Did Jack only kill 3?

[lynn cates]

timing

Hello Debs. Thanks. Do we have a date on when CLG made the reference? Was the murder BEFORE 1888?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

one of the women involved in the 1887 case, the woman assaulted, also brought up similar charges against another man of a similar character to Le Grand a few years before 87.

Debs, did you happen to recently discover that Pasquier was beaten up by some other pimp pre 1887, pressing charges at the Magistrate Courts?
(Please don't feel compelled to answer this if you don't wish to for some reason.)

[mariab]

Hello Debs and Lynn,
"Nihil fere non tetigi", the way I understand it, means "he delved in everything/there was nothing he didn't show interest for". AKA, "He was a man of many capabilities".

[Monty]

I am in total agreement with you and you have witnessed first hand the wrath incurred when you do challenge the viabilty of suspects by posters who have fought to keep their viabilty alive.

But it is a fact that as Insp Reid states there is not a tittle of evidence against man woman or child. The suspect list should be torn up, but no we are constantly subjected to the likes of Aaron Kosminski and others being publicly flogged to death as being prime suspects,

Staying with Aaron Kosminski it was Martin Fido who first discovered Aaron Kosminski but later went public saying his antecedents didnt fit with The Macnaghtem memorandum. That should have been the end of Aaron Kosminski, but no people wont let go of him. Only last year Rob House published a book in which he suggests Aaron Kosminski is Scotland Yards prime suspect how wrong is that, and some people want to suggest that the results of my research are out with the fairies.

I have explained many times on here the differences between

Someone looked at by the police in 1888

Someone looked upon as a likely suspect then and now

Someone looked upon as a prime suspect then and now

Some dont want to accept the fact that there is no evidence as you have pointed out. Some keep playing the history card. Well isnt it right that what is historically written is there to be challenged in exactly the same way as the police case is with regards to the Ripper.

The suspect list should be torn up, but no we are constantly subjected to the likes of Aaron Kosminski and others being publicly flogged to death as being prime suspects.....

Feingenbaum

Monty

[Debra A]

Lynn, can I pick your brains on what this might mean?

nihil fere non tetigi

It was used by the correspondent/reporter in his descriptions of Le Grand and his crimes, in the PMG article.

[Debra A]

Hello Debs. Thanks. Perhaps a reference to his correspondents from whom he was attempting to extort money?

Could helpless refer to "weak"?

Cheers.
LC

Perhaps, Lynn.
Immediately before the mention of "helpless victims" the reporter mentions Le Grand's court appearance in 87 for assaulting a prostitute and talks of how he 'preyed' on these particular 'miserable' women. So, I guess he would have no problem in describing these same women as helpless victims later in the piece. Perhaps my judgement is coloured by the fact that one of the women involved in the 1887 case, the woman assaulted, also brought up similar charges against another man of a similar character to Le Grand a few years before 87.
It was mentioned by the magistrate in the 1887 assault case that Le Grand mixed with these women and then had the audacity to complain about their behaviour, like it was being treated as some sort of joke and he really got as good as he gave from these ladies.
Maybe the reporter is trying to paint a darker picture of LG for some reason?

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Debs. Thanks. Perhaps a reference to his correspondents from whom he was attempting to extort money?

Could helpless refer to "weak"?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hello Debs. Thanks. I take it that the reference to "helpless class" indicates unfortunates?

Cheers.
LC

That's a difficult one, Lynn.
Le Grand was involved in the high-end side of prostitution and although I have seen West End brothel prostitutes described as 'unfortunates' in a couple of articles the women Le Grand involved himself with don't appear to have been of the "helpless class" in the sense that I understand it.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Lynn for the "evidence" suggestion...and I would like to thank you Trevor for the support and the like-minded approach to problem solving here.

I know Ive disagreed with some of your ideas, and I know you have with some of mine, but the spirit of your post is encouraging to the future of the study I think.

What would be tragic is if some of the people who have studied the hardest and longest on these cases ceast to lend their valued opinions to some matters because they cannot embrace discussions within a Ripperless philosophy context.

If I said who was William Bligh to you what would you likely respond with?
A tyrant who drove his crew to mutiny is I believe the pat response to that question. History and the re-telling of the story have shaped some of the characters to such an extent that historically they become something they were not.

Caroline Alexander wrote a book called the Bounty which was released in I believe 2003. In it, a superb piece of historical research and literary flair, one discovers a Captain Bligh that maintained support from many of his crew and under his leadership sailed some 3,200 nautical miles in the Ocean to safety, in an open boat. You discover that Christian may well have mutinied for the lifestyle and woman he fell for in Tahiti.

Acceptance at face value isnt a wise approach to any undertaking.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

Thugs R Us.

Hello Christer. Thanks. Don't know much about those chaps--hope to keep it that way.

Perhaps I am missing something, but were not at least some of them seemingly innocuous? A thug, to be good, needs to inspire fear.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

unfortunates?

Hello Debs. Thanks. I take it that the reference to "helpless class" indicates unfortunates?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello folks,

In response.....

Bridewell, Absolute proof in my use of the phrase refers to hard, qualifiable, physical evidence that without doubt links any one person to any one of the Canonical murders. My perception is that there is no such evidence that is known and available.

Tom, I dont resent your position on LeGrand at all. If you happen to feel that he is a good suspect for any one of the Canonical Murders then by all means, pursue that avenue. To suggest that any person was likely Jack the Ripper, if in fact a hard link to just a single Canonical murder can be found, insinuates that there was indeed factually a single man we can legitimately call Jack the Ripper. That has never been proven, not by a long stretch.

Lynn, I see no reason why LeGrand couldnt have killed anyone, he seems a suitable candidate for violent crime. All Im saying is before he can be called a murderer, let alone a murderer of the 5 Canonicals, proof must be provided.

David, George Hutchinson is a witness. A witness who in short time was not believed. That doesnt make him a suspect for anything but Perjury, Mischief or Fraud. Since we only know that someone was seen watching the court we can only say that person would be of interest in the case, not that it was George Hutchinson nor that the person was a partner with anyone in any crime. Only George Hutchinson says George Hutchinson was there, as in Israels case.

Don, not being terribly conversant on the Borden case or Richard the 3rd, I can only say that unless a "smoking gun" connected the individuals to the crimes they shouldnt be named as guilty parties. From the Borden case the defense council AV Jennings summed by saying.... "There is not one particle of direct evidence in this case from beginning to end against Lizzie A. Borden. There is not a spot of blood, there is not a weapon that they have connected with her in any way, shape or fashion." He was right, and she was found Not Guilty. When the judge charged the jury to make a decision he did so pointing out the folly of depending upon circumstantial evidence alone.

All Im suggesting is the same principle that he espoused be used in the analysis of these particular murders.

Fleetwood, as you correctly state there is nothing wrong with theorizing Liz Strides murder was interrupted, there is with stating it as fact. However, I challenge you or anyone to find one piece of physical evidence from that murder and murder scene that indicates the killer intended to do anything more to Liz Stride after cutting her once. To address your final comment, I can only say that for many years here almost all the long time students of the crimes have stood by the Canonical Group dogma without benefit of any evidence to support it, hard physical evidence linking individual with crime. I do know that some here are looking at the cases in a similar fashion to myself and do not accept a Canonical Group as a given.

It would be nice if they chimed in a little more and shared the criticisms that come with the posting of such blasphemies, but its really about what my conscience says to me here, not what support the ideas get from the general population. I state my own opinion, it differs from many others, that in of itself doesnt make either party incorrect. The jury is still out amigos.

Best regards,

Mike R

I am in total agreement with you and you have witnessed first hand the wrath incurred when you do challenge the viabilty of suspects by posters who have fought to keep their viabilty alive.

But it is a fact that as Insp Reid states there is not a tittle of evidence against man woman or child. The suspect list should be torn up, but no we are constantly subjected to the likes of Aaron Kosminski and others being publicly flogged to death as being prime suspects,

Staying with Aaron Kosminski it was Martin Fido who first discovered Aaron Kosminski but later went public saying his antecedents didnt fit with The Macnaghtem memorandum. That should have been the end of Aaron Kosminski, but no people wont let go of him. Only last year Rob House published a book in which he suggests Aaron Kosminski is Scotland Yards prime suspect how wrong is that, and some people want to suggest that the results of my research are out with the fairies.

I have explained many times on here the differences between

Someone looked at by the police in 1888

Someone looked upon as a likely suspect then and now

Someone looked upon as a prime suspect then and now

Some dont want to accept the fact that there is no evidence as you have pointed out. Some keep playing the history card. Well isnt it right that what is historically written is there to be challenged in exactly the same way as the police case is with regards to the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"I agree that CLG, given his character, makes an ideal thug."

He does. But did Bundy, Ridgway, Rifkin, Shawcross, Brudos, Sutcliffe and the likes of them make ideal thugs too...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Hello Maria. Thanks.

Do you have the exact quote at hand?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
This is the exact quote in context-
From the PMG Nov 26th 1891 (just after conviction)

"He used to practice as a 'private inquiry agent' off and on, and the terror which he inspired among the more helpless class of his victims was due as much to the show he made of being 'in with the police' (en mouchard) as to his probably absurd boast of having a murder in his past."

[lynn cates]

C L G

Hello Mike. Thanks. Perhaps we could emend that from "proof" to "evidence"?

But I agree that CLG, given his character, makes an ideal thug.

Cheers.
LC