Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Stewart P Evans]

Fascinating

A fascinating and significant article by Tom Wescott which introduces much new information on a person who can only be described as a valid suspect. We must congratulate Tom and his fellow researchers on unearthing this information. Tom really must get going on that book.

[Trevor Marriott]

A fascinating and significant article by Tom Wescott which introduces much new information on a person who can only be described as a valid suspect. We must congratulate Tom and his fellow researchers on unearthing this information. Tom really must get going on that book.

Valid suspect ?

If you havent already read it see post number # 43

[Ally]

Valid suspect ?

If you havent already read it see post number # 43

I read it. And if you hadn't put that snarky post up, I'd have let it alone.

1.Le Grand was cruel, vicious, violent, accurately described himself as “void of all human feeling”; he lived for years off prostitutes and took joy in beating them in the open street. Unlike Tumblety, Druitt, or Kosminski, Le Grand was a verifiable sociopath.

The Ripper was completely the opposite. All murders away from the public eye.

This is your personal opinion that the Ripper was completely the opposite. It may simply be down to the difference in assaulting a woman in public is quite different than murdering a woman and indicative of better planning. All of the women except for Kelly were killed in public areas, that were accessible, if not crowded. So this is argument is a wash.

2.


No evidence to suggest the Ripper did this.

There is no evidence that anyone besides the killer took the organs. Are you now admitting that lack of evidence proves your argument invalid? If you are now claiming that lack of evidence proves all conjecture invalid (which is not necessarily a point I wouldn't support) you must then recognize that the vast majority of your theory likewise becomes invalid.

3. Le Grand, alone among the suspects, could have depended on an accomplice if necessary.

No evidence to suggest Ripper had an accomplice

No evidence to support Catherine Eddowes got her period in prison and hacked up her apron for a menstrual rag. Once again, what's your point?

4. Le Grand, alone among the suspects, inserted himself into the investigation by joining the WVC.

So did many other men from in and around Whitechapel

Valid point.

5. Le Grand alone would have known the whereabouts on any night of the WVC patrolmen, as he was in charge of placing them. Through his police contacts he would also know the beats of policemen in any area of London.

There is no evidence to suggest the Ripper knew or used this information to his advantage

There is no evidence to suggest he didn't either. What's your point?

6.
Many people would have been stopped and spoken to by the police and many allowed to go lawfully on their way

Valid point.

7. The WVC met at the Crown Tavern at 74 Mile End Road, a short distance from Berner Street. They let out for patrol after midnight. This means that we can accurately place Le Grand in the very neighbourhood in which Stride was murdered at the very hour of her murder.

Along with about 100 + other men

Narrowing the suspect pool by verifying people who were actually in the area at the time is a valid tool of police investigation.

8.
Schwartz description cannot be relied upon for many different reasons.

In your opinion. Without elaboration, not a valid point.

9.

There is no evidence to prove or disprove the Batty St lodger

I would have a lot more sympathy for your belaboring the lack of evidence in this theory if your own theory wasn't rife with wildly unsupported conjecture.

10.

Conjecture on your part

See number 9.

11. Le Grand, alone among the suspects, possessed a collection of knives and was alleged to have been skilled in the use of them.

Every butcher, doctor, vet, anatomist would have had a collection of knives and be skilled in the use of them. Not to mention other occupations where knives were used on a daily basis.

And once again, narrowing the suspect pool to known facts of suspects that match possibilities of the killer is a VALID tool for making a case against a suspect.

12. Le Grand, so alleges Jabez Balfour, was suspected both by detectives and personal acquaintances of having been Jack the Ripper.

No police files or anything mentioned in officers memoirs to date mention Le Grand as being a Ripper suspect

Valid point. Documentation trumps personal testimony.

13.
He was pretending to be ignorant in the knowledge of the crimes because he probably didn’t know anything

As a member of the Vigilance committee during the crimes, the chances were, he would have known the total number of victims. I would instead have argued that this is not indicative of any feigning, but in there being a tendency to add in Tabram and possibly some of the other murders attributed at the time and that the canonical five are not the sum total of everyone's belief in how many Jack killed, even if it is Tom's. That would have been a valid argument. Your rebuttal is conjecture without support.

14.

Conjecture yet again

And yet again, who are you to point fingers? At least Tom offered his conjecture without requiring people to pay him for the privilege of reading his wild speculation and conjecture.

15.
The back ground of Mary Kelly has never fully been proved.

And?

So in so far as Le Grand NOT being a valid suspect, based on your supposedly demolishing the points made, I would like to point out that criticisms of conjecture are not sufficient. Every suspect theory, including your own, relies on conjecture. Otherwise there is no theory. Anyone who has promoted a suspect, has engaged in conjecture and building castles on the lack of evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

I read it. And if you hadn't put that snarky post up, I'd have let it alone.





This is your personal opinion that the Ripper was completely the opposite. It may simply be down to the difference in assaulting a woman in public is quite different than murdering a woman and indicative of better planning. All of the women except for Kelly were killed in public areas, that were accessible, if not crowded. So this is argument is a wash.



There is no evidence that anyone besides the killer took the organs. Are you now admitting that lack of evidence proves your argument invalid? If you are now claiming that lack of evidence proves all conjecture invalid (which is not necessarily a point I wouldn't support) you must then recognize that the vast majority of your theory likewise becomes invalid.



No evidence to support Catherine Eddowes got her period in prison and hacked up her apron for a menstrual rag. Once again, what's your point?



Valid point.



There is no evidence to suggest he didn't either. What's your point?



Valid point.



Narrowing the suspect pool by verifying people who were actually in the area at the time is a valid tool of police investigation.




In your opinion. Without elaboration, not a valid point.



I would have a lot more sympathy for your belaboring the lack of evidence in this theory if your own theory wasn't rife with wildly unsupported conjecture.



See number 9.



And once again, narrowing the suspect pool to known facts of suspects that match possibilities of the killer is a VALID tool for making a case against a suspect.




Valid point. Documentation trumps personal testimony.



As a member of the Vigilance committee during the crimes, the chances were, he would have known the total number of victims. I would instead have argued that this is not indicative of any feigning, but in there being a tendency to add in Tabram and possibly some of the other murders attributed at the time and that the canonical five are not the sum total of everyone's belief in how many Jack killed, even if it is Tom's. That would have been a valid argument. Your rebuttal is conjecture without support.

14.

And yet again, who are you to point fingers? At least Tom offered his conjecture for free and didn't require people to pay for his wild speculations and rampant illogical conjectures.



And?

So in so far as Le Grand NOT being a valid suspect, based on your supposedly demolishing the points made, I would like to point out that criticisms of conjecture are not sufficient. Every suspect theory, including your own, relies on conjecture. Otherwise there is no theory. Anyone who has promoted a suspect, has engaged in conjecture and building castles on the lack of evidence.

[[B]B]Well I thought you would have to add you nasty input sooner or later. This post was about Tom Westcots research and not mine. I am happy with mine and stand by all that i have written. I dont see you adding very much input into the mystery all you seem to do is laucch scathing attacks at posters and what they post.

Everyone including me who writes something connected to this mystery stands to be shot down including you and Mr Westcott. He has put himslef in the firing line by putting forward his reasons why le Grand should be a suspect I have put forward my take on his reasons. They are valid in my professional opinion. On that evidence I suggest he should not be considered.

Personally I dont give a rats arse whether you or anyone else choose to accept them or reject them. The fact is that anyone with more than one brain cell should arrive at the same conclusion that I have. Thats of course if they aare not wearing blinkers and rose tinted spectacles which you clearly are[/B

Castles are there to be demolished this has been the case since time began

[Ally]

[B]The fact is that anyone with more than one brain cell should arrive at the same conclusion that I have.

Wow. You are overly impressed with yourself aren't you? When you go to the beach, do the seas part for you or have you mastered walking on water yet?

[Trevor Marriott]

Wow. You are overly impressed with yourself aren't you? When you go to the beach, do the seas part for you or have you mastered walking on water yet?

Yes mastered all of them working on the loaves and fishes trick, and turning water into wine !

[Fisherman]

Ally writes:

"...When you go to the beach, do the seas part for you...?"

Hope that never happens to me - when I go there, I go with my fishing rod in hand

The best,
Fisherman

[ChrisGeorge]

Before I forget, could you please clear up a minor mystery - the pronunciation of Joseph's last name. I take it to be like 'luh-wen-dee', but am not sure.

I'm not sure what the exact pronunciation would have been, but I think the "w" would have to be pronounced as a "v" - I believe it always is in Polish, and that would be consistent with the fact that he anglicised it as "Lavender".

I agree.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello, regarding many of Trevor's counter-points, he seems to have missed where I wrote 'alone among the suspects'. This is the key phrase. Yes, many men enlisted among the vigilance committees, but how many of these men became bonafide Ripper suspects and inserted themselves into the investigation? How many of them orchestrated false testimony and conjured phantom suspects?

Regarding Trevor's assessment of the Ripper as being someone who was not violent or cruel, I'd say his actions speak quite the opposite. I think we can all agree that before the Ripper began murdering and mutilating prostitutes, he must have thought about it for quite some time. To me, that's a violent and cruel person.

Trevor is mistaken that Le Grand beat up his own women. I thought it was quite clear in my essay that his violence was directed towards prostitutes not under his control.

Trevor says there's no evidence the Ripper had an accomplice, but of course this all depends on what you consider 'evidence' and which victims and witnesses you decide to count into the fold.

I could counter every one of Trevor's points without problem, but I don't see the point. The one valid argument he brings up is that Le Grand's name has not yet been found mentioned in police files or memoirs. I'm not altogether surprised at this, considering he was a police contact. They couldn't very well admit they had actually worked with the Ripper. Trevor's current line of research - which I commend him for and consider one of the most important projects currently underway - is to get at some classified Special Branch ledgers that discuss the Whitechapel murders. As posted by Rob House, the Branch was investigating 'the activities of a private detective agency' in line with the Ripper murders. When Trevor (or Simon, or whoever) finally get to these ledgers, I imagine we'll have this missing piece. I just hope Trevor won't shy from sharing it with us.

I was shocked to see Trevor write above, 'It will be very intersting to see what the ledgers reveal if an when we get them made public as i said previous I suspect there will be few shocks with some of our likley suspects perhaps disappearing off the radar for ever !'

Since the ledgers specifically mention a 'private detective', and Le Grand is the only PI Ripper suspect we're aware of, his confidence that Le Grand will 'fall off the radar' is puzzling.

Having said all that, I appreciate Trevor taking the time to read my essay and respond in a polite manner. One of the most valuable things to me about the journals is the opportunity to get valuable feedback from learned persons before putting out a book and THEN realizing you'd made a horrible mistake. So far, I'm feeling pretty good about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Valid

Valid suspect ?
If you havent already read it see post number # 43

Yes, valid suspect. I did not say that he was proven to be the murderer, but that he was a valid suspect. In other words Tom's article reveals some fresh information that show that Le Grand was viewed as a suspect by contemporary persons, including, it would appear, a police officer. He certainly isn't a Prince Eddy, Pedachenko, Robert Mann or any other such person for whom there is no shred of evidence that they were a valid suspect.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Although alleged to be in a New York eye hospital at the time, the American private detective William Pinkerton was in London during the Ripper murders. On 19th September 1888 he returned to New York aboard the SS City of Rome, travelling under an assumed name.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks to Stewart and Natalie and Ally for the kind words. Whatever gene that some Ripperologists (Trevor, Beadle, Trow come right to mind) possess which allow them to be convinced by their own ego and not their evidence, is something I'm lacking. Perhaps this is to my detriment in convincing a reading audience, but I don't think so. My intention was and is to offer Le Grand as a legitimate contemporary suspect and a viable one. While I am not convinced he was the Ripper, I am convinced he's the most likely of the known suspects to have been the Ripper, and now that he's 'out there', I'm certain that more and more info will be unearthed. While Trevor and perhaps others choose not to view Le Grand as a viable suspect, I don't see anyone challenging the evidence that he was indeed suspected, and over a period of years no less, so I'm cool with that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks to Stewart and Natalie and Ally for the kind words. Whatever gene that some Ripperologists (Trevor, Beadle, Trow come right to mind) possess which allow them to be convinced by their own ego and not their evidence, is something I'm lacking. Perhaps this is to my detriment in convincing a reading audience, but I don't think so. My intention was and is to offer Le Grand as a legitimate contemporary suspect and a viable one. While I am not convinced he was the Ripper, I am convinced he's the most likely of the known suspects to have been the Ripper, and now that he's 'out there', I'm certain that more and more info will be unearthed. While Trevor and perhaps others choose not to view Le Grand as a viable suspect, I don't see anyone challenging the evidence that he was indeed suspected, and over a period of years no less, so I'm cool with that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
Personally I dont see any actual evidence to challenge.

We have to draw the line somewhere as to who fits into the frame as a suspect otherwise every new name i.e William McGrath is going to looked upon as a suspect. The mystery is bogged down already with names who should not even be on the list.

[Ally]

Don't lump me in with "kind words", Wescott . I don't do that. I deal in accuracy. And it is inaccurate to claim that Le Grand is not a valid suspect (in so far as any can be valid), especially not based on the "reasoning" put forth by Trevor. As Stewart has said, there is a great deal of difference between valid and proven, and while all theories deal with conjecture, there is a vast difference between reasoned conjecture and the wildly ludicrous speculation that can be found in some theories.

[Tom_Wescott]

Personally I dont see any actual evidence to challenge.

We have to draw the line somewhere as to who fits into the frame as a suspect otherwise every new name i.e William McGrath is going to looked upon as a suspect. The mystery is bogged down already with names who should not even be on the list.

Are you sure you actually read my entire essay and not merely the 15 points at the end? There's ample evidence from different sources that Le Grand was suspected of the Ripper murders. You yourself uncovered the aforementioned Special Branch ledger which points at a private detective. Don't be a spoil sport, Trevor. I completely agree that many suspects need to be 'weeded from the list', so to speak, but not any who held legitimate police suspicion, and that shortlist is Le Grand, Tumblety, Kosminski, Chapman, and possibly Druitt. That's it. However, should another be discovered, it would be ludicrous not to consider him based on the fact that there's 'too many suspects already'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott