having to give out a description?

That's an interesting question. My guess (but it is only a guess) would be that they were updated on release, together with the descriptions. I can certainly imagine extra scars could be acquired during a term in prison.

I couldn't resist posting this description of the "Marks" on another man who had been convicted of horsestealing. Was it considered unusual to show one's teeth when smiling a century ago?

[Debra A]

I think you misunderstand me, Maria.
I was wondering if the description of distinguishing marks was taken in 1891 on Le Grand's entry to prison and never updated-seeing as distinguishing marks are usually things that don't usually change over short periods of time?

[mariab]

I think this practice makes sense, Debs, since photographs were rare in the Victorian era? And the police certainly were intending to use these “distinguished marks“ descriptions predominantly in a time frame of a couple years (as in when people failed to appear for parole) vs. a couple decades anyway? In this case descriptions of scars make sense.

[Debra A]

One point that Rob mentioned to me, which I thought was a good one but can't answer myself-were the distinguishing marks sections for prisoners filled in on the first entry to prison, say in Le Grand's case in 1891 and just retained within a file and referred to for future use, should the need arise, like having to give out a description?

[Debra A]

Perhaps...
Perhaps even faded enough for Le Grand to have more the appearance of a respectable gentleman than a ruffian in prison?

[mariab]

However, the facial scars not being mentioned on Le Grand in 1907 is interesting.

So sorry to interfere here again, just wanted to point out that scars, even significant ones, and particularly on the face/nose, can heal and fade already in one year, if not several years.
(I've seen it on other people and I've seen it on my own face from when I got a pretty deep cut on my nose ridge 2 years ago, which left a scar for about 6-8 months, then, one day, it was simply gone, no trace left.)

[Chris]

You're joking, right? I thought you were around my age. Le Grand would have been around 54 to 59 in 1907.

I was going by the date of birth in the register, but I'm not that much younger than that.

That's probably the explanation for my picking on you - I've gone from being a Superannuated Angry Young Man to a Grumpy Old Man In Training with nothing in between ...

[Debra A]

However, if Debs is going to pursue yet another fringe Le Grand idea, and suggest minor differences in description actually lend credence to the idea that they were really two people (Nelson and Le Grand), then perhaps the title should stay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It's a fact that I am just pointing out for others to make their own judgement on. It's hardly anything I haven't mentioned before, I first mentioned Le Grand being found not guilty of being Christian Nelson back in early 2007.
For the first time we now have a description of Le Grand to compare the Nelson description with that's all, and there are differences...
As I have said many times, personally I feel that the Reynold's sketch of Le Grand in 1891 is very similar to the police picture of Nelson...enough to be the same man.
However, the facial scars not being mentioned on Le Grand in 1907 is interesting.

[Tom_Wescott]

- and not being much younger than Le Grand was in 1907

You're joking, right? I thought you were around my age. Le Grand would have been around 54 to 59 in 1907.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott