LeGrand conspiracy

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

With all these people sulking round here, who will undertake the research?!

Let's call a truce: it's 50/50 Grainger v unidentified person. Le Grand is simply a respectable man caught up in a mystery. Were he here now he'd be scratching his head wondering how on earth he was brought into this.

And, according to Kebble, Grainger was suspected and watched by the police (cue Tom).

[mariab]

With all these people sulking round here, who will undertake the research?!

This is possibly the most astute remark I've ever heard about Ripperology.

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'm kinda...fully aware of this. :-) I wasn't too sure about the sarcasm, probably my fault, being a bit slow and linear yesterday or whenever it was.

Debs, is Jabez' The Weekly Dispatch available to read in The Daily Mail (in www.newspaperarchive.com), and were Jabez' Crimson Crimes published in book form in 1906? I'd like to try ordering it per intra-library loan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariab
Chris, I see it appropriate to let Arif and Wescott resolve this discussion between themselves ...

I'm sure no one would want to force you to comment, if you don't feel it's appropriate.

It was actually meant as a comment on your comment, also known as a meta-comment if you will, Chris. :-)

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.

My interpretation is that Jabez was referring to Le Grand's double convinction in 1891, which was highly commented on in the press.

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?

I'm not Tom, but I have 2 explanations for ya:
- The criminal in question might have aged and weakened considerably through his long incarceration, such as criminals often do. Jabez wrote “apparently a respectable man“, which is a nuanced phrase. If you look at serial killers' photos a few years after their incarceration, some of them tend to spot a remarkable ressemblance to Santa. A few years spent in jail can easily make people look more vintage.
- At the time of the second Jabez quote, Le Grand might have been out of jail. In which case Jabez being more subdued in his choice of words might be easily understood, IF he was indeed talking about Le Grand.

Clearly Sgt James knew Le Grand well, but if this man worked on the Whitechapel case

It appears that PC James started following around Le Grand much LATER after the Whitechapel murders. In 1891 during Le Grand's trials for extortion, PC James apparently wasn't even aware that Le Grand used to be a prominent WVC member in 1888. I'm not sure if PC James was involved exclusively with Le Grand's extortion crimes, or if any of this might have also pertained to Le Grand's alleged involvement in the Parnell matter... I assume Debs might have info pertaining to this?

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, I was just having fun and being a smartass. And it's fun to get Debs ire up. LOL.

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.

Of course I would like you to discuss it here, but paraphrasing my comments from other sites irks me. I've said that before. Particularl when you're trying to make me out to be some sort of bad guy here. I'm no victim, but let's not forget this whole thing started with a little group attacking my research and thought processes. I've been called biased, etc over this and I was right all along. I'm not saying anyone else is a 'bad guy' here, but neither am I and I don't want to be treated as one. And yes, it would be nice if everyone would just agree with me and my conclusions.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Sgt James, if memory serves, he first came to know him in 1886.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

... let's not forget this whole thing started with a little group attacking my research and thought processes.

No, Tom. It began with Debs suggesting an interpretation different from yours. It's not all about you ...

[Chris]

My interpretation is that Jabez was referring to Le Grand's double convinction in 1891, which was highly commented on in the press.

But what Balfour actually says is that he had been convicted of only two crimes, not that there had been a double conviction, among others.

[mariab]

Come on, Chris, you know better than that. Are you requiring complete accuracy from an amateur in the late 19th century/early 20th century? You know that it never happens like this, not even in police reports, or in historical reports, not to mention the press. Jabez was an amateur and he was quite a bit misinformed on the Le Grand case, including how many years Le Grand got in his convinction.

[Chris]

Come on, Chris, you know better than that. Are you requiring complete accuracy from an amateur in the late 19th century/early 20th century?

I'm not requiring anything. I'm simply pointing out that Balfour's comments do not describe Le Grand accurately.

[mariab]

I'm simply pointing out that Balfour's comments do not describe Le Grand accurately.

I don't think that anyone in his right mind would disagree with this.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Maria,

All of Balfour's memoirs were written over a period of 26 weeks and serialised in the 'Weekly Dispatch'. They were later published in his book. It follows thus Balfour is not writing at two different points in time detailing the changing character of the same man. They are his recollections of the men as he recalled them in 1906: he recalls one as clearly evil and cruel and the other as apparently respectable. This needs a solid explanation, still.

If you're going to argue 'Jabez was a misinformed amateur' then you cast doubt upon his entire statement. Surely you're not going to pick which bits are accurate to suit? I mean, I quite like Sadler for this, so I'm going to ignore the 'misinformed' who believe he was on a boat at the time of four of the murders.

To recap:

1) There is no satisfactory explanation as to why he said 'convicted of only two offences'.

2) There is no satisfactory explanation of the descriptions of two men.

Like you, I would like to read about these two men in his memoirs. The 1906 memoirs are probably of more use than the 1907 book as the latter is based on the former, and there's every chance the latter was edited for book form. Apparently copies of the 'Weekly Dispatch' can be accessed via the British Library Online.

Anyway, the jury is still out on this one!

[Debra A]

No, Tom. It began with Debs suggesting an interpretation different from yours. It's not all about you ...

Exactly. Thanks, Chris.
It happens to everyone...and should. It keeps us all on our toes.

Anyone reading the first few pages of the thread will see Tom himself doing it;
I went to a lot of trouble to answer Phil Carter's query about whether Le Grand was also convicted in 1886/1887, something I had researched in detail previously. Despite my outlining the reasons why I personally concluded it wasn't 'our' Le Grand, Tom completely disregards that research in post #102 and goes on to encourage more research into the 1886/87 convictions...so obviously he didn't agree with my conclusions there..