Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Ally]

You need to go back and read what I wrote. Or read the definition of explicit. I might have implicitly stated it, but that would be the exact opposite of explicit. Which I didn't either. I said: I have always wondered at your dogged insistence that Stride was a ripper victim when there is a good argument to be made for her not being the Ripper's work. Now that I have read your essay and realized that it is the sole murder that the witness statements match, and you make a point of your suspect being in the general area, your dogged determination that Stride is a victim makes sense. And you have admitted that your pursuit of Le Grand was started from the Stride murder-which is what I said--your Le Grand hat is hung on the Stride murder.

No where in my post did I accuse you of "manipulating evidence". That is flat out bullsh!t.
Either that or you don't understand what an accusation of evidence manipulation is. I do know how flustered you get when you are irked and you are prone to lapses in reason, so possibly this is yet another example of your temper getting in the way of your good sense, but if I had accused you of "evidence manipulation" I would have said you faked something, you lied about something or you distorted the truth to further your theory. I did not say anything of the sort. I said, you need to believe Stride was a victim, because it makes up a large portion of your theory.

P.S My reply was to Tom's post before he edited his own but the basics still stand.

[robhouse]

Tom,

I thought your article was very good. Clearly Le Grand was a criminal, and apparently a sociopath (although not likely insane.) In my opinion, one of the strongest arguments in favor of Le Grand as a suspect would be that he seems to have impersonated a policeman (detective), and injected himself into the investigation. This is consistent with serial killer behavior in some cases. My main objection to Le Grand as a suspect is that (like others here) his criminal persona seems to be of a different type than the lust murderer one would expect of JTR... I too tend to see the Riper as probably a loner, Dahmer type as opposed to the overt aggression and manipulation (often for money) Le Grand seems to have engaged in. In general he seems to have been a manipulative and aggressive pimp/ extortionist.

Also, although I applaud Debra's discovery of the October 10 Batty Street "lodger" article, I disagree with your conclusions here. I don't think it is accurate to say that "researcher Gavin Bromley expertly proved beyonddoubt that the Batty Street Lodger had never existed and had largely been nothing more than the press making a mountain out of a molehill." I do not think this was Gavin's conclusion. In any case, I think that a reading of the press accounts shows that the police were aware of the incident before October 10... it seems that the Police learned of the bloody shirt incident around October 1 or 2, as a result of house-to-house inquiries. Therefore, it seems to me that Le Grand simply did a little of his own investigating (in his role as private detective) after learning of the incident which was clearly public knowledge in the neighborhood prior to October 9 or 10. I.e. a neighbor heard about it from Mrs. Kuer, so it is likely that word of the "bloody shirt" was on the street etc.

But in any case, it was a very good article, and I applaud all your work and research into this figure, who is clearly deserving of a closer look.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

And to be clear, I never accused you of "screwing with the evidence". I said you hung your hat on it. And as you have just said the exact same thing: "it's true that my suspicion settled on Le Grand through the Stride murder", you have basically confirmed what I said.

Look who's moving the goal post. You explicity stated that I push Stride up as a Ripper victim to bolster my Le Grand theory, which most certainly would be manipulating the evidence if what you said was true. Now you say you didn't say it, but then say that by disagreeing with you I was confirming what you said. I'd say I'm the only one here not manipulating the evidence.

Here's your words: I have always wondered at Tom's fierce devotion to the idea that Stride had to have been a Ripper victim, and it has now with this essay become clear as to why that would be. It is the one victim where he can place his chief suspect in the relative vicinity and the only witness description that comes close to matching. He has hung his hat, so to speak, on this one victim's evidence and he must therefore include her, lest his case as a whole fall apart.

One can take Stride out, quite easily, if one is of the mindset to do so. There are more than enough discrepancies in her murder that a person can, upon viewing the evidence, decide she was not a Ripper victim.

And as I illustrated in my previous essay, the only authors who have excluded Stride have done so based not on facts, but on myths and misunderstandings. This is virtually without exception. The one significant discrepancy is that she was not mutilated below the neck.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Tom,
The women that we attribute to the Ripper were a bit different than the ones Le Grand pimped for who were a bit more upmarket by the sound of it.What I cant get past also is why he suddenly began, in the Autumn of 1888, to murder and cut up destitute women who were apparently strangers and no sort of threat or rivals to his girls.Also his known assaults involved him in sudden paroxysms of murderous rage, we dont really know whether the ripper was "enraged" so to speak,when he murdered- he may have been-but he may equally have been pretty cool when he got the urge to go out and cut women's throats and then mutilate them.We need to know some more about this complex character,
Best
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm curious why the issue of Le Grand's height is such a big problem considering Tumblety - who was taller than Le Grand - seems to be accepted as a legit suspect by most.

Whenever we consider a new suspect, we have to set our biases aside and re-evaluate the evidence by placing that suspect into the frame. Because Le Grand is known to have used criminal accomplices who - in the case of John Tysell - were willing to do time for Le Grand, and for whom Le Grand was willing to do time by avenging Tysell, we have to more seriously consider the possibility of a Ripper team. Like you, I've never been comfortable with the accomplice idea, but that's because it doesn't make sense when fitting a Druitt or Koz into the frame. It makes good sense with Le Grand, particularly considering the only murder in which a tall, fair-haired man was clearly witnessed is also the only murder where Le Grand is all over the place trying to throw police on the wrong scent. It's also the only murder where two men are seen in the vicinity and considered by both the witness and police to have been accomplices (note I said considered and not decided).

In short, the evidence of Le Grand's history, his movements on the night of the double event, the witness evidence of Schwartz, and his suspicious behavior after the murder all dovetail and force us to consider a scenario of a two-man Ripper team. It's by all means not the only possible scenario, but it would certainly explain the Ripper's level of confidence and his ability to get away undetected time after time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Nats, and thanks for taking the time to read it. As you know, I always appreciate your thoughts and perspective on things. Like you, I look forward to learning more about Le Grand, as I'm certain there's much more to learn. But please let me address your main point.

Before being swayed towards him as a prime suspect for JtR though,I would like to see more evidence of his assaults being other than overblown temper tantrums

I think if any of us were attacked in the street by a man twice our size and had our face beat in with a heavy stick, we might take umbrage at it being called a mere 'temper tantrum'. But I understand the point you're trying to make. Then there's also the evidence that Le Grand would stalk his victims and pay his toadies to stalk women in order to terrorize them before moving in for a physical attack. That can only be considered premeditated and thus not a 'temper tantrum'. Then we have Le Grand attempting to throw a policeman under a train; and this policeman was adamant that Le Grand truly meant to kill him. Then there's the matter of his threatening to blow women up unless they paid him money - at a time when he didn't need money. When his house was searched they found the makings of a bomb. Then we have on record that Le Grand actually confessed to a murder. And of course there's the matter of his weapons arsenal. This was not a normal guy occassionally given to 'temper tantrums'. While I would also love to find more detailed information about Le Grand's criminal past, there's two things we must consider.

1) For every crime Le Grand was caught for, there must have been dozens or hundreds he got away with. The more serious the crime, the more he'd work to cover his tracks. As great a researcher as Debs is, I'd be amazed if she found this documentation you, Phil and Trevor demand of Le Grand cutting up prostitutes in front of the police, who choose not to arrest him, but document the crime for future generations. Instead, we have to ask ourself 'Is this man capable of murder?' Could we see him killing a woman?'

2) There's not a shred of evidence that Druitt so much as raised his voice. Kosminski's worst criminal offense seems to have been walking a dog without a muzzle. How many women did Tumblety attack?

This is why I call Le Grand the 'prime suspect'. He was suspected by police at the time of the murders and for years after; he had a very violent criminal history, a good portion of which was directed at prostitutes; he was in the vicinity of at least one of the canonical murders; he inserted himself in the investigation and risked his neck to conjure false evidence to thwart the investigation. These are very, very serious points to consider, and I can't see how the other four contemporary suspects even come close.

The only disadvantage Le Grand has is that he's the new kid on the block. The others have been beat into our head, but as time passes and students become just as familiar with Le Grand as Druitt, et al, who do you think they'll perceive, based on the evidence, as being the 'prime suspect' - i.e. the one of the five police suspects most suited for and likely to have been the Ripper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GregBaron]

Le Grand continued....

Tom's essay was excellent and further research could yield interesting
results........he deserves commendation for a job well done........with that
said......Le Grand a suspect? Sure..... but I have some issues.........

Obviously, a big one(pun) for many of us is the fact that Le Grand
was a 6 footer. No 6 footers were ever described except for Pipe
Man......now as I suggested earlier if what Lawende and Long actually
saw was Le Grand's accomplice well that could explain some things
although that whole idea begs credulity.......possible yes, likely,
probably not....

The other thing that occurs to me is personality. From the essay Le
Grand seems a loud, obnoxious, violent alpha male. Attacking women
on the streets in daylight, trying to push a cop under a train, pulling
a gun on a cop at his residence, blatantly following and intimidating
people, blackmail, extortion etc....this guy seems a huge, infamous
monster.........I can't see him not being known throughout the district
especially by the prostitutes......

This is speculation of course but I and others see JtR as the quiet
nondescript loner.....the Jeffrey Dahmer that goes about his business
unremarked upon.........we could be wrong but Le Grand is just the
opposite of this.....

These are just a couple of things that come off the top of my head...I also
wonder about his residence(s) and how close they were to whitechapel and if
he could have pulled this off while being a member of the vigilante committee...?

Greg

[Ally]

And while it's true that my suspicion settled on Le Grand through the Stride murder, that need not be the case with the contemporary police who came to suspect him of the Ripper murders, so my 'case' would in no way fall apart if you took Stride out, but the fact is you can't take Stride out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Once again you are confusing your opinion with established fact. One can take Stride out, quite easily, if one is of the mindset to do so. There are more than enough discrepancies in her murder that a person can, upon viewing the evidence, decide she was not a Ripper victim.

And to be clear, I never accused you of "screwing with the evidence". I said you hung your hat on it. And as you have just said the exact same thing: "it's true that my suspicion settled on Le Grand through the Stride murder", you have basically confirmed what I said.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have always wondered at Tom's fierce devotion to the idea that Stride had to have been a Ripper victim, and it has now with this essay become clear as to why that would be. It is the one victim where he can place his chief suspect in the relative vicinity and the only witness description that comes close to matching. He has hung his hat, so to speak, on this one victim's evidence and he must therefore include her, lest his case as a whole fall apart.

This is pure bulls**t. I discovered Le Grand while in the process of researching the 'Berner Street Mystery' for Ripper Notes. I had already by that point studied the murder and concluded that Stride was most likely a Ripper victim, as had 90% of writers prior to myself. Howard, Ivor Edwards, etc can attest that I argued just as strongly for Stride as a Ripper victm back when D'Onston was my favorite suspect. Accusing a writer of screwing with the evidence to fit a theory is about the worst accusation you can make. Stride is included as a Ripper victim for the obvious reason that she was. I came to suspect Le Grand solely because of his own suspicious behavior and recorded that suspicion in 'Berner Street Mystery'. Virtually all of my suspicions have turned out to be correct (i.e. that the police suspected him, that he was involved in the Batty Street Lodger story, etc.)

And while it's true that my suspicion settled on Le Grand through the Stride murder, that need not be the case with the contemporary police who came to suspect him of the Ripper murders, so my 'case' would in no way fall apart if you took Stride out, but the fact is you can't take Stride out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

Hi everyone. I haven't had a chance to read all of Issue #2 yet, but I want to say that what I have read was terrific.

Don's piece on Sherlock Holmes was very enjoyable, and I also liked the 2 pieces by Stewart as well as the articles by Rob and Chris. Jenni's intro was good too. I found Tom's article quite interesting and appreciate the fact that it's so long and detailed.

Lots of food for thought and discussion thus far. Look forward to reading the rest and reading some parts over again when I can give it the time and attention it deserves.

Thanks to everyone for their hard work.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

PS: I read it in "full-screen" as advised and that does seem the way to go.

[Ally]

No 'a' prime suspect, 'THE' prime suspect, and he is.

Sorry. No. I am afraid you do not get to decide who is THE prime suspect for anyone but yourself. I would agree with "a" but definitely, not "the".

As stated earlier, I feel that Le Grand's involvement re Berner Street is a fair possibility. But there isn't any evidence to suggest he was anywhere near the Chapman, Nicholls, Eddowes and Kelly murder sites at the time of each murder. No witness statements puts the man in the frame.

I have always wondered at Tom's fierce devotion to the idea that Stride had to have been a Ripper victim, and it has now with this essay become clear as to why that would be. It is the one victim where he can place his chief suspect in the relative vicinity and the only witness description that comes close to matching. He has hung his hat, so to speak, on this one victim's evidence and he must therefore include her, lest his case as a whole fall apart.

[Natalie Severn]

I have now finished reading Tom"s article which certainly lived up to expectation in being written in an engaging writing style and the discovery of new and exciting information on Le Grand and his associates ,combined with fresh insights into his criminal activities and a look at the impulsive violence that caused him to viciously attack those who stood in his way. Clearly certain street prostitutes who he saw as having strayed onto "his" patch stood in danger of mortal injury.Before being swayed towards him as a prime suspect for JtR though,I would like to see more evidence of his assaults being other than overblown temper tantrums that happened whenever he was thwarted or he thought he was being thwarted in reaching his goals.Looking forward to more information on this from Tom and his ace researcher Debs!

I am also more than intrigued by RJ Palmer"s piece--also a joy to read because of its succinct and flowing writing style.Again,it would be helpful soon to have some concrete evidence of Tumblety"s misdemeanours being more than **** ups because of his lack of real medical knowledge and expertise.Look forward to the final installment Roger!

Finally those two gems from Stewart Evans and Chris Phillips were a very special treat.So interesting to see Lawende"s appearance as well as that of his family ,Chris---thanks a lot for sharing those photos with us.
Stewart"s article cleared up a lot of my doubts about colour being able to be discerned in the artificial gas light of the time and it enables one to look at some of the evidence of witnesses again without so much mistrust.

Thanks for such sterling stuff everyone!
Norma

[Archaic]

Re: Cleaning Knives In the LVP

Hi Phil.

'Stainless Steel' was came out in about 1913-1914 but wasn't widely available until after WWI.

A major cause of tarnish in the LVP (as well as general household sootiness) was the use of coal-burning fires, because they release sulfur dioxide, which rapidly tarnishes metal.

Knives were cleaned and polished with 'brick dust' and all sorts of things; it was very labor-intensive and had to be done frequently. Soaking in water was avoided as the glues etc used in the handles were weakened by moisture, and blades became discolored, stained, and rust-pitted from contact with dampness.

If Le Grand's knife collection was on display for his own enjoyment- say mounted on the wall, or laid out in a display cabinet- it would have been exposed to more sulfur fumes and sootiness and tarnished even more rapidly, requiring more frequent cleaning.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ally]

Hi Adam,

I am not derailing the thread further. I will reply on the Pub Talk thread started by Dave.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Thank you again for your reply. Kind of you to see that I am not "attacking".

Playing devils advocate? Perhaps. Examining your essay and your presentation of a New Prime Suspect? Certainly.

Ichenschmid is not a straw man. He is a real life, well documented (thanks to Lynn Cates, amongst others), suspect for at least one of the first two murders. He is an excellent comparison.

Kosminski, Ostrog and Druitt you mention. I have already stated in print many times that these three were imho mentioned as a way of keeping the Press happy, and the public thirst for a suspect. Re Special Branch/police tactics. Ostrog was clearly nowhere near Whitechapel at the time (Sugden), Druitt and a named/unnamed Polish Jew were a police diversification, a way of fragmenting and dispersing attention away from what the police were up to in Whitechapel (a method mentioned about the police by I believe Butterworth, and others).

However, IF I were to compare Le Grand with them as you ask? As a suspect? I will stick to my original thought, and put him on the same par with Kosminski..around the area at the time, no proof of his being involved with any of the C5, with the possible exception of Stride. Thats just my view though. His background, to date, shows violence, but not with the use of slashing knives or any sign of violence leading to disembowlling low class prostitute women.

I would have liked to have seen a reply to my observation that it was you, not Hall, who turned the knife cleaning part of his job into the description in your essay, of "prime duty", because it misleads. Hall never said it nor indicate it, according to your essay, he only listed it amongst his duties. Polishing the cutlery was a duty of servant in such houses. It needed regular cleaning because at that time they didn't yet, as far as I am aware (I could be wrong) use stainless steel at this time. Cutlery became very dirty very quickly because of the use of open fires in houses. It required regular cleaning and polishing. That was very labour intensive and time consuming.

Also the quote from MacNaghten, that "...very many homocidal maniacs were suspected..", combined with your comment that Le Grand was "nuts". To state that, you really DO need evidence of madness. Written evidence. It may seem like nit-picking but there isn't any evidence or documentation from any asylum nor doctor nor medical person that he was mad, as far as I know?

Sociopath? Yes. Psychopath? Unproven at this juncture, I would have to say.
Homocidal maniac? Unproven, at this juncture as well.

But please, whatever you do, I support your chasing the details down and researching further. I am just pointing out things that I feel are valid counter points to your essay.

best wishes

Phil