Originally posted by jerryd
View Post
You're making my exact point in that while you correctly ruled out burglar Grant, post number 43 which refers to the correct Le Grand (Grant) comes across as though you're dismissing him also.
That may not be the case but because the thread runs concurrently, it reads as though you've connected post 43 with the rest.
At the time it may have read differently, but for someone reading the thread for the first time, it looks like the Schmuss post no.43 has also been considered not applicable to Le Grand, but that post is a good piece of evidence that proves Le Grand was involved in some way with the investigation into both Stride and Angel, which predates the WVC.
In other words, your post is more important than was realized at the time and because of the content of posts 44 -47, it distracts from the evidence that was right in front of you all along.
As a newbie to the thread, I thought that your comment in post 47 was also referring to post 43 and that you were trying to compare post 43 with the rest of the thread. It may contribute to the reason why as you say, nobody responded to post 43.
I personally think you stumbled on a brilliant piece of evidence without necessarily realizing its significance.
I can appreciate there was a 2-week gap between posts 43 and 44, but anyone reading the thread after that time may have incorrectly put them together, whereas in reality, of course, post 43 is separate and not connected to posts 44 through 47.
RD
Leave a comment: