Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LeGrand conspiracy

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

  • #16
    Mmm, I'm afraid that family trees is my all time weakest spot. I know it's an essential research method, but, to be honest, I'd rather eat bricks than do it. Plus it doesn't help that I'm semi-retarded in recognizing or grasping more complex family ties than mother/father/brother/sister/first cousin.
    But I'll do censuses, hopefully (at some point) financial records, and look up for a listing/book about Danish diplomats. Right now I'm still reading Rip back issues, and my other first priority is to go through some CIA reports Lynn Cates sent me (about the Okhrana). Plus this week is kinda busy, with getting back to work and tons of neglected stuff to take care of.
    It's not easy being a newbie...
    Best regards,
    Maria

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      I object! One of his crimes was two years in the planning, and god knows how many times he pulled the same scam and got away with it. Just that MAM had big balls.
      His1891 bank frauds were extraordinary in their planning,described as 'ingenious' by the judge..just that somone smarter was on to him....
      ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • #18
        Debs, do you refer to his indictment on November 16 1891, about the forged bill of exchange supposed to be drawn by W. Ashburnham etc.? Or are there other bank frauds as well?
        And which of his crimes was the one to have taken up 2 years in the planning, if I may ask?
        Best regards,
        Maria

        Comment


        • #19
          Grand & Batchelor (as Private Detectives) make their first appearance at the Stride murder, has anyone come across any paperwork which might answer the question, "who hired them?".

          Because Grand & Batchelor brought Packer to Sir Charles Warren, I had assumed it was CW who might have hired them - if so, "why?"

          Would CW hire a criminal (Grand) to do detective work on behalf of the Gov't?

          Any thoughts along these lines?

          Regards, Jon S.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #20
            Joseph Aarons hired them. They NEVER brought Matthew Packer to Charles Warren himself. You might be interested in reading Tom Wescott's article in Examiner 2. It discusses all this. Also the casebook thread about Examiner 2 discusses some of these details.
            Best regards,
            Maria

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mariab View Post
              Joseph Aarons hired them.
              Tom's article proves that? Damn. Looks like I'll have to read it again.

              Comment


              • #22
                Thankyou Maria.
                I had seen a reference in file A49301C to pages 9/10 dealing with "private Detectives making enquiries at the instance of Vigilance Committe", but was not sure if this was a reference to Grand & Batchelor, or some other PD's.
                I don't have the pages of this file.

                So CW never saw Packer?
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #23
                  To The Grave Maurice:
                  Actually, Tom Wescott's article in Ripper Notes #25 deals more in detail with the WVC. There's research ongoing pertaining to the relations between the WVC and the IWEC – and possibly including other clubs in the proximity of Berner Street. For instance, I'm interested in the St. John's Working Men's Club, located on Sander Street and Backchurch Lane, one block Northwest off from the IWEC.

                  Quote Wickerman:
                  So CW never saw Packer?

                  Absolutely NOT. If you have time, you might be interested reading about this matter in the Examiner 2 thread, particularly posts #411-#429, and particularly what SPE has to say and the evidence he has posted about this matter.
                  I'm summarizing:
                  Packer was not “whisked off for a meeting with the top echelons of Scotland Yard“. Packer was taken to Scotland Yard on Thursday 4 October, 1888 just after 16.00 p.m. by the two men claiming to be detectives, Charles Le Grand and J.H. Batchelor. They SAID they were taking Packer to Scotland Yard to see Warren, but there is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that they ever saw Warren, they were probably seen by a detective inspector who took a statement from Packer.
                  The notes of Matthew Packer's statement [MEPO 3/140 ff. 215-216] dated the same day, 04.10.88, were incorrectly identified, for many years, as written in Warren's hand until SPE examined the original and identified it as the handwriting and initials of Alexander Carmichael Bruce, the senior Assistant Commissioner. It is highly unlikely that even such a senior officer as Bruce would have seen Packer and the two private detectives. However, as neglect of duty by police was being alleged pertaining to Packer and PC White, Bruce might have investigated the matter, thus making notes from Packer's statement. According to Scotland Yard procedure, a proper written statement would have been taken from Packer (similar to the one which exists for Hutchinson), and that statement would have been taken by a senior investigating detective, such as Moore or Abberline. This statement has not survived. The notes in Bruce's hand of what Packer said are merely notes, and not a formal statement which would be signed by the person making it. Also Assistant Commissioners were not expected to be seeing witnesses and taking statements from them.
                  This fact is borne out in Swanson's overall summary of the Stride murder investigation, dated 19 October 1888, and sent to the Home Office. Regarding Packer, in this summary Swanson concludes: "Packer is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence." [HO 144/221/A49301C ff. 156-157].
                  Courtesy of SPE in the Examiner 2 thread.

                  __________________
                  Last edited by mariab; 04-10-2011, 02:42 AM.
                  Best regards,
                  Maria

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well thankyou Maria, you went to alot of trouble to answer my question.
                    Incidently, I hadn't realized there was an Examiner thread, and I am sorry to see David Radka has died, he was quite the character.
                    He really knew how to stir the pot.

                    And yes, Stewarts conclusions make perfect sense, though I would not expect Charles Warren to have cancelled all his duties to sit across the desk from Mr Packer, I took the reference to "seeing Warren" as a figure of speech, as in, "to see Warrens lot", he was afterall, Chief of the Met.

                    Thanks again, Jon S.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mariab View Post
                      To The Grave Maurice:
                      Actually, Tom Wescott's article in Ripper Notes #25 deals more in detail with the WVC. There's research ongoing pertaining to the relations between the WVC and the IWEC and possibly including other clubs in the proximity of Berner Street.
                      Maria, much of the meaning of your last post eludes me. I assume you're saying that Tom's article does not, in fact, establish beyond question that Aarons hired Le Grand & Batchelor. If so, I'm relieved: I was beginning to think that I had overlooked a crucial paragraph or two.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi G M.
                        You will have no doubt noticed that a handful of posters struggle with the difference between assumptions and absolutes. It's par for the course in Ripperology I'm afraid...

                        Regards, Jon S.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi all,
                          can't post too much today, as I'm sitting on a proposal for an Italian conference (about the state and church in Risorgimento Italy, and how Verdi got influenced from Meyerbeer in his Don Carlos, and Attila, and Jrusalem) and the deadline's tomorrow. Plus I'm a little bit ill, probably the prolongation of having gotten food poisoning in Paris.

                          Originally posted by The Grave Maurice View Post
                          Maria, I assume you're saying that Tom's article does not, in fact, establish beyond question that Aarons hired Le Grand & Batchelor. If so, I'm relieved: I was beginning to think that I had overlooked a crucial paragraph or two.
                          What I meant, Maurice, is that Tom's old Ripper Notes #25 article concentrates on the WVC, that's the one you might be interested in reading pertaining to the WVC. I need to re-read the Examiner 2 piece myself, as I don't recall at all if it goes on about the WVC in any great detail. I meant to re-read it for days, but it had to wait due to my heavy workload and travelling. I'll re-read it as long as my proposal's done, hopefully late tonight.

                          It is completely established that Joseph Aarons became the treasurer of the WVC and hired Le Grand and Bachelor as Private Detectives. According to some press reports, there might have been a third detective hired as well, about whom there is speculation about him being Albert Bachert. There's an upcoming piece in Examiner about this.
                          Pretty soon though Le Grand was acting as an equal and not as an employee of Joseph Aarons. And that's when things got interesting.
                          Research (mostly in the press reports) is ongoing about this, with interesting results, which will come out in articles and in a book. As for my Paris research, it had to be stopped abruptly and inconclusively, due to my needing to get back in Berlin, but I'll be back in Paris in June. I got different clues, but I need to think about them, plus it's still too early in the research phase to be able to come to real conclusions.
                          If this all sounds hazy, it must be the fever and the nausea speaking. ;-)

                          By the way, for anyone interested, there's also a current thread about the WVC running on casebook, but recently it got badly highjacked (and NOT by me, for once!) into the witnesses' times for Berner Street. But the beginning of the thread is about the WVC and discusses some new information, also pertaining to Le Grand and Joseph Aarons.
                          Best regards,
                          Maria

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            OK, thanks Maria. I have a copy of RN25 and I'll have another look at it this evening.

                            BTW, until you mentioned it, I didn't think that it was possible to get food poisoning in Paris.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hello Maurice,
                              The Ripper Notes #25 piece is a fascinating article. I've already submitted my Verdi proposal for that conference a couple hours ago (huge relief, plus it's really good and political) and have been working with my boss on Rossini since, but I'm about to re-read the Examiner 2 piece now.
                              That food poisoning business's not much fun. I think it happened due to too much fruits de mer, or mixing up different food and wine, particularly a sweet Sauternes we had with dessert, which tasted like liquid honey, but it went directly to the head. I'm STILL dizzy after a week... (??)
                              Best regards,
                              Maria

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Here is Le Grand's entry in the Habitual Criminals register for 1907 (MEPO 6/18), recording his release on licence on 5 January 1907:

                                [Column headings: Office No. / Name, aliases, Prison, and Register No. / Date and Place of Birth. / Height without shoes [ft in] / Complexion. / Hair. / Eyes. / Marks.]
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	MEPO_6_18_1907_Grandes1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	22.4 KB
ID:	662494

                                [Column headings: Offence (in full), place of Conviction, and Officer in Case, or Place of Committal. / Sentence and date of Conviction / Date when Penal Servitude expires or Supervision commences. / Date of Liberation intended address, and Occupation. / Remarks.]
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	MEPO_6_18_1907_Grandes2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	16.6 KB
ID:	662495

                                I think it was mentioned in discussion that he had scars on his face. If so, this wasn't included in the distinguishing marks section here.

                                [Edit: As noted on the Grant/Grainger thread, "sw" stands for "sallow."]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X