Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria,

I didn't discover the correct spelling of Louis' name (Diemschitz) until some time after publishing that essay in 2006. As for the Ripper letters, I myself am not convinced that Le Grand wrote any of them, although I'd say the 'From Hell' letter is now looking likely to have come from him as well as the 'threat' letter. Keep in mind that at the time the threat letter was written, the handwriting of the 'Dear Boss' letter had been made known, and Le Grand was skilled at changing his handwriting and copying others', so that was probably written by him either to Packer or Schwartz.
Regarding Nichols, you can't say there was a 'progression' from her to Chapman since she was interrupted by Charles Cross, which was the whole point of my argument. He did however learn not to try cutting under the clothes and instead to cut through them. I currently believe it's possible that Tabram was a Ripper victim, but I bounce back and forth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I've just had the chance to finally go through a couple of Ripper Notes, and I have to say, very impressive and very-very enjoyable. Having also read Jack and the grapestalk Nr. 1, I've found the author's hypothesizing that Le Grand might have written the threatening letter of October 6 to an unnamed witness (Packer) convincing. The handwriting of this letter appears not too completely dissimilar to the September 25th “Dear Boss“ letter and to the “Saucy Jack“ postcard, but I can't pretend I'm convinced that Le Grand might have written these letters as well. In my (newbie, humble) opinion, they appear to be the work of a journalist.
What I need to ask, and with not a little bit of urgency, has anyone ever done any research to identify Le Grand's handwriting in any police archives or other London archives? THAT would be a VERY important, useful find! I still haven't managed to read Examiner 2 for any updated information on Le Grand, but I will. And regarding updated information, I've noticed that in Ripper Notes #25 it's still spelled “Diemschutz“, while in Examiner 1 it's been corrected into “Diemshitz“. Oh, how the times they are a-changing...
And by the by, Tom, I very much appreciated the very thorough and methodical discussion of the entirety of reports on Polly Nichol's wounds in Ripper Notes # 26, but I do NOT adhere at all to the conclusions that you pull out of these, i.e., that the Ripper murders, in typical serial killer mode, were not a “progression“ concerning the increase of the mutilations. There is definite, if light, “intensification“ of the mutilations between Nichols and Chapman, and I rather (and completely) agree with Wolf Vanderlinden's interpretation of the Tabram murder as a Ripper murder initial to Nichols, which I suspect that you don't see as a Ripper slaying.
(By the by, I very much appreciate Vanderlinden's dissertation on Sickert's paintings and, on a different note, Vanderlinden's hilarious but very informative reports from the 2006 Ripperological conference in Baltimore.)
P.S.: Luckily I'm a bit sick and unable to go out during the weekend, and such will work wonders with the Ripperological lit I wanted to catch up on since so long...

[mariab]

He he he, I can hardly imagine this! Even from the newbie perspective, from simply going through some threads, I can see that she's conducted some amazing research!

[Debra A]

Anyway, I'll most certainly read up in Examiner 2 what research Debra Arif conducted so that you could write your piece. (How come she didn't write the piece herself then, or co-authored it or something?)

She's too bloody lazy, Maria!

[mariab]

Actually I was thinking about this too (was just too tired to post about it), precisely as Caz said, that a woman's grounds for obtaining divorce would have been much more difficult than a man's in the 19th century, and even in the early 20th century. I also agree with Caz's interpretation of what really happened with the Maybrick saga/divorce.

[c.d.]

... and to think all a woman has to do today to obtain a divorce is to nag her husband to death. My how times have changed.

c.d.

[caz]

Not really relevant to Le Grand, but I have a feeling that a wife could not obtain a divorce at that time on the grounds of her old man's adultery, but a husband could obtain one if it could be shown that his missus was playing away. I think a woman's grounds had to be physical or mental abuse, or possibly desertion, but don't quote me on that one.

If there was a mutual falling out, for example, a divorce could be obtained if they arranged for the husband to strike his wife in front of witnesses, or for the wife to stay overnight in a hotel with another man - again with witnesses.

There are hints of something like this going on with Florie and Jim Maybrick, where both events happened, in fairly quick succession, in early 1889. Little attempt was made to conceal the 'evidence' from witnesses or the 'injured' party. So Florie may have been counting on Jim divorcing her for adultery, or giving her the grounds to divorce him for striking her in retaliation

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

I wouldn't have a problem at all imagining that Le Grand would have “stooped“ to what John Savage described.
Hi, Tom. Le Grand sounds Dickesian and even Oscar Wild-ish – referring to the woman trying to extort money from the protagonist in the play An ideal husband, not to Oscar Wild himself! But the tactics you decribed remind me more of Tom Sawyer! Anyway, I'll most certainly read up in Examiner 2 what research Debra Arif conducted so that you could write your piece. (How come she didn't write the piece herself then, or co-authored it or something?)
Back in Berlin, unscathed after 4 flights, but when my little trolley case came out the caroussel rieking very stark of red wine, I knew that a bottle from ZA had broken up. Unbelievably a surf mag and its environmental paper sucked up all the wine, and for some miraculous reason my clothes were spared. Still, the living room totally reeks like a winery, as I'm airing things... (The other bottle came out fine.)
It reminds me of a similar problem I had when I went to Oxford for a first conference last fall, and a bag of chips exploded inside my travel bag, and I spent my first night at Jesus College, Oxford, shaking my clothes out of the window in the rain, and on the next day, during my presentation, I could still see chips crumbs attached to my “best work suit“.

[John Savage]

Private Detectives and Divorce

Hi All,

I think it should be kept in mind that Divorce was not a simple matter in England during the nineteenth century, indeed until the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, you probably needed an act of parliament to obtain a divorce.

With the introduction of this act divorce became slightly easier, and could be granted if there were grounds. One such ground was adultery, but it had to be proven.

This gave rise to a situation were a man and wife wanted to divorce but needed the grounds in order for a divorce to be granted. If a man was found to have slept with another woman you have evidence of adultery. So the man arranges to stay at an hotel one night with a woman who was not his wife and also arranges for a private detective to observe him entering the hotel with this other woman. They spend the night in the hotel probably in a double bed, although there is no legal need for intercourse to be proved to have taken place.

The evidence is given in court by the private detective and backed up by the chambermaid who cleaned the room giving evidence that the state of the bed, two cups having been used (one perhaps with lipstick) indicate that adultery had taken place, and low and behold you have a divorce!

Private detectives would also not be above making the arrangements for such a scenario, arranging for the other woman and making sure that the chambermaid was "looked after" for giving the appropriate evidence. All for a fee of course.

Anyone think that LeGrand might have stooped to such a thing?

Rgds
John

[Tom_Wescott]

I was wondering if someone could conduct this kind of research on Le Grand in London, so that we could find out what exactly le Grand was doing, in a way or another.

Yeah, I wish Debra Arif would do a little research on Le Grand so I could write an essay on him. Oh wait, that's been done. Le Grand would write extortion letters to men demanding money or else he'd air their dirty laundry. Often just the threat was enough, even if the men were clean. Other tactics would be to follow someone around and generally terrify them; when they confronted you, you'd explain you were being paid to do this, but would be willing to stop if they paid you more. People would pay just for you to go away. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Hello Lynn. I'm completely aware of the nuances between what kind of work Le Grand's “company“ claimed to be conducting vs. what he really used to do as a “job“. Possibly his “investigative business“ was just a cover for being a pimp ?
By the way, this is possibly a Polyanna idea, but I was wondering, are there any Bank Archives in London where info on bank accounts from the 1880s/1890s might be still available? Or has this been all destroyed in the Blitz?
Because recently I've conducted a similar research at the Archivio di Banco (the bank archive) in Naples to find details about the dealing conducted in the early to mid 19th century by Domenico Barbaia, the notorious director and impressario of the Neapolitan Teatro San Carlo, who accessorily (and actually not so much accessorily, more like mainly!) was also moving LOTS of money into gambling etc. inside the Teatro San Carlo foyer. I found Barbaia's bank account and some info, but unfortunately not what I was looking for (about a certain collaboration with Rossini I was interested in), because we know that Barbaia liked to pay his closest business associates in cash – no receipts, no dash!
I was wondering if someone could conduct this kind of research on Le Grand in London, so that we could find out what exactly le Grand was doing, in a way or another...

[lynn cates]

appearance/reality

Hello Maria. Well, close. We cannot gather from the ad that he actually did investigative work; only that he CLAIMED to do it.

Of course, if his PI company were merely a front, this is precisely what he'd need to do.

I think the jury must still be out on the question of his having a legitimate or quasi-legitimate company.

(Were investigators looking for causes for divorce back then? Well, how much does human nature change over the aeons?)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

This ad obviously means that Le Grand and Co. did research for people to find cause for divorce, isn't that it? So that was already a custom as early as in 1888? Had no idea about this! I can't wait to read up on Le Grand, starting with Examiner 2, as I'm almost finished with the surf lit.
(While I'm stuck at the Johannesburg International airport for a couple hours until my flight to Frankfurt, after already a car ride and 2 flights... Long day today.)

[lynn cates]

hope

Hello Debra. Thanks.

"could it be that Le Grand was trying to go straight and operate just like a real private detective?"

Well, let's keep a good thought--hope springs eternal in the human breast.

On the other hand, old habits die hard. (heh-heh)

I shall keep an eagle eye out for more.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

A very good find, Lynn.
I've never come across 'Grand and Co' advertising in the press before.
Hopefully more new things will be found in the future to add to what we know about him already.
The snip shows that Grand and Co. was the name of the detective agency at least, could it be that Le Grand was trying to go straight and operate just like a real private detective?
Thanks for sharing this.