LeGrand conspiracy

[Debra A]

Hi, everyone,
Very interesting thread and wonderful research.

Just a quick question if I may about something I don't understand.

Debra A. Post No. 104

11)As I have explained, if I am right about imprisonment sentences being served in full, someone convicted of 6 months imprisonmemt in November 1886 could not be out to stand in the magistrates court in March 1887.THE Le Grand was in the magistrates court and fined in March 1887.

and Rob Clack's Post No. 109

Says George Jackson's sentence was 4 years PS (& remanet of former sentence) 23-6-1908


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Remanet Remanet
Rem"a*net\ (-n?t), n. [L., it remains.] (Legal Practice) A case for trial which can not be tried during the term; a postponed case. [Eng.]

Do these two things have anything to do with each other? I'd never seen the word remanet before, so I was associating it with remnant - or something left over.

Can anyone help me understand this?

Thanks,

curious

Hi Curious,
This is my understanding of it, but I'm not saying this is definitely correct.
In 1891 Charles Grande (aka Le Grand, Jackson)was sentenced to 20 years penal servitude. He was released 4 years and 300+ days early on licence in 1906 (almost 5 years)
In 1908, Grande, as George Jackson, was convicted of a criminal offence at the Old Bailey, it having been proven that he had also been sentenced to 20 years penal servitude in 1891.Grande was then sentenced to 4 years penal servitude plus remanet of a previous sentence (which in this case was nearly 5 years) making his new release date 1917.

"In criminal law, the term is often used to refer to the time remaining to be served on a particular sentence."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/remanet/

My argument about the 1886/87 case was whether or not any remission could be earned when serving an imprisonment sentence, which is different to a sentence of penal servitude.

[mariab]

Curious, “remanet“ is Latin for “remaining“, “remains“. Legally it might mean the rest of another sentence served concurrently, but I have no real knowledge of criminal law, esp. in England. Debs will know.

[curious]

Hi, everyone,
Very interesting thread and wonderful research.

Just a quick question if I may about something I don't understand.

Debra A. Post No. 104

11)As I have explained, if I am right about imprisonment sentences being served in full, someone convicted of 6 months imprisonmemt in November 1886 could not be out to stand in the magistrates court in March 1887.THE Le Grand was in the magistrates court and fined in March 1887.

and Rob Clack's Post No. 109

Says George Jackson's sentence was 4 years PS (& remanet of former sentence) 23-6-1908


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Remanet Remanet
Rem"a*net\ (-n?t), n. [L., it remains.] (Legal Practice) A case for trial which can not be tried during the term; a postponed case. [Eng.]

Do these two things have anything to do with each other? I'd never seen the word remanet before, so I was associating it with remnant - or something left over.

Can anyone help me understand this?

Thanks,

curious

[Chris]

Oh, let's not pretend to be more modest than we are. You were fit to be tied that Begg never mentioned you in the new A-Z.

I'm not actually sure what "fit to be tied" means, but in any case I think you must be attributing other people's opinions to me. I believe my only comment was that I had been mentioned.

[mariab]

Tom, to each his own, but I hope you're not running a meth lab.
By the way I've just emailed you.
You needn't have been more clear, I understand what you mean completely, but I'm afraid I haven't yet read too much of Monty's (and this is a big YET), but you're absolutely correct, I've noticed he resents taking a position pertaining to conclusions over hypothesizing, such as the GSG graffito for instance.
As for Rob, it might be that the new book he's working on (won't say about what) might be a move towards presenting several hypotheses? Who knows... But I know he's not the type to push a suspect on us. (Not that I'm saying that you are, or SPE and Rob House did. And by the way, due to work overload I STILL haven't managed to read Rob House's book, but it's in my luggage for the next trip. Actually it's permanently in my luggage for the next trip, but at some point it'll manage to get out of the luggage...)
Hey, what we're presently doing is gossiping about colleagues to their face. I think it beats gossiping about people on Facebook.

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you on drugs Tom, or did you just mention me in the same breath as SPE and Chris (1 and 2),

Yes and yes.

But if you were to make a list of great researchers AND writers, you should include Monty and Rob Clack.

I should have been more clear. I wasn't making a list of great researchers and writers, I was making a short list of great researchers who also interpret data in a theoretical fashion, and do it well. I don't count Monty and Rob among this group because although their publications are brilliant, they steer clear of suspects and grey areas and instead focus more on presenting raw facts, such as with Rob's excellent Rose Mylett piece co-authored with Debs. And Monty's authoritative series on Mitre Square, where he placed his focus more on the environment, etc than on more contentious issues such as who killed Eddowes. And let's not forget their long-running City Beat series. These are all excellent works, but I was thinking more along the lines of suspect-driven research such as Scott Nelson's Butcher's Row suspect, and Evans on Tumblety, et al. If I were making a list of writers and researchers I enjoy on all fronts, you can count on Monty and Rob being towards the top of the list, and the list would be quite long.

I wish people wouldn't keep making these lists, actually.

Oh, let's not pretend to be more modest than we are. You were fit to be tied that Begg never mentioned you in the new A-Z. We were all shocked, in fact. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, that's when I started really paying attention to how much you've contributed to the work of all the people who WERE given notice in A-Z.

PS.:I also wonder how you managed to make Phil quote himself Tom. How does that work?

Oops. Must be those drugs again.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Well, lists or no laundry-lists, Chris Phillips is the most amazing researcher. But I'll stop embarrassing myself now.

[Chris]

But if you were to make a list of great researchers AND writers, you should include Monty and Rob Clack.

I wish people wouldn't keep making these lists, actually.

[Chris]

That's not the point I was making, since clearly he was not convicted of being Christian Nelson on this evidence. My point is that there should be no doubt now as to the fact that Nelson was Le Grand. It's even listed as an alias of his on the 1915 and 17 ledgers that Clack posted above. On the one side you have policemen swearing the two are the same man, on the other hand you have Le Grand unable to prove he was ANYWHERE for 7 whole years. Unless you're suggesting they were two different people, and I don't think you are, then we are on the same page here.

I'm not really suggesting anything either way. I don't know enough about it. But it seems to me that the jury was aware of all the evidence you've mentioned (apart from the assertions in the police registers, and we don't know what those are based on), and it found that there was reasonable doubt.

[mariab]

Are you on drugs Tom, or did you just mention me in the same breath as SPE and Chris (1 and 2), plus editor Vanderlinden? I'm sure you'll change your mind soon. But if you were to make a list of great researchers AND writers, you should include Monty and Rob Clack.
By the by, my Berner Street article can't be written unless I finish some research in the newspapers (in September) and in Paris (in October), plus in the next couple weeks I'm pulling a Tom Wescott and will feature infrequent internet access, as I'm going to the hills for a bit. (Yesssss to the hills.)

PS.:I also wonder how you managed to make Phil quote himself Tom. How does that work?

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually I'm really grateful Phil Carter initiated that so-called “water-muddling“ search last night,

I'm always grateful when Phil and others are willing to spend their time digging up and sharing material on a subject that interests me. I hope I didn't give the opposite impression merely because I disgreed with some of his suppositions. Being a gifted researcher doesn't always translate to being a gifted interpreter, as we're reminded on occassion. And certainly the vice versa is also true. There are however notable exceptions to this rule, such as SPE, Chris Phillips, and Scott Nelson, Wolf Vanderlinden, among others. And perhaps Maria Birbili, if she ever gets around to publishing her Berner Street piece.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

As I read that evidence, it sounds as though the police officers had each seen "Neilson" on a single occasion, one of them 14 years earlier and the other 7 years earlier.

Maybe the police had other information that they weren't in a position to prove in court, but I don't believe it's safe to convict anyone on evidence like that.

That's not the point I was making, since clearly he was not convicted of being Christian Nelson on this evidence. My point is that there should be no doubt now as to the fact that Nelson was Le Grand. It's even listed as an alias of his on the 1915 and 17 ledgers that Clack posted above. On the one side you have policemen swearing the two are the same man, on the other hand you have Le Grand unable to prove he was ANYWHERE for 7 whole years. Unless you're suggesting they were two different people, and I don't think you are, then we are on the same page here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Many thanks to Rob Clack for posting the 1915 and 1917 MEPO Habitual Criminal registers entries. Thus Le Grand/George Jackson was not released in 1915, as the handwritten correction on the 1915 entry proves. Do we know where he got deported in 1917?
Rob, thank you, I'm about to email you back, just gonna check JTRForums first.
I'm still very curious to find out who was that Swede Anderson dude under surveillance in London and Paris in 1915, as he sounds pretty much like a “hot potato“, if I might say so...

[mariab]

Actually I'm really grateful Phil Carter initiated that so-called “water-muddling“ search last night, as it made me look up and re-remember Le Grand's criminal/life path, which I had lately completely neglected, if not partly forgotten, due to being preoccupied with other things.
By the by, the A-Z is a severely not updated reference for Le Grand, Christian Briscon(e)y was definitely not his real name, and at this point I'm not the only one doubting that Kristian Nielsen was his real name either.

Just a reminder that the policemen who personally knew 'Christian Nelson' who was in prison from 1877 to 1884 confirmed, under oath, in a court of law, that he and 'our' Charles Le Grand were one and the same. Also, Le Grand was not able to provide ONE WITNESS to prove that had been at liberty at any time during that 7 year period, whereas there should have been a wealth of people, not to mention documents, and it never would have reached court in the first place had he been able to show that he was not Nelson.

That's precisely why I quoted the Old Bailey proceedings from 1891 in my post #83, Tom. At least one person (Chris Phillips) read it.

Maybe the police had other information that they weren't in a position to prove in court, but I don't believe it's safe to convict anyone on evidence like that.

That's why I believe they didn't convict him. (Unless he was being protected by someone “up high“? Which might have been the case in 1886 too, as he came off pretty easily, each time.) Still, we're simply researching him, not deciding about the state of his freedom in a court of law, thus the evidence appears enough to personally convince me. In the hope for additional evidence to turn up.

The name Neilson or Neilsen, Nielson and Nielsen ARE important, I believe, as we know only that the man was born "at sea". Looking for his birth may require an exact spelling of the name, especially IF the man is Danish, as has been suggested. Danish census records for example, are difficult enough to read, believe me! It is a common name in Denmark, Norway and Sweden with small variations in the ending of the name, confused even more by complicated and varying law changes in those countries during the mid to late Victorian period that changed the structure of given surnames. (I could go into detail but it would take far too long.) Therefore I believe it is a point to consider should one come across a suitable candidate for his birth or a name in a census, for example.

Just ask Debs, Phil, who's been patiently swimming through these murky waters for years. There are TONS of Nielsens etc. in the Danish censuses, and the information is too generic. Or am I wrong, Debs?
I've ordered an (allegedly comprehensive), Danish lexicon of diplomats Danske gesandter og gesandsksabspersonale indtil 1914 (1952, 453 p.) through intra-library loan and I'm looking through all Danish diplomats/secretaries/attachés stationed in England and France in the appropriate time-frame, in the (off) hope to identify Le Grand's father, described as being in a diplomatic position in some newspaper reports. The list ain't too long and some names do fit, but I haven't yet managed going through all of their their CVs. Possibly I might do this on Saturday.

And I REALLY wished someone came forward and explained to me if Neilson from Wealdstone is a reference from the SB ledgers or not, and if it refers to a detective agency. Anyone willing to help here, please?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs,

Thats ok, no problem, explanation accepted, of course.
The A-Z do indeed list Gerry Nixon's article as a reference. My point is that the assumption, by whoever wrote what first, can be seen to be misleading as the article abouit Le Grand in the A-Z does not say what you just wrote as explanation, thereby leaving a suggestion of assumptove possible fact.

Hello Rob,

Many thanks for supplying these. Most generous of you. Well done to Chris as well.

best wishes

Phil