LeGrand conspiracy

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh dear - some people are never satisfied ...

Is this pick on Tom month or something? I'm sorry if you feel that way, I've judged cringed at the name of this thread ever since it was created. However, if Debs is going to pursue yet another fringe Le Grand idea, and suggest minor differences in description actually lend credence to the idea that they were really two people (Nelson and Le Grand), then perhaps the title should stay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I know it's nothing like 30 years, the “30 years“ part referred to 1877-1907, from Le Grand's first known incarceration to his last known release.

The one and a half inch discrepancy can simply be explained through hasty measuring. Or it might have occurred really to Le Grand. I gained 1'' in my 20s, and I recently met my cousin who used to be much taller than me and now she has shrunk to almost being shorter. People can get a bit taller through lifestyle choices, such as lifting weights, frequent surfing (all that paddling). No idea if men in the Victorian era lifted weights.
Malnutrition and a long incarceration might lead to people slightly “shrinking“, be it through having lost significant weight or simply through starting hunching/slouching from depression.

As for the scars on his face having disappeared, they might have been fresh scars, and have fainted with time.

[Chris]

Well, people tend to get a bit shorter (or even a bit taller) over 30 years, depending on age.

I think if you look at the dates it's nothing like 30 years - and not being much younger than Le Grand was in 1907 I'm a bit disturbed by the implication that I may have shrunk to 5' 9'' without noticing it. Maybe I'd better check.

Obviously it would be nice if that entry had more significance than appeared initially, so I'm probably a bit biased, but would they have missed out quite so many scars in the second description?

[mariab]

Well, people tend to get a bit shorter (or even a bit taller) over 30 years, depending on age.
An eye colour between “blue“ and “grey“ is not a significant discrepancy. Now, if it were between “blue“ and “brown“...

[Debra A]

It depends how significant you think one and a half inches is, Maria.
We need a topless photo of Le Grand to settle it.

Here's the two descriptions:


Christian Nelson (Courtesy of 'Scotland Yard Investigates' by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow)

height- 6ft
complexion-dark
hair-light brown
eyes-grey
distinguishing marks-scar on nose, centre of forehead, right first finger, thumb,and wrist, left thumb, first and second finger, and left thigh, hair down centre of chest to bottom of stomach.

Charles Grande (Courtesy of Chris)
height-5ft 10 and a half in.
complexion-sallow
hair-dark brown
eyes-blue
distinguishing marks-mole left cheek, scar right wrist

[mariab]

Is there a significant discrepancy pertaining to height and color of eyes between 1884 and 1891?

[Debra A]

Thanks to Chris' generous sharing of these documents, this is the first time we have had a contemporary description of Le Grand, named as Le Grand.

The description of Nelson and Le Grand differs on a few points; height, complexion, colour of hair, colour of eyes. The only feature that seems the same is the description of a scar on the right wrist.

But, the Office No. on both the documents for Nelson and Le Grand is 24755.
I guess that means that the authorities considered them to be the same man regardless of anything else?

[Chris]

Hi all, thanks for posting this Chris, though it's a shame that a new thread wasn't created.

Oh dear - some people are never satisfied ...

[Debra A]

Hi all, thanks for posting this Chris, though it's a shame that a new thread wasn't created. Moles can grow over night, let alone over the 30 YEARS between when Christian Nelson went to prison and when Grand was described here. Considering the overwhelming wealth of proof that Nelson and Le Grand were one and the same, I hardly think a mole appearing on his face could be seen as evidence to the contrary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I was posting in response to this from Chris:

I think it was mentioned in discussion that he had scars on his face. If so, this wasn't included in the distinguishing marks section here.

I was just pointing out, for those that weren't aware, that the scarred face description comes from the police record of Christian Neilson in 1884 and that an 1891 jury decided Le Grand was not Christian Neilson.

[The Grave Maurice]

Moles can grow over night....

[Aside] Really? I would have thought that anyone who notices that a mole has grown overnight might want to consult a dermatologist. Quickly.

[Tom_Wescott]

Moles

Hi all, thanks for posting this Chris, though it's a shame that a new thread wasn't created. Moles can grow over night, let alone over the 30 YEARS between when Christian Nelson went to prison and when Grand was described here. Considering the overwhelming wealth of proof that Nelson and Le Grand were one and the same, I hardly think a mole appearing on his face could be seen as evidence to the contrary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Regarding the picture in Scotland Yard Investigates, maybe it should be mentioned that this is a picture of Christian Neilson/Nelson and maybe we should take into account the fact that in his 1891 trial part of Le Grand's indictment was that he was the previously convicted Christian Nelson. The jury were shown a picture of Nelson and decided that he wasn't the same man.
It is the police description of Christian Nelson that describes a scarred face.

From Le Grand's 1891 trial:

He was further charged with having been convicted of felony on 9th July, 1877, at the Guildhall, Westminster, to which he pleaded NOT GUILTY.

GEORGE HEWLETT . I was formerly in the D division of Police—on 9th July, 1877, I was at the Sessions of the Peace at the Guildhall, Westminster—I produce a certificate of the conviction of Christian Neilson (This was a certificate of conviction of stealing and receiving, after a previous conviction—Sentence, Eight Years Penal Servitude and Seven Years' Police Supervision)—the prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined. I am not in the Police now; I retired last May—I have not seen the prisoner since July, 1877, till about a month ago—there is a photo of him here—don't know whether the warder is here
See original
—I don't know when the prisoner came out of prison—I think he was convicted at this Court in June, 1889, but I don't know it.
Re-examined. I have no doubt that he is the man who was convicted in 1877.
THEODORE BARTELLS (Detective Sergeant). On 6th May, 1884, a prisoner who was released on ticket-of-leave reported himself to me—the prisoner is that man—he reported himself in the name of Christian Neilson—I saw him again in Holloway Prison, after his arrest on this charge—I did not know him before.
Cross-examined. He only reported himself on his release, not afterwards—I did not make inquiry for him—I have heard that in 1889 he was corresponding with Inspector Wybrow—when he reported himself I was furnished with this document containing his photo, with a description of marks, and so on, in the usual way.

[verdict-] NOT GUILTY.

[mariab]

Is there any discharge information?

Apparently yes, at the London National Archives. Rob Clack located Le Grand's date of discharge in a register there about a month ago, and there's hope that the original file might be there as well.

Lynn, can I email you around tomorrow evening? I'd be so grateful for your input about a couple things. Today I'm slavin' it :-( with a marathon of emails pertaining to a conference I'm trying to organize next summer in Paris.

[Debra A]

After his release

Just to add some things I posted on JTRforums but not casebook; Rob Clack also found a different reference to Le Grand's 1907 release at the NA.
It was from this that we were able to find Le Grand on trial again at the Old Bailey in June 1908:

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t19080623-49&div=t19080623-49&terms=granday#highlight

[lynn cates]

discharge

Hello Chris. Nice work, as always.

Is there any discharge information?

Cheers.
LC