LeGrand conspiracy

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[curious]

Very interesting and enlightening.

Thanks, Debra.

[Chris]

Regarding the earlier comments about the A-Z article on Le Grand, Keith Skinner has asked me to post the following message here.
____________________________________________

Dear Chris,

When next you post on the Le Grand thread, I wonder whether you might be so kind as to incorporate a message from me regarding our entry on Le Grand in the new A To Z which I note is being criticised. Normally I would not defend such criticism but in this case I feel I have to, on behalf of Martin and Paul, whose hands were tied on this entry because I have been researching Le Grand for a client for the last eight years and consequently could not share with them any new information. My research into Le Grand is ongoing so I still have to respect client confidentiality. This conflict of interests, of course, made it exceptionally difficult for Martin, Paul and myself, so the blame for all deficiencies in the entry should be apportioned to me.

I note also there is criticism that we did not include you in our Acknowledgements although I was very keen to ensure your name did appear in the book - and in my eagerness managed to let your surname through incorrectly spelt! I've said this many times before in the past Chris, but I do consider you to be the top researcher in this field - as witness your tremendous contributions to Casebook. The notion that we were shunning you or did not recognise your work is simply asinine, but our policy for adding names in the Acknowledgement section was to include anybody and everybody with whom we had contact, or who had contacted us with contributions,information, observations, corrections, etc., since our last revision in 1996. I know that you and I had never been in touch with each other prior to publication and I'm assuming this was the case with Martin and Paul. I suspect it doesn't bother you Chris but it does jar with me as we did go to enormous lengths to try and accommodate and draw attention to as many articles in the Ripper journals as we could reasonably reference. The A To Z has taken a great hammering for its many mistakes and factual innaccuracies. Justifiably so in my opinion. But what we are not guilty of is deliberately excluding prominent and important researchers - as will be seen in the next edition - if there is one!

Best Wishes
Keith

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Thank you for this posting.
I would also like to thank Keith for this explanation regarding the Le Grand entries in the A-Z. Speaking personally, I understand the problematic situation Keith found himself in and the explanation of client confidentiality is of course understood without need for further comment. My slight critique re. the Le Grand entry was based on something I personally found to be unproven, without any written explanation. This explanation now shows exactly why that was so. I am therefore grateful to Keith Skinner for taking the trouble to explain this to us all.

best wishes to you both

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Looks like ol' Patty Cornwell was a Ripper Notes reader!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. In spite of Keith's generous gesture towards his co-authors, I e-mailed Paul years ago offering to clean up the Le Grand entry and submit new info towards it. My request was refused.

[Debra A]

Looks like ol' Patty Cornwell was a Ripper Notes reader!

8 years research would date back to Gerry Nixon's article.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have eyes, Debs. I know what was written.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Going back to Jabez Spencer Balfour, can I ask about something that's been puzzling me? Sorry if this question has already been answered and I've missed it.

Balfour says about the suspect who was pointed out to him in prison "Known to have been the perpetrator of many serious offences, he had only been convicted of two." Tom's comment in his article is that "Le Grand was in for both blackmail and fraud", and as Debs has pointed out he had been indicted in 1891 for a number of other offences, for which he wasn't tried.

But Balfour's statement reads to me more like a comment on the man's whole criminal career. It sounds as though he was known to have committed many serious offences, but had only - ever - been convicted of two. That wouldn't actually fit Le Grand, would it?

What do other people think?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris. If you read a little closer you'll see that Balfour was not referring at all to his suspect's "entire criminal career", as he even mentions that one of his police sources had arrested his suspect many years before on an unrelated offense. And it shouldn't be assumed that Jabez knew all that much about his suspect, though Le Grand was indeed serving time for two convictions when Jabez met him, so Jabez is correct. And as you might be aware, Jabez in his 1907 book referred specifically to Le Grand and how unfair his sentence was, so there's no doubt at all that Jabez was familiar with Le Grand. He also commented in the 1907 book that he didn't know the exact details of Le Grand's sentencing, but was prepared to believe they were of the worst kind, so again this fits with how described his suspect. There's not a single line in his suspect description that does not fit Le Grand. By contrast, virtually none of it fits Grainger, aside from the physical description, as Grainger and Le Grand were remarkably similar in appearance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Tom

I was going to reply in detail, but it seems rather pointless, as in your latest outburst on the other side, you say that "anyone with a brain" who has looked at the evidence agrees with you over this.

Well, I don't agree with you, and I think you're insulting quite a few other people apart from Debs. Frankly, this kind of rudeness and aggression is the kind of thing that makes me want to take a long holiday from Ripperology - or at any rate from the field as it manifests itself on the Internet discussion boards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris,

I don't think it's fair for you to comment on posts I make to other people, on different sites, and suggest that it applies to any discussion I'm having over here. I thought your question was a very fair and logical question and responded in kind. Or do you feel I was being rude and aggressive in my above reply? I see no point in you choosing to become offended at something I've said, to someone else, somewhere else, but disagreeing with me in retaliation would certainly render any further discussion on the matter pointless. I know Debs is generally regarded as sweet and inoffensive, but if you've been following that thread and the one before it, you know that of the two of us I have been far and away the least insulting. Her argument about Grainger is pointed and baseless, plain and simple. It's been discussed and explored and has gone nowhere. But as she has stated that she wants to be treated as the rest of us, and not pigeon-holed as a 'mere' researcher, perhaps it's time that you, Clack, myself and others let her do that without jumping to her defense every time she puts herself in a heated debate. I'm actually not angry with her and would prefer things go back to how they were before, but she wants to keep stoking the fire.
And might I add that you've chosen to take my 'anyone with a brain' comment out of context and reproduce here in a truncated form. I did not suggest that Debs, or anyone else did not have a brain. Read it again.
As for 'rudeness and aggression' on the message boards, perhaps it's just me, but I feel it has been at an all time low this past year.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Tom

If you say that "anyone with a brain" can see something, knowing full well that other people have a different view, obviously you're being highly insulting - to all those people.

So please don't imply that what I posted was misleading. I don't like that any more than your earlier suggestion that I was being hypocritical, or the untrue statement that I was annoyed about being left out of the A-Z acknowledgments. This is just a hobby to me, and I don't spend my time obsessing about how people "rate" me as a researcher.