LeGrand conspiracy

[Debra A]

And, on balance, despite Debra's post, I still believe it is likely that Balfour did not mean pimping.

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

Huh again?? Debs just proved with the attachment in her post #182 via an 1898 newspaper article that the “wages of sin“ also referred to financial gain from prostitution.

Debra didn't prove it conclusively, though, Maria.

Debra gave an example of it being used in that context.

I mean, I can give you an example of me donating to charity but I ain't no missionary working my fingers to the bone to resolve world poverty (and there's another English idiom for you - I don't mean literally working so hard that the skin on my fingers has disintegrated).

Once again:

The meaning of 'wages of sin' is punishment bestowed by God onto the sinner for their sins. Wages means punishment. It is an idiom as opposed to a sentence to be taken literally.

For Debra's one example, you have countless examples of the idiom being used in line with its origins and meaning.

It is far from conclusive. Only Balfour knew that which he had in his mind and the rest of us are left guessing; some of us depending upon what we would like Balfour to have meant.

Edited to add:

And, on balance, despite Debra's post, I still believe it is likely that Balfour did not mean pimping.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I completely agree with Debs and Mac here. Based on the available evidence, it's doubtful that Jabez was talking about Le Grand here. I also agree that 'wages' has nothing to do with money, and therefore 'thriving from the wages of their sins' could in no way mean that he was making money from prostitutes.

Ahhh come on Tom, you Americans don't do sarcasm well - by and large you're too nice a people for that sort of stuff. We, on the other hand.......

You have a good case.

Is it conclusive: no.

I think I've done a decent job of showing 'wages of sin' does not necessarily mean financial gain; in fact, in most cases of the phrase being used in victorian times it did not mean financial gain at all.

What's happening here is the phrase is being made to fit an individual due to supporting evidence.

Debra came up with an example of it being used to mean financial gain, and I accept that.

Having said that, the journalist has doctored the idiom to mean something out of sync with its origins and actual meaning. The question is this: did Balfour doctor the phrase to mean literally financial gain or did he have its original and accepted meaning in mind?

Let's be clear about this: the idiom 'wages of sin' means punishment bestowed by God onto the sinner for their sins. 'Wages' is not intended to mean financial gain for someone other than the sinner.

The equivalent here is the idiom: 'living off the fat of the land". As per 'wages of sin' it does not literally mean someone eating fat from the land. It is an idiom, Tom; it's not a sentence to be taken literally. Do you accept that?

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?

Clearly Sgt James knew Le Grand well, but if this man worked on the Whitechapel case then are you sure he couldn't have known someone else well, such as Grainger/Grant - a man who frequented Whitechapel etc. I suppose there's not a great deal in the way of evidence to suggest he knew Grainger/Grant but then we don't know much about the man. I have a feeling that you're explanation for his description of two different men will be no better than my explanation for Sgt James.

[Chris]

The issue in question is ‘Was Jabez talking about Le Grand or Grainger’. The fact he was quite clear that his suspect was a pimp rules out Grainger.

But the fact is that at present we know very little of the nature of Grainger's dealings with prostitutes, either in London or in Cork.

And as I said, there are discrepancies with both Le Grand and Grainger in Balfour's account. 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. In my view it's really only Debs's recent discovery that has removed the doubts (and some people still aren't convinced).

But in any case, the "issue in question" I was commenting on is whether Debs was the only one who had doubts about who Balfour was referring to. The fact is that she wasn't, and you know she wasn't.

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.

[Debra A]

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 was just interested in FM still having doubts about it being Le Grand, even after the Sgt. James find. Now there's a hard man to convince!

[mariab]

{Post 192.}The issue in question is ‘Was Jabez talking about Le Grand or Grainger’. The fact he was quite clear that his suspect was a pimp rules out Grainger. Thus it’s “crystal clear” it must have been the other guy.

{Post 193.}Based on the available evidence, it's doubtful that Jabez was talking about Le Grand here.

Huh? Posts #192 and #193 don't quite add up.
I starkly disagree that it's doubtful. So far this matter is inconclusive, but it might be cleared out some day, with additional evidence. And we see that new evidence turns up almost every week. We have to figure out if Jabez' first quote and his second quote are related at all. I'd like to get hold of the Jabez text in question in its entirety.

I completely agree with Debs and Mac here. {...} I also agree that 'wages' has nothing to do with money, and therefore 'thriving from the wages of their sins' could in no way mean that he was making money from prostitutes.

Huh again?? Debs just proved with the attachment in her post #182 via an 1898 newspaper article that the “wages of sin“ also referred to financial gain from prostitution.

[Tom_Wescott]

I completely agree with Debs and Mac here. Based on the available evidence, it's doubtful that Jabez was talking about Le Grand here. I also agree that 'wages' has nothing to do with money, and therefore 'thriving from the wages of their sins' could in no way mean that he was making money from prostitutes. Clearly, I can't see the forest for the trees and have allowed myself to become blinded by my own biases and zest. I'm sure that any day now, we'll discover that the guy who arrested Grainger also murdered someone and was in the same prison at the same time as Sgt James and Jabez. That disovery should be coming...any...time...now...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

People being obtuse

It's a shame this is necessary, but sadly it seems to be.

On jtrforums.com, Tom Wescott pretends - for reasons I don't really understand - that Debs was the only one who had doubts about whether Balfour was referring to Le Grand. The truth is that there were discrepancies with both Le Grand and Grainger, and a number of people expressed doubts about which man Balfour was referring to.

Obviously the new evidence Debs found has resolved the question. But that's far from vindicating Tom's claim that it was "crystal clear" all along. It wasn't.

By ‘people’ you mean Nemo and Howard. Nemo looked at the evidence and came to agree it could only be Le Grand. Others may have done the same and not posted as much, which is understandable. But just because one or two people chose, for whatever reason, to say the sky is orange, doesn’t change the reality that it was blue all along. The issue in question is ‘Was Jabez talking about Le Grand or Grainger’. The fact he was quite clear that his suspect was a pimp rules out Grainger. Thus it’s “crystal clear” it must have been the other guy. Don’t confuse matters just to be difficult, and once again, please stop your habit of taking me to task over here for something I said over there, when it’s not even the same discussion. Is that a reasonable request?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Mac. Ah, then in my first sense. I see. Thanks.

But would this not be to use them later?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac.

"Thriving form their predicament could well mean someone like Grainger 'treating' women."

Thanks. I am a bit dense here. Is it something like "Le Grand stood treat to some prostitutes and then profited from them"?

I wonder, though, if this still implies a pimp?

Or do you mean "How he treated them--abuse"?

As I said, I'm a bit dense here.

Cheers.
LC

'Treating' in those days meant buying women drinks or things/anything.

If you're destitute and needy then I suppose you're at the mercy of anyone with a few quid who will take advantage with ulterior motives.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And Tom thought I was being nit picky for even daring to suggest the account may still have been about Grainger, despite his conclusion it was Le Grand! And all this before the detective James find.
Thanks for the explanation FM.

Well, it's a good shout for Le Grand.

But, were I a juror in a court of law I'd want to know:

a) Why the two contrasting descriptions?

and

b) What exactly did you mean by 'thriving from the wages of their sins"?

For me, it's not conclusive.

70/30 maybe?

[lynn cates]

treating

Hello Mac.

"Thriving form their predicament could well mean someone like Grainger 'treating' women."

Thanks. I am a bit dense here. Is it something like "Le Grand stood treat to some prostitutes and then profited from them"?

I wonder, though, if this still implies a pimp?

Or do you mean "How he treated them--abuse"?

As I said, I'm a bit dense here.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

And Tom thought I was being nit picky for even daring to suggest the account may still have been about Grainger, despite his conclusion it was Le Grand! And all this before the detective James find.
Thanks for the explanation FM.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Have you not been swayed by mine and Rob's recent finding that the ex detective prisoner who pointed out the 'Ripper' in Parkhurst prison, to Jabez, was almost certainly Sgt. James? The detective who had been following Le Grand's criminal career for several years? The detective who arrested Le Grand in 1891.

I think it's a plus.

But then I think the introduction to the two men described is a negative.

How could he introduce the two men as something like:

The villainous ruffian and the apparently respectable man,

and be talking about the same man?

Regardless of who said what when and which detectives were involved, I'm struggling to reconcile this.

Plus, he may have known Le Grand well, but does this mean he didn't know someone else well?

I don't think it's conclusive.

[Debra A]

Have you not been swayed by mine and Rob's recent finding that the ex detective prisoner who pointed out the 'Ripper' in Parkhurst prison, to Jabez, was almost certainly Sgt. James? The detective who had been following Le Grand's criminal career for several years. The detective who arrested Le Grand in 1891.