Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor. The fact that Le Grand was adept at the use of virtually every known weapon, including knives, suggests to you that he wouldn't be a killer? That's fascinating. I think it's quite telling that when his bag and house were searched in 1891, the only thing missing was his knife collection that had clearly existed in 1888 and 1889 prior to his coming under the interest of investigators.



The books, essays and posts where people say he was the suspect police took most seriously.

HEARSAY



I don't recall any published assessment of Le Grand where he was 'dismissed' as a suspect.

Please see below another extract from your essay clearly shows he had been looked at and dismissed.

Nixon failed to demonstrate that Le Grand was anything other than an unscrupulous thief, and presented little reason for anyone to take him seriously as a Ripper suspect. Probably for this reason, the article — an impressive achievement in research — passed by with absolutely no comment on the Internet and only one ‘letter to the editor’ at Ripperologist, this being from renowned Ripper author, Paul Begg,who provided additional details about Le Grand, culled from the illustrated circular of the Sept. 8th, 1884 edition
of the Police Gazette, issued by then Assistant Commissioner James Monro. Only Begg knows why he chose not to include these crucial details under Le Grand’s entry (as Grand, Mr. or Le Grand) in the various editions of Jack
edition published only two years prior.With issue 28, Begg took the reins as editor of Ripperologist, and was suitably impressed with Nixon’s work to publish it as a ‘From the Archives’ reprint in number 42, August of 2002.Once again, the article failed to garner any comment at all from the Ripper community. I was a subscriber to the magazine at this time and read the article, but admit I thought little of it. This is no slight on Nixon’s groundbreaking work, but perhaps a small condemnation of we Ripperphiles
being too busy chasing tired suspects or minding the old canard that ‘all roads lead to Dorset Street’. As for myself, I was busy at the time shadowing Robert Donston Stephenson, and had little time to consider the misgivings of a character whose only attachment to the Ripper mystery is through the long-ago disqualified tale of a bumbling old fruit salesman, who, as was
generally believed, made up the whole thing simply for publicity





I said Le Grand wasn't involved in pimping? I said that? Wow.



I assume you're aware that nobody saw the Ripper actually kill anyone, right?



A guy who served time with Le Grand for 11 years and was well-acquainted with the investigators who had intimate knowledge of his criminal behavior said he was "skilled in the use of a knife". It's in the essay. I'm sorry I don't have a Youtube of Le Grand throwing and twirling blades. I'm sure nothing less would impress you.

HEARSAY

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am sorry Tom but your suspicions and the facts you have put forward simply do not stand up to close scrutiny.

[lynn cates]

deduction and induction

Hello Tom. Good to know you're a Rathbone and Bruce man.

Roughly speaking, a deductive argument is one, such that, if it is sound, its premises can guarantee the truth of its conclusion.

An inductive argument has premises, such that, they provide some support for the conclusion. (That support will always be some real number k, such that
0 < k < 1. To put it another way, induction always gives a greater or less probability of its conclusion.)

Compare to the scientist's use of these terms which is roughly analogous.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. As a fellow Holmes buff, you can bet your sweet Bippy that I printed Don's article out to read. This is the first time I've heard that 'deduction' or 'deducing' is not a correct term!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

kudos

Hello All. And let's not forget Don's piece about Sherlock Holmes.

I never thought that, in my lifetime at least, I'd see a correct reference to 'induction' rather than the incorrect 'deduction.'

The old Sherlock Holmes movies, with Rathbone and Bruce, as good as they otherwise are, make continual reference to 'deduction.' Hence, I do a lot of shouting at the TV.

Kudos to Don for getting it right.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Don. As a matter of fact, I've printed Stewart's article (and his 'corner') along with some other material from this issue to read over the weekend. I can't wait!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Stewart has been quite complimentary toward the efforts of Tom and Roger, but I would suggest readers not lose sight of Stewart's own small gem in the issue that will serve as a corrective about certain witnesses and what they might have seen.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor. The fact that Le Grand was adept at the use of virtually every known weapon, including knives, suggests to you that he wouldn't be a killer? That's fascinating. I think it's quite telling that when his bag and house were searched in 1891, the only thing missing was his knife collection that had clearly existed in 1888 and 1889 prior to his coming under the interest of investigators.

Many would argue he [Tumblety] was the suspect the police took most serious well you just tell me where you get that from ?

The books, essays and posts where people say he was the suspect police took most seriously.

Its not early days he has been looked at before by reserachers and apparently dismissed.

I don't recall any published assessment of Le Grand where he was 'dismissed' as a suspect.

As i mentioned he was invloved in pimping which you disagreed with.

I said Le Grand wasn't involved in pimping? I said that? Wow.

Where is there any evidence to show he was seen to use or brandish a knife. ?

I assume you're aware that nobody saw the Ripper actually kill anyone, right?

Where is the evidence to show he was skilled in the use of a knife ?

A guy who served time with Le Grand for 11 years and was well-acquainted with the investigators who had intimate knowledge of his criminal behavior said he was "skilled in the use of a knife". It's in the essay. I'm sorry I don't have a Youtube of Le Grand throwing and twirling blades. I'm sure nothing less would impress you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Great Article

The great article by R. J. Palmer is also fascinating and gives greater balance to the examination of Inspector Andrews and his US trip.

[protohistorian]

the examiner finds a ripper undercurrent

I have noticed for some time on these boards two separate and distinct approaches to suspects. I believe the previous posts bring this issue to the fore. One camp believes the most effective approach is to examine the research that has come before in the hope of bringing it to the modern level of scrutiny. The other approach is the "novel suspect" mentality that has lead to people like Lewis Carroll being implicated for the sake of "newness" i.e. novelty.
Without openly stating which tack I personally feel is more productive, let us examine an example. Is it more instructive to know the research that has been done before us and it's modern validity, or to name mathematicians and painters as serial killers? I do not know, all I know is when your making those kind of calls your in the high country! Dave

[The Grave Maurice]

I started reading the article thinking "Le Grand? Come on!"; I ended it thinking "Le Grand? Interesting." I suspect that we'll be debating Tom's well-researched piece for quite some time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor. I understand where you're coming from, but considering I usually find you on threads talking about how all the police memoirs and memoranda should be discarded because they're all lies, I don't understand why you now have so much faith in them now that you'd suggest they're the litmus test for if a suspect is legit or not. Tumblety is not mentioned in any of those memoirs or files, but many would argue that he was the suspect the police took most serious. If not for the fact that a 100 year old letter was preserved and went through the proper circles to end up with Stewart Evans, would we have all this excellent research on Tumblety now? I'd say not. These are very early days for Le Grand, my friend. The first and only discursive writing on him was just published TWO DAYS AGO, so let's see what happens.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I dont think I have suggested anything of the sort about the memoirs and the memoranda. I have merely looked at them in a different light to you and other researchers. From an evidential point of view !

Many would argue he was the suspect the police took most serious well you just tell me where you get that from ?

Its not early days he has been looked at before by reserachers and apparently dismissed.

If you will permit me and if you dont I am going to anyway and that is to cite parts of your research yet again and to make more valid observations.

As i mentioned he was invloved in pimping which you disagreed with.The sentence below is from your article

Le Grand set about frightening, threatening, and physically attacking every prostitute in the area not under his employ.

The practical end to this was that it left the streets open for Demay and her girls to ply their trade, but it seems that Le Grand also took a great joy in his ‘work’.

I also stated that his method and timings and location were different to the ripper a point which again was refuted. Below sentence for your report


Just to keep track, Le Grand has attacked two prostitutes in the open street during broad daylight. But instead of running, she stood her ground. It must have been a wet afternoon, because LeGrand was carrying a large umbrella in place of his walking stick. “You got the man two months. I’ll kill you!” yelled Le Grand as he violently struck her across the face with his umbrella.

Note no knife used or seen !


Later made written threats to 3 women in an attempt to extort money from them threatening to bash their brains out or to use dynmaite to kill them

No mention of cutting their throats or disembowelling them !!!!!!!!!!!

While Le Grand was detained at the station, his nearby bolt-hole at No.1, The Oaklands, Acacia Road, Maiden, was discovered and searched. Among the items found was an ‘infernal machine’, which was a homemade explosive device rigged in a cigar box fitted with springs, a patch of gunpowder, and two bottles of acid. Also present were items relatedto the crimes of fraud

Note no knives found !


Who is the well known detective you refer to ?


Where is there any evidence to show he was seen to use or brandish a knife. ?

Where is the evidence to show he was skilled in the use of a knife ?


A co def states he had a collection but nothing more than that.

i dont want you to think this is personal because its not. The fact is that you and many others on here assess and evaluate what is put forward in totally different ways to myself.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor. I understand where you're coming from, but considering I usually find you on threads talking about how all the police memoirs and memoranda should be discarded because they're all lies, I don't understand why you now have so much faith in them now that you'd suggest they're the litmus test for if a suspect is legit or not. Tumblety is not mentioned in any of those memoirs or files, but many would argue that he was the suspect the police took most serious. If not for the fact that a 100 year old letter was preserved and went through the proper circles to end up with Stewart Evans, would we have all this excellent research on Tumblety now? I'd say not. These are very early days for Le Grand, my friend. The first and only discursive writing on him was just published TWO DAYS AGO, so let's see what happens.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all,

I've received some private communications regarding my Le Grand article from individuals who preferred not to go public with their thoughts. Some had concerns that I thought others might share, so I figured I'd address a few here.

1) No, I do not think that at age 35 Le Grand was too old and infirm to have been the Ripper.

2) No, I do not think that at 6ft tall he was too tall to have been the Ripper.

3) No, I do not think that by becoming the most likely suspect in the murder of Liz Stride that this rules him out of being the Ripper. In fact, I think that's ludicrous, backwards thinking.

4) Yes, I do think it likely that the suspect referred to by Macnaghten as being 'habitually cruel to women' and carrying around surgical knives was a reference to Le Grand.

5) I never suggested that Le Grand was the pimp for the victims, and do not think he was, although there's the suggestion of a relationship of some sort between himself and Mary Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
There is one thing which sticks out like a sore thumb in relation to Le Grand.

You paint a picture of man who habitually inflicted pain and punishment on prostitutes, as well as carrying knives. So surely if that had been the case he would in my eyes have been no1 police suspect. His name would most certainly have been mentioned by prostitutes and informants to the police, yet as I have stated before he does appear in any reports or documents of the day.

If the facts you seek to rely on are accurate then how come he has never been mentioned by any of the police officials involved in the case. ? After all they named supsects with a lesser pedigree than Le Grand.

Now the ledgers may throw more light on some of the band of "likely" suspects in as much he may be mentioned or he may not. The ledgers as i have seen do list the names of 2 suspects in addittion to the entry regarding McGrath so we must sit, wait, wonder, and hope. These may be names we are familiar with or may be completely new.

You have researched him very but i would suggest that the information you have put forward has been greatly over exaggearted when originally written way back then.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I've received some private communications regarding my Le Grand article from individuals who preferred not to go public with their thoughts. Some had concerns that I thought others might share, so I figured I'd address a few here.

1) No, I do not think that at age 35 Le Grand was too old and infirm to have been the Ripper.

2) No, I do not think that at 6ft tall he was too tall to have been the Ripper.

3) No, I do not think that by becoming the most likely suspect in the murder of Liz Stride that this rules him out of being the Ripper. In fact, I think that's ludicrous, backwards thinking.

4) Yes, I do think it likely that the suspect referred to by Macnaghten as being 'habitually cruel to women' and carrying around surgical knives was a reference to Le Grand.

5) I never suggested that Le Grand was the pimp for the victims, and do not think he was, although there's the suggestion of a relationship of some sort between himself and Mary Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

He was ASKING to be arrested and sent down. How weird is that?

It almost seems that way, but the unnamed policeman who wrote a letter to the press states he went to Le Grand's house in relation to his 'vigilance' work and cautioned Le Grand about something, in response to which Le Grand became flustered and pulled a revolver on the officer. This is rather ballsy and suggests Le Grand felt immune to arrest, which he apparently was because he was not arrested. He heeded the officer's warning, but proceeded to stalk him for some time. A rather scary guy. If Le Grand was the Ripper, did he commit the murders at the time he did because at was this specific point in time that he felt totally invincible?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott