Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Adam Went]

Ally:

I would very much appreciate it if you could find a post by myself anywhere where I claimed I was going to use moderating powers for evil? As I remember it, you joined JTR Forums and left a very, very short time afterwards on your own accord....

Monty:

There's a difference between this and me and Tom though, because while we've had some pretty full on debates, it really hasn't crossed the line of personal insults and tyrades from groups of people, and that's the line that has been crossed here.

Anyway, yes, point has been made, 'nuff said.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for that, Phil,

The sub-title of the essay was "New Prime Suspect", whichever way you want to bend it, that is how it is read, without a question mark following it. You were putting forward Le Grand as a Prime Suspect as Jack the Ripper.

No 'a' prime suspect, 'THE' prime suspect, and he is. But that's a far cry from me saying he was Jack the Ripper, as you were suggesting I was or should do.

I hope that the old chestnut (forgive my cynicism, not personally meant) about all the "files that have been purloined over the years" " the missing suspects file" won't come into play here. The fact is that we have very little written evidence of Le Grand/Nielson/Nilson etc being a suspect at the time of the murders.

Of course not, but official fles are not the be all end all. Tumblety's not in there, but would you say he was never a suspect? Would you say Ostrog is a better suspect than Le Grand simply because he is mentioned? I can't yet prove who specifically suspected him, but it's quite clear from the news reports and the Jabez writings that he was suspected by Scotland Yard men (plural) for a quite a long time.

I saw a man who hit women, not a homocidal maniac.

Re-read it, or just wait for the book.

The police wore silent shoes too. So did detectives. So did various newspaper reprters.

Is that right, Phil?

Phil, I appreciate your playing devil's advocate with me, but you repeatedly want me to provide you with examples of where Le Grand killed and gutted a woman with a knife. If I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the case would be solved. Jack the Ripper got away with his crimes, plain and simple. If Le Grand was Jack the Ripper, he got away with it. If per chance there is proof out there, I clearly haven't found it yet or I'd be offering him up as more than just the prime suspect.

By 'The Prime Suspect' I'm comparing Le Grand to the cases that have been made against the Koz, Druitt, Tumblety, and Chapman. Instead of inventing straw men for me to knock down, let's talk about these men and what evidence against them can compare to Le Grand and my bold statement that he's a better suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

A response to your kind reply.

Hello Tom,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I reply herewith, and stress, nothing personal against you.

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;137588]

I completely agree that it's crucial, which is why I didn't publish an essay on Le Grand 3 years ago when most of the information was found. Only recently has the evidence come forth which proves Le Grand was a police suspect. For those who think it's not enough proof, perhaps more will come in the future. However, I think it's quite sufficient proof that Le Grand was not only suspected of the Ripper murders, but was seriously suspected for a period of years.

I hope that the old chestnut (forgive my cynicism, not personally meant) about all the "files that have been purloined over the years" " the missing suspects file" won't come into play here. The fact is that we have very little written evidence of Le Grand/Nielson/Nilson etc being a suspect at the time of the murders. Third hand evidence becomes suppositionary.

The crux of my argument is based first and foremost on the fact that Le Grand was a serious police suspect for the Ripper murders. It just so happens that Le Grand's behavior following the Stride murder was extremely suspicious and points to complicity.

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. It must also be remembered what MacNaghten wrote...
"..many homocidal maniacs were suspected" my emphasis in bold.
That means that Le Grand, if suspected as a homocidal manic, and I use the term loosely, was only one of many. That makes any of them into a possible "prime suspect".

I had hoped I'd made it sufficiently clear that my essay was focused on providing a history for Le Grand and proof that he was a suspect.

The sub-title of the essay was "New Prime Suspect", whichever way you want to bend it, that is how it is read, without a question mark following it. You were putting forward Le Grand as a Prime Suspect as Jack the Ripper. You refer to this title later in the essay as well.

I would disagree with that.

You disagree that I state there is no evidence that he had the madness and used knives to mutilate/slash at/disembowell women? Where on earth, pardon my incredulity, is the proof of ANY psychological referral on Le Grand? Was he committed into an asylum? If so, where are there papers on him? If this man is worse than a woman beater, attacking with more than fists and an umbrella, where is it? I am sorry Tom, but I read your essay carefully. I saw a man who hit women, not a homocidal maniac.

He had knives, he was nuts, and he was walking Whitechapel in silent shoes and under the guise of a PI during the Ripper murders. I'd say the strength of his means/motive/opportunity is unprecedented as far as Ripper suspects go.

"He was nuts"... mad you mean? Err, mad people get committed to asylums do they not? And if he was as well known as you say, he would have been. Ask Ischensmidt.

In your essay, the man (Hall) who cleaned the knives was a household help/servant/clerk/head of staff etc. The knife cleaning you refer to, and if I may, I will quote you, says this...

"..-he gave me employment; that was principally at his private house, where I cleaned knives and so forth" "clerk, head of staff and general go to guy" and "his primary duty was to clean knives"

This man (Hall) cleaned knives as well as all the other things Tom. That doesn't make him in a job that "primarily" was the cleaning of the knives! He was a household servant and dog's body. How do you jump to it being a job where the "prime duty" was knife cleaning? In your essay, it isn't Hall you are quoting saying "my prime duty was cleaning knives"...You did.

The police wore silent shoes too. So did detectives. So did various newspaper reprters. Unprecedented proof of means/motive/opportunity?.. now the man is a prime suspect again, even though there were others, notably Ischensmidt, who also had knives (and walked around with them)threatened to kill women, was in and out of asylums, was suspected as a killer of at least one of the victims and investigated to a certain degree at the time by the police, was missing on the night of one of the murders, identified by a witness... yet Le Grand is the "unprecendented" example of a Ripper suspect?
Tom, I am sorry, but I fail to see where he trumps all others based on the evidence connected to each murder that you haven't provided. That isn't being a hard man to please, it is straight forward lack of evidence.

Le Grand made a habit of targeting prostitutes NOT under his control, such as the Ripper victims.

Tom, let's be fair here. He didn't target as in slash and mutilate...ever. He beat them up. And if getting rid of the competition, which is what you are referring to, is to get rid of the lowest of the low in prostitue terms, he had one heck of a clean-up campaign ahead of himto wipe out the competition.. there were thousands like the C5 knocking around all over the East End!

You lost me. You agree with me that I've successfully placed Le Grand within a mile and in the same hour of a Ripper victim's murder - something never done with another suspect - and you're suggesting it means nothing? You're a hard man to please, Phil.

A mile Tom, in that densely populated area, involves thousands upon thousands of men, mostly all from the lowest classes. Any one of whom could have been, by definition of placement, have the opportunity and a bolt hole. Yes, I am a hard man to please perhaps, but to label Le Grand as a prime suspect for JTR, needs consequential and corroberative proof of him being a sexual killer, proof of him having been akin to using knives in attacks on women, and proof that he was anywhere near any of the murders! Supposition that he is a prime suspect is not acceptable without these things. Ischensmidt, for example, fits the bill for the first two better. (See Lynn Cates' excellent work)

Tom, some of this stuff is excellent, as I said in my earlier posting. I will also kindly make you aware of the following if you are trying to trace the Danish years.. Christian Nelson could very well be an Englishism of the following Christian (or Kristian) Nielson, or Nielsen or Nilson or Nilsen (sen or son means son of Nils or Niels). Both sen and son are used in Denmark, sen or sønn in Norway, ssonn/sonn in Sweden, but the rules of allowing the use of this type of surmane changed in the LVP in all of these countries.

As I said in the previous posting, write that book! I am sure that by the time it appears in print, much much more will have been unearthed, hopefully, and I genuinely mean this, nailing the man as JTR. However, at present, I must disagree with your summary of him being the "New Prime Suspect" as the title of your essay states. A question mark after this heading would have been far better, imho.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

1) Although your research, over many years is very detailed and at times impressive, you have provided little substantial documentary proof of suspicion at police level for your theory. Like it or not, it is crucial.

I completely agree that it's crucial, which is why I didn't publish an essay on Le Grand 3 years ago when most of the information was found. Only recently has the evidence come forth which proves Le Grand was a police suspect. For those who think it's not enough proof, perhaps more will come in the future. However, I think it's quite sufficient proof that Le Grand was not only suspected of the Ripper murders, but was seriously suspected for a period of years.

2) The crux of your argument is based on Berner Street, and no witness recorded has ever given a statement identifying, nor pointing towards Le Grande, the person, as the killer of Elizabeth Stride. But of all the C5, she is the only one I see as being a possible for Le Grande's involvement.

The crux of my argument is based first and foremost on the fact that Le Grand was a serious police suspect for the Ripper murders. It just so happens that Le Grand's behavior following the Stride murder was extremely suspicious and points to complicity.

3) AS regards the other 4 of the C5, no nigh on 6ft man has ever been recorded near the victims at the time of the murders. You give the ominous title of a person to potentially be "Jack the Ripper" without even a documented sighting of such a man near the victims at the time of each crime. Mary Kelly's murder, the witness statements pertaining to it, have been gone over with a fine toothed comb. Placing Le Grande there is purely circumspect. Jack the Ripper, as is generally thought of (multiple killer of x women), he is not. Not, at present, on the evidence presented. A 6ft man would stand out like a sore thumb.

I had hoped I'd made it sufficiently clear that my essay was focused on providing a history for Le Grand and proof that he was a suspect. I made virtually no attempt to theorize or speculate over his being the Ripper. That will be done in my book.

4) Even given that he was a violent man, there is no psycological disturbance in his personality in 1888 that shows he was afflicted with that would lead us to believe that he was capable of multiple body slashing cuts, organ removal or such like.

I would disagree with that.

5) Means, motive and opportunity.

He had knives, he was nuts, and he was walking Whitechapel in silent shoes and under the guise of a PI during the Ripper murders. I'd say the strength of his means/motive/opportunity is unprecedented as far as Ripper suspects go.


a) Did he have the weapons to do the job? Yes. Has he ever been known to use them in such violent tirades against prostitues? No. He collected knives. Period.

b) Motive. If he was a pimp, I doubt if he is going to kill off the very people he is supposed to make money out of. Pimps beat up women, as warnings. They don't get rid of them by disembowelling them. If that were the case, there would be HUNDREDS of JTR like murders since 1888 from every major city in the world during the last 120 years. And quite a few pimps hanging from the gallows.

Le Grand made a habit of targeting prostitutes NOT under his control, such as the Ripper victims.

c) Opportunity. Yes, he was in the general area, but with a bolt hole a mile away from Berner Street (re Colin, JTR forums), he was not NEAR. Yes, he was a member of the VC at a later stage. Yes, he was on the streets. But so were many others, all from the VC, and thousands who lived nearer, who were not.

You lost me. You agree with me that I've successfully placed Le Grand within a mile and in the same hour of a Ripper victim's murder - something never done with another suspect - and you're suggesting it means nothing? You're a hard man to please, Phil.

A very well presented article in my opinion. Le Grande is someone I would putwould on the same par with as Kosminski. Known to be around, no proof or enough weight to link him with 5 murders. I am sorry. That said, I encourage you to keep researching, and write that book. Perhaps you will turn over a stone that reveals all.

Thank you, Phil, and I encourage you to keep on the trail you're following.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Wow, a lotta drama. See what you miss when you're gone all weekend? The great and pleasant surprise to me is to find Gerry Nixon on the Casebook. Since my laptop shot craps on me, I'd lost his e-mail address, which bothered me greatly because I wanted him to be among the first to read this new essay.

Gerry, thank you for the kind words. Not sure if that's to do with my old essay (from Ripper Notes) or the new one, but if you haven't read the new one, please PM me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Lil ol me Ally? You're right, Im a cuddly ickle fluffy bunniwunni.

Adam,

Firstly your dealings here over the past few years have been limited. I suggest you take a trawl through the threads where Trevor has been invovled. The disrespect he holds for you, as a Ripperologist, is very clear.

Secondly, practice what you are currently preaching. Do you wish me to drag up posts between yourself and Tom relating to your recent article?

Thirdly (and this is not solely directed at you Adam), one thing Trevor should be credited with is the fact he is not two faced. He will name names and say it as he sees it. For that he has my respect....a few, quite a few here will do well to follow his example.

I have said nothing in private which I would not say in public.

Regards
Wolfie

[Ally]

Ooh I bet I am the wild animal. Not Monty. He could barely be a wild chipmunk.

I find Adam's little speechifying awfully cute since when he was a moderator of a forum, he straight out admitted he was going to use his moderating powers for evil against people he just didn't like. And did so!

(Oh I know I ban everyone who disagrees with me, Hail Hitler, blah blah). If so Adam there should be the next to go, especially considering he did the same to me, so hmm......let's wait for it.

But you know, this is all irrelevant and off-topic and has nothing to do with anything. Proto has made a thread in the proper place, so see you there if you want to continue discussing anything other than the articles.

[Debra A]

I ought to say now that I am the Gerry Nixon who first came across Le Grand in my research many years ago and wrote a short piece about him. It was sketchy and inaccurate in some details, but I was fascinated by this "private detective" who put himself at the heart of the investigations, but was clearly a strange and aggressive oddball. My original article was largely forgotten until Tom started researching him in far greater detail.

I, for one, have never dismissed him as a supsect. Tom Westcott has done a tremendous job in illuminating the strange life and career of a very strong suspect.

Try to keep an open mind, Trevor. We don't all share your certainties about who the Ripper wasn't.

Hi Gerry, just wanted to say thanks for your excellent original article and research on Le Grand.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

I must say that I've also been following this thread, and I'm having difficulty in understanding what you mean.

Could you perhaps point to a particular post in which the author has behaved like a "wild animal"?

Obviously i'm not going to get into singling out particular members of particular posts or anything like that, as it only causes more trouble (although there are several which you can see for yourself which contain nothing but insults for Trevor, and nothing constructive at all) - however, my meaning lies not so much in what's been said on here, but rather the general attitude that has been on display. It seems that a debate which begins between 2 or 3 people quickly gets pounced on by another person, then another, and before you know it, it's an all out argument and invariably the minority, and quite often one particular individual, becomes the target of a pack mentality. Healthy debate degenerates into personal attacks and insults - to the point that members have been upset and one has decided to leave, meaning it's gone too far. That was the meaning of "wild animals", in terms of a pack mentality attacking a particular person.

Does anybody here actually condone bullying and ganging up on other members? Because it really is utterly deplorable, childish behaviour, and even my Year 2 class was more mature than that. And just for the record, I don't even know Trevor personally, I've never spoken to him off the forums - that's just a general observation.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jez]

Trevor Marriott on Le Grand:

"He has been looked at before by researchers and apparently dismissed."

On that basis, every single suspect should now be dismissed.

I ought to say now that I am the Gerry Nixon who first came across Le Grand in my research many years ago and wrote a short piece about him. It was sketchy and inaccurate in some details, but I was fascinated by this "private detective" who put himself at the heart of the investigations, but was clearly a strange and aggressive oddball. My original article was largely forgotten until Tom started researching him in far greater detail.

I, for one, have never dismissed him as a supsect. Tom Westcott has done a tremendous job in illuminating the strange life and career of a very strong suspect.

Try to keep an open mind, Trevor. We don't all share your certainties about who the Ripper wasn't.

[Chris]

It was only a couple of days ago that in a private e-mail I described certain members as, and I quote, "a pack of wild animals" - and reading through the last few pages of this thread, it's pretty clear that's a fair description.

I must say that I've also been following this thread, and I'm having difficulty in understanding what you mean.

Could you perhaps point to a particular post in which the author has behaved like a "wild animal"?

[Ally]

[Adam Went]

Phil:

I've got no problems with saying that you are 100 % correct. It really is ridiculous, and the worst part is that it's been the same ever since I've been involved in Ripperology (2004), so it's not like it's just some recent fad. You need look no further than the amount of people, some of them quite well known who have once taken part on forums, who have threatened to leave, have left, or very rarely, if at all post anymore to see what it's doing.

It was only a couple of days ago that in a private e-mail I described certain members as, and I quote, "a pack of wild animals" - and reading through the last few pages of this thread, it's pretty clear that's a fair description. It is definitely not a good advertisement for Ripperology and it should not be a pre-requisite for entering the case that you need to have the hide of a bull.

Seems to me that we're all here to investigate the Ripper case, so shouldn't we all be working towards the common goal?

Anyway, well said Phil.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

So ...Balls! Balls! Etc.

"Balls, Balls, Banquets and Balls ..."

It's all just a matter of getting the optimal mix of Kenneth Williams and Sid James.

[Edit: 7.50 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klShcuIYdkI ]

[Ally]

'ello, 'ello, 'ello, wot's all this then? Come on children, act like adults.

Oh yeah? Hey Stewboy you know that piece about red being seen in gaslight? Balls!

I have no logical debate, no rational response to it. I am just going to shout Balls! a lot and thereby totally invalidate your reasoned, thought out article. This is apparently sufficient.

So ...Balls! Balls! Etc.