Will we ever know?

[downonwhores]

Grainger

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the info. I'll reread them tonight. I'm currently reading Feldman's book and i think that he is more open minded than Harrision on the authenticity of the diary. Any opinions? I'm currently looking for 100% proof on ink and paper if it is fake or not fake? Any independent and objective sources?

[DVV]

He's certainly not missing from Ripper literature, but for whatever reason he tends to get ignored. Even for what little we know about him he seems to be a better suspect than the vast majority of the people who have been named as suspects over the years, in my opinion.

Absolutely. I can't understand why he is so neglected.
Even his name is not well established. Some sources say "Grant", while others give "Grainger".

Hi Downonwhores,
you'll find some interesting data here (suspects: WGG and censorship) and in archives boards as well.
Unfortunately, some articles about his case are missing on casebook press reports.

Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the info. I'll reread them tonight. I'm currently reading Feldman's book and i think that he is more open minded than Harrision on the authenticity of the diary. Any opinions? I'm currently looking for 100% proof on ink and paper if it is fake or not fake? Any independent and objective sources?

Hi DOW,

Over to the "On The Trail Of The Forgers" thread with this, m'man, and you may get more answers than you expect....

Cheers,

Graham

[downonwhores]

Thanks

Thanks Dan and Graham,

I'll check it out.

[Chris]

He's certainly not missing from Ripper literature, but for whatever reason he tends to get ignored. Even for what little we know about him he seems to be a better suspect than the vast majority of the people who have been named as suspects over the years, in my opinion.

Reading what is said about William Grant Grainger in the Ripper literature, it's not clear to me whether anyone has researched any of the biographical details in contemporary sources, or whether they have all been taken on trust from the reports in the Pall Mall Gazette and other secondary accounts. I think the only primary documentary evidence I've seen quoted is the 1901 census entry for Grant/Grainger in Parkhurst Prison, which was posted by Chris Scott five years ago.

A few years ago a poster on these boards was trying to verify the information about Grant/Grainger's visits to Cork Workhouse in 1888, but finding the custodians of the records uncooperative.

Have I missed some more detailed research - maybe in one of the periodicals?

[DVV]

I really don't understand why Grainger is not listed here with the other main suspects, while we find Stephen, Pedachenko, Cream, Sickert ... Why articles about him are missing...
Smell of conspiracy...(not to divert this thread! )

[nancyrowina]

Chapman and Tumbelty are both wild stabs in the dark..
Yours Jeff

Unfortunate turn of phrase for a Jack The Ripper Forum.

Sorry I have a dark sense of humour and have been reading about this case for a few days now, it gets very depressing the more you read about how bungled the investigation was and how pathetic the protection offered to the women in White Chapel at the time was . If you can't laugh it would drive you mad surely.

And regarding the question will we ever know who he really was? I am pessimistic really, as proving it this long after the events is practically impossible. The only thing that would really convince me is if someone found a confession written by the killer that gives details about the murders no one else but the killer could have known at the time.

But new evidence does turn up occasionally maybe one day something will be found that can prove the Rippers identity. So who knows?

I don't support the Royal Conspiracy theory because the idea that the Royal family would sanction the murder of 4 innocent women just to get one who had tried to blackmail a member of the family sounds stupid to me, surely they would just kill the Prince if it was that bad? They aren't beyond it. The public knew the Prince was bad anyway what difference would it really have made if it got out he had a love child? Because he wasn't married to the mother the child wouldn't have been an heir to the throne, there's no proof he really had one anyway, more proof he was into men really.