LeGrand conspiracy

[caz]

Most criminal “careers“ are like this. Manson, Dahmer, even Bundy come to mind.

Well those names shouldn't, not to an objective mind, Maria.

The vast majority of "career" criminals are absolutely nothing like those three extremely rare birds, thank Christ.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Yes, amazing how this incredibly bungling thug that got arrested time and time again could have had the guile to outwit the brilliance of Scotland Yard. not once, not twice, but perhaps 5 times, all done with silence and deftness.

And yet he managed to become a prominent member of the WVC, to involve himself prominently and actively in the Stride investigation, and was apparently involved in the Parnell matter, working not just for one, but possibly for 2 different players.

Quote Lechmere:
And isn’t it odd that such a well known, and remembered (by the police) crim, managed to insinuate himself in the Ripper case without being exposed?
It seems he's been exposed, as there's evidence in some newspapers, besides Balfour (whom I wouldn't dismiss). At some point around 1887-1888 one wonders if Le Grand didn't benefit from protection from somewhere up high, as he repeatedly got away with slaps on the wrist, particularly in the Pasquier case...

In Le Grande's case..... Charged, jailed, released, charged, jailed, deported and deceased.

Most criminal “careers“ are like this. Manson, Dahmer, even Bundy come to mind. Most career criminals way of dealing is unglamorously stupid and banal, and they evaded apprehension due to the difficulty of the logistics the police has to deal with, or due to mistakes commited by the police.

And Lechmere, the linkage is in an early photograph matching a late sketch from 1890.

[Lechmere]

... and found not to be Nelson/Neilson/Neilsen.

I have been looking through the various threads on the other site and I can't find a clear link between the Le Grand mentioned by the Evening News as being involved with Packer in the Stride case, and the other Le Grands (with various aliases).
In fear of being shown something that is 'in plain sight' where is the linkage?
I presume that in one of the cases when he got caught for something after 1888 (i.e. in 1889 or 1891) the connection was publicly made - but I haven't been able to find it.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lechmere,

Yes, amazing how this incredibly bungling thug that got arrested time and time again could have had the guile to outwit the brilliance of Scotland Yard. not once, not twice, but perhaps 5 times, all done with silence and deftness.

The man is no more Jack the Ripper as you and I are giant red pandas.

The name should be thrown into the "has been" bin for ever.

Reminds me of Henry VIII and his wives.... Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.

In Le Grande's case..... Charged, jailed, released, charged, jailed, deported and deceased.


kindly

Phil

[Lechmere]

He seems to have been a pathetically unsuccessful criminal – it would appear that he was arrested every time he did something wrong and was hardly out of trouble. And isn’t it odd that such a well known, and remembered (by the police) crim, managed to insinuate himself in the Ripper case without being exposed?

[mariab]

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.

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.

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.

[Lechmere]

The Swedish Church that Stride frequented was at Prince's Square – 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.

[mariab]

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

[Lechmere]

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, isn’t it.
Claims to vote at King’s Cross indeed.
In 1885 he claimed to vote in Paddington.

[Phil Carter]

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

[Debra A]

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.

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)

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=9669

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

[Chris]

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[mariab]

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.)