LeGrand conspiracy

[Tom_Wescott]

This is why (much to Tom's astonishment it seems) I think the Lloyd's report uncovered by How Brown is a very interesting one.

I find it a very interesting report. I'm glad (and a little surprised, but not astonished) that you find it interesting as well. What's interesting is how it was quashed after one edition. Seems the Ripper was not to be brought into the coverage of Le Grand where the press was concerned. A big hush was put over it, presumably for this reason one disgruntled reported titled their coverage of the trail 'The Ripper's Pard'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

The Pasquier case was March 1887, Maria.

The Old Bailey transcripts don't mention Le Grand's work as a PI in Whitechapel, you're right, but it must have been known, at least by one Lloyd's reporter, as in covering the 1891 Old Bailey case, he describes Le Grand's past activities, including this:

"..He subsequently started a private detective inquiry office, and had an office in the Strand. When the Whitechapel murders created so much excitement, this agency came prominently before the public through Le Grand's professed ability to discover the murderer by means of his agents at home and abroad.."
Lloyd's Weekly October 18th,1891

This is why (much to Tom's astonishment it seems) I think the Lloyd's report uncovered by How Brown is a very interesting one. No other paper that I have come across yet, covering the 1891 trial, makes that same link. (There may be others but I've read hundreds and not come across one yet)
So who told the Lloyd's reporter?

There are hints in another Loyd's article, covering Sgt. James trial for murdering his sister-in-law in 1903, that James may have been involved in other corrupt activities to do with property. I'm still looking into this, but the editor of Lloyd's, Thomas Catling, was involved in some sort of legal action over his paper printing those accusations.

Just editing to add- the statement about Le Grand working as a PI in Whitechapel only appears in one edition of Lloyd's for that day (the one How found), the other editions carry a different summary article of Le Grand's trial.

[mariab]

William James: Le Grand's nemesis just in vice (or more?)

Regarding Sgt James, if memory serves, he first came to know him in 1886.

During the 1891 Old Bailey extortion trial, PC William James quoted Le Grand screaming at him (during his arrest) “You, who have received £50 from Morris to put me away before!“. Sgt. James was involved in the Dr. Morris case, which went on trial at the Old Bailey against Le Grand and Demay in 1889. Sgt. James was also involved in the Pasquier case against Le Grand, which went to trial at the Marlborough Magistrates' Court in 1886.
Here an excerpt from William James' testimony at the 1889 Old Bailey trial (Dr. Morris against Demay and Le Grand), discussing the Pasquier case against Le Grand from 1886:
I have known Demay seven or eight years, and Grandy three years, or a little more, as Charles Grandy or Charles Grand, and he is better known as the French Colonel—in March, 1887, he was in custody at the Marlborough Street Police-court, and Mr. Newton, the magistrate, directed me to make special inquiries about him—he was remanded twice, and on the last occasion Mrs. Demay came to the Court, and stated in her evidence, in my hearing, that she was living with Grandy—Demay has been getting her living as a prostitute—since January, 1886, I have seen Grandy in her company hundreds of times, I may say—with the exception of five or six weeks, when he was employed in Great Tower Street in 1886 at 30s. a week, and discharged for incompetency, I have not known him in any employment—I have seen him in company with other prostitutes hundreds of times—he lives on them.
Cross-examined by Demay: I was present at Marlborough Street Police court when Grandy charged a woman with stealing his watch and chain—she was discharged.
Cross-examined by Grandy: I have been directed by my superior officer to attend the Court when cases you have been in have been heard—I did not know you had an office; I have heard you had—I attended as a witness at Bow Street when you appeared on a summons, at the instance of Batchelor, for assaulting him in the Strand—Mr. Bridge dismissed the summons—I knew nothing about the case, I only knew your character—I gave evidence—I know Planette, the woman you charged with stealing your watch and chain; she was discharged—she is not a friend of mine—I did not bring her to Bow Street—I spoke to her there—I know Mr. Ward—I believe you are living on prostitutes—I have seen you continually with Demay; you have walked Regent Street, and molested other women, and charged them at the Police-court, and all to clear them from that street in order to have the whole street clear for that woman with you.
It seems like PC James was active in law enforcement pertaining to vice, and that he was asked by the Magistrate Newton to make special inquiries about Le Grand, apparently in his activity as a pimp.
During Le Grand's 1889 trial at the Old Bailey, Sgt. James, cross examined by Le Grand himself, testified that he was unaware that Le Grand ran a private Detective Agency. NO mention of Le Grand's activity with the WVC either. Was Sgt. James pressed by someone higher up, trying to, as we say, cover their a$$?
I'm also under the impression that Debs is investigating the vendetta between PC James and Le Grand's minion James Hall?
I'm impressed about Debs' recent discovery of PC James having been indicted for murder later in life, but James' crime in question (having shot a female relative to death inside of her house during a dispute with his estranged wife) doesn't impress me as unusual in the realities of Victorian Whitechapel.
I've been entertaining a few (possibly paranoid) thoughts in another direction: Has anyone ever encountered PC William James ever in any activity together with investigator Clarke, expert in horse track fraud, or with sollicitor George Lewis? I seem to recall that ex-inspector Clarke was hired by George Lewis to protect Dr. Morris and investigate Le Grand. Sgt. James was ordered by Magistrate Newton to investigate Le Grand's pimp activities. A coincidence? And yet, Sgt. James allegedly noticed nothing about Le Grand's prominent involvement with the WVC. Interestingly enough, we can see from when Le Grand is cross-examining Sgt. James that he doesn't mention specifically his involvement with the WVC pertaining to the Ripper investigation, but only the fact that he was running a Detective Agency with Batchelor.
We know that Le Grand visited sollicitor George Lewis, once shortly before February 1889, and once prior to this together with Scanlan, both times pertaining to the Parnell/Pigott/Labouchère matter. During his 1889 trial, Le Grand claimed he had documents on himself proving he was hired by Lewis to stalk Lewis' friend Labouchère pertaining to Pigott/Parnell. Lewis reacted by obstructing Le Grand from testifying further. Le Grand also claimed to have spied Labouchère for Soames from The Times.
I would be VERY interested to see if Sgt. James had any involvement in the latter activities, since he was shadowing Le Grand from 1886-1891. Parnell was accused by The Times in 1887.

[mariab]

I went to a lot of trouble to answer Phil Carter's query about whether Le Grand was also convicted in 1886/1887, something I had researched in detail previously. Despite my outlining the reasons why I personally concluded it wasn't 'our' Le Grand, Tom completely disregards that research in post #102 and goes on to encourage more research into the 1886/87 convictions...so obviously he didn't agree with my conclusions there..

Debs, I don't think that anyone doubts that the Charles Le Grand convicted in 1886/87 was a different guy.

[Debra A]

No, Tom. It began with Debs suggesting an interpretation different from yours. It's not all about you ...

Exactly. Thanks, Chris.
It happens to everyone...and should. It keeps us all on our toes.

Anyone reading the first few pages of the thread will see Tom himself doing it;
I went to a lot of trouble to answer Phil Carter's query about whether Le Grand was also convicted in 1886/1887, something I had researched in detail previously. Despite my outlining the reasons why I personally concluded it wasn't 'our' Le Grand, Tom completely disregards that research in post #102 and goes on to encourage more research into the 1886/87 convictions...so obviously he didn't agree with my conclusions there..

[Fleetwood Mac]

Maria,

All of Balfour's memoirs were written over a period of 26 weeks and serialised in the 'Weekly Dispatch'. They were later published in his book. It follows thus Balfour is not writing at two different points in time detailing the changing character of the same man. They are his recollections of the men as he recalled them in 1906: he recalls one as clearly evil and cruel and the other as apparently respectable. This needs a solid explanation, still.

If you're going to argue 'Jabez was a misinformed amateur' then you cast doubt upon his entire statement. Surely you're not going to pick which bits are accurate to suit? I mean, I quite like Sadler for this, so I'm going to ignore the 'misinformed' who believe he was on a boat at the time of four of the murders.

To recap:

1) There is no satisfactory explanation as to why he said 'convicted of only two offences'.

2) There is no satisfactory explanation of the descriptions of two men.

Like you, I would like to read about these two men in his memoirs. The 1906 memoirs are probably of more use than the 1907 book as the latter is based on the former, and there's every chance the latter was edited for book form. Apparently copies of the 'Weekly Dispatch' can be accessed via the British Library Online.

Anyway, the jury is still out on this one!

[mariab]

I'm simply pointing out that Balfour's comments do not describe Le Grand accurately.

I don't think that anyone in his right mind would disagree with this.

[Chris]

Come on, Chris, you know better than that. Are you requiring complete accuracy from an amateur in the late 19th century/early 20th century?

I'm not requiring anything. I'm simply pointing out that Balfour's comments do not describe Le Grand accurately.

[mariab]

Come on, Chris, you know better than that. Are you requiring complete accuracy from an amateur in the late 19th century/early 20th century? You know that it never happens like this, not even in police reports, or in historical reports, not to mention the press. Jabez was an amateur and he was quite a bit misinformed on the Le Grand case, including how many years Le Grand got in his convinction.

[Chris]

My interpretation is that Jabez was referring to Le Grand's double convinction in 1891, which was highly commented on in the press.

But what Balfour actually says is that he had been convicted of only two crimes, not that there had been a double conviction, among others.

[Chris]

... let's not forget this whole thing started with a little group attacking my research and thought processes.

No, Tom. It began with Debs suggesting an interpretation different from yours. It's not all about you ...

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Sgt James, if memory serves, he first came to know him in 1886.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, I was just having fun and being a smartass. And it's fun to get Debs ire up. LOL.

And I'm sorry to hear you don't want me to discuss this subject here. It seems you're quite happy for people to post their research findings on Casebook, but not for people to express views that you disagree with. Oh dear.

Of course I would like you to discuss it here, but paraphrasing my comments from other sites irks me. I've said that before. Particularl when you're trying to make me out to be some sort of bad guy here. I'm no victim, but let's not forget this whole thing started with a little group attacking my research and thought processes. I've been called biased, etc over this and I was right all along. I'm not saying anyone else is a 'bad guy' here, but neither am I and I don't want to be treated as one. And yes, it would be nice if everyone would just agree with me and my conclusions.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

With all these people sulking round here, who will undertake the research?!

This is possibly the most astute remark I've ever heard about Ripperology.

Tom's just trying to be funny Maria. He obviously doesn't read the posts properly or follow full discussions as they develop, at all.

I'm kinda...fully aware of this. :-) I wasn't too sure about the sarcasm, probably my fault, being a bit slow and linear yesterday or whenever it was.

Debs, is Jabez' The Weekly Dispatch available to read in The Daily Mail (in www.newspaperarchive.com), and were Jabez' Crimson Crimes published in book form in 1906? I'd like to try ordering it per intra-library loan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariab
Chris, I see it appropriate to let Arif and Wescott resolve this discussion between themselves ...

I'm sure no one would want to force you to comment, if you don't feel it's appropriate.

It was actually meant as a comment on your comment, also known as a meta-comment if you will, Chris. :-)

One might as well say that Balfour was clear that his suspect had committed many serious offences but only been convicted of two, and that therefore it couldn't have been Le Grand.

My interpretation is that Jabez was referring to Le Grand's double convinction in 1891, which was highly commented on in the press.

Then I'd quite like to understand why he opens with the villianous ruffian (not his words) and goes onto state he is clearly a cruel and evil man (his words), and then opens with the 'respectable man' (his words). Do you have an explanation for this, Tom?

I'm not Tom, but I have 2 explanations for ya:
- The criminal in question might have aged and weakened considerably through his long incarceration, such as criminals often do. Jabez wrote “apparently a respectable man“, which is a nuanced phrase. If you look at serial killers' photos a few years after their incarceration, some of them tend to spot a remarkable ressemblance to Santa. A few years spent in jail can easily make people look more vintage.
- At the time of the second Jabez quote, Le Grand might have been out of jail. In which case Jabez being more subdued in his choice of words might be easily understood, IF he was indeed talking about Le Grand.

Clearly Sgt James knew Le Grand well, but if this man worked on the Whitechapel case

It appears that PC James started following around Le Grand much LATER after the Whitechapel murders. In 1891 during Le Grand's trials for extortion, PC James apparently wasn't even aware that Le Grand used to be a prominent WVC member in 1888. I'm not sure if PC James was involved exclusively with Le Grand's extortion crimes, or if any of this might have also pertained to Le Grand's alleged involvement in the Parnell matter... I assume Debs might have info pertaining to this?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh no! That means I shall have to sulk for the next 6 months too..

With all these people sulking round here, who will undertake the research?!

Let's call a truce: it's 50/50 Grainger v unidentified person. Le Grand is simply a respectable man caught up in a mystery. Were he here now he'd be scratching his head wondering how on earth he was brought into this.

And, according to Kebble, Grainger was suspected and watched by the police (cue Tom).