Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Tom_Wescott]

What we do know is the prostitutes
were apparently not threatened by the Ripper and he escaped as if a phantom...
leaving carnage in his wake...............
this is all we have to go on for personality traits....

And who would better know how to talk to a prostitute than a pimp? Who could blend in and disappear better than someone who made money stalking and watching people?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Hi Tom,

I agree that there was no lodger. But I think the evidence suggests that the police were well aware of the situation before Le Grand informed them about it on October 9.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob. Even if you're correct and the police were aware of a bloody shirt, that does not mean that Le Grand did not invent the lodger end of the story, since he clearly comes on to the scene around the 9th according the press report Debs found, and following this we suddenly have a phantom lodger, complete with Matthew Packer selling lies and peanuts to the crowd. Having said that, the very earliest report we have on the lodger story as a whole puts Le Grand at the forefront of it all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Hi Tom,

I think my point is that the reports seem to suggest that Le Grand was not at the head of this story, but merely heard about it, as probably lots of people were discussing it. I do not really see how that would mean Le Grand invented anything, especially since the Echo reporter got the lodger story from a neighbor of Mrs. Kuer's. Again, it seems to me that the origin of the lodger part of the story was the fact that Mrs. Kuer did in fact have a lodger who was out of town at the time the laundry was dropped off. This is likely the source of confusion. And Mr. Noun was apparently worried that he might be mistaken for the missing lodger, and by extension the killer, explaining why he wrote a letter to the press to clear up the matter.

RH

[Tom_Wescott]

Rob,

I don't discount what you're saying, but it seems to be entirely conjecture drawing from admittedly flawed and fictitious reports that appeared later. How do you explain the fact that the earliest known press report on the Lodger, appearing a full five days before the next, states quite plainly that Le Grand and Batchelor were at the head of it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Well, lets look at the actual report from Oct 10:

"Messrs Grand and Batchelor, private detectives, received information yesterday afternoon which induced them to make enquiries in Batty-street, Whitechapel. They ascertained that a man, name unknown, recently left with Mrs. Kail a shirt, the sleeves of which were stained with blood. Information was sent to the police, who at once instituted enquiries, with what result is not known. Mrs. Kail was able to give a good description of her mysterious customer; but the authorities do not consider it advisable to make it public."

In short they "received information yesterday" (Oct 9), then "made enquiries in Batty St" and found out about the bloody shirt, then informed the police. Now, if it is true that the Police did not make enquiries until after October 9 as this report claims ("who at once instituted enquiries"), that would be one thing. But several other reports suggest that the police had already talked to Mrs. Kuer by around October 1 or 2. So again, I would argue that Le Grand and Batchelor were only at the head of the story by perhaps being responsible for informing the press about it. The press then (on several occasions) made their own inquiries, first getting the story from a neighbor, and later from Mrs Kuer herself and Carl Noun. I do not think this means the reports in total were fictitious, although as the papers even admitted, their earliest reports (around October 15) were flawed. And other reports were probably flawed also. But that is why I said you need to read all the reports. To me, it seems clear that there was a legitimate story here, and if you examine the reports closely, you can make out what apparently happened... to at least some probable degree of accuracy.

I do admit it is somewhat curious that Le Grand's name appears in the earliest known account of the story, but I think you have jumped to a conclusion a bit here.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure I jumped to anything. On the one hand, we have the earliest known source regarding the lodger, from which I was writing. On the other hand, you're quoting from later sources which suggest (but do not say) that the story broke earlier. And it's seriously doubtful that Le Grand gave or sold this story to the press, because he avoided publicity, and the article was too short, with no details, and ended by poo-pooing the whole story.

You may very well be right, but you've only shown me what I published and not anything to refute it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

I have yet to subscribe to Examiner, so have not read your piece about Le Grand. But I have been following the aftershocks and tremors from your article and thought this might amuse you.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6634103.ece

Ah, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Waiting an answer

Hello Tom,

I am patiently awaiting your answer to my observation that it was you, not Hall, who turned the "knife cleaning" part of Hall's job into the description in your essay, of his"prime duty", because I feel it is misleading.

According to your essay, Hall never said it nor indicate it, he only listed it amongst his duties. It was you Tom, who called it Hall's "prime duty". I would like to know how you know this was Hall's prime duty?

As said before, servants (and Hall was a general servant) polish all the cutlery. Knives, forks, spoons. Even a collection of the above. They were not made of stainless steel, and it was an ordinarily accepted part of their job.

Thank you for your attention.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

I'm sorry to say I've probably overlooked other questions asked of me here and at the forums, but there's been a lot to answer the last few days and precious time to do it since my internet time is limited. The short answer to your question is that anything I wrote was, in fact, not misleading. The fact is that in the 1889 trial, Hall described his duties but mentioned no knives, nor cleaning of any kind. In 1891 when he was no longer under Le Grand's thumb, the very first thing he mentions when asked his duties for Le Grand was to say that he cleaned his knives. A pretty strange comment. I hope this explanation suffices.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I have yet to subscribe to Examiner, so have not read your piece about Le Grand. But I have been following the aftershocks and tremors from your article and thought this might amuse you.

I"ve no doubt it would amuse me, but unfortunately I'm not able to view it due to bandwidth constraints.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Simon,

Very entertaining. Thanks for the link.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Thank you for your reply. That still doesn't mean it was Hall's "prime duty" does it? Hall never said those words. You did. This is a leap of logic in my humble opinion.

As said, I think your article was a fine piece.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

May I take this opportunity to say thank you for the Examiner No.2 I found it very entertaining, well produced and very much a readworthy publication. Well done!

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

Hi Soupy, how are you?

I agree with Phil, Examiner #2 has been a very enjoyable read. Glad it's so long! Thanks

The fact is that in the 1889 trial, Hall described his duties but mentioned no knives, nor cleaning of any kind. In 1891 when he was no longer under Le Grand's thumb, the very first thing he mentions when asked his duties for Le Grand was to say that he cleaned his knives. A pretty strange comment. I hope this explanation suffices.

Hi Tom. I'm not sure why you think it's a strange comment. Hall didn't say he cleaned blood and human tissue from the knives, did he?

If the knives were used in some kind of criminal activity, why would Hall even mention that he cleaned them but then not tell the court anything further? After all, wasn't Le Grand in custody during the trial? Did Hall ever say the knives appeared to have blood on them?

To me "cleaning knives" says that Hall performed petty 'odd jobs' for Le Grand of the sort that a servant would do. Personally, I take Hall's remarks to be more in the way of publicly distancing himself from any involvement in Le Grand's criminal activities.

Kind of like if you work around the home for a racketeer but you get up in court and say "Hey, I just mowed the lawn for the guy."

That's how I interpret it; maybe others see it differently.

I do think you did a good job on the article.

Best regards,
Archaic