Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Supe]

Phil,

May I take this opportunity to say thank you for the Examiner No.2

The setiments are very welcome, but most assuredly ought not be directed to me alone. Jennifer Shelden was there every step of the way (often a few steps ahead); David Pegg, a computer graphics whiz, makes the layout so reader friendly; a few folks behind the scenes and of course all our great contributors, without whom there would no magazine. On behalf of all of them, you are welcome.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

Of course my thanks also reach out to all concerned and involved with the publication... especially as the "setiments" ( sorry, had to...LOL) are very welcomely given and received!

best wishes

Phil

[caz]

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

Excellent stuff, Simon. Thanks for posting the link.

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.

Yep, that'll do nicely for me, Archy.

No doubt the lawn mower (the machine, not the lackey) was also used by your racketeer to electrocute a series of harmless worn out prossies - and shave their legs.

I mentioned to Tom over at forums that less is more.

His only fault to my mind is in trying too hard to argue for a sinister interpretation of the material provided. The material should do that all by itself, but in any case the author can't make the reader see 'sinister' just because he sees it; he can only hope that will be the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Cleaning knives

Hi Caz, nice to see you're willing to comment on something other than a typo. Regarding my 'sinister interpretation' which you, Phil and Archaic feel was a 'leap of logic' on my part, my conclusion was informed by more than just Hall's own words. First, there's how he answered that same question in 1889, then there's the fact that he chose to mention 'cleaning knives' before and above his other duties. What can't be overlooked is the tension between Hall and Le Grand at this time, Le Grand having attempted to get Hall put up for stealing (which he was probably innocent of) causing Hall to run straight to PS James, Le Grand's arch rival. During the trials, Le Grand would often do a lot of his own questioning in order to intimidate his witnesses. One of his ploys with Hall was to make mention of other crimes in order to scare Hall, such as the Kennington 'Jack the Ripper' extortion case, which I talk about in my essay. I feel that bearing this all in mind, the likely explanation for why Hall would choose to say 'cleaning knives' for Le Grand was a primary function of his when he had never done so before, and considering it doesn't fit at all with his actual duties, was that he wanted to turn the tables and make Le Grand sweat for a change.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

Hi Tom.

I think I understand the point you are making. It just seems to me that if Hall knew or suspected that Le Grand's knives had been used in the commission of violent crimes, the last thing he would have volunteered in court is that he willingly cleaned the knives for Le Grand. Wouldn't that have made him some kind of accessory to the crime?

Now maybe Hall knew Le Grand had gone so far as to threaten to take a knife to somebody (rather like he threatened to blow people up), and so Hall volunteered in court this simple statement about "cleaning knives" just to make Le Grand sweat... But as far as I can see that's extrapolating beyond the known facts. It's speculation and supposition. It could be true, but is it supported by the evidence??

And why would Hall want to do anything to make Le Grand angrier at him while stopping short of giving evidence that could get Le Grand convicted and put away? If Le Grand was such a dangerous man wouldn't Hall have either sung like a bird or kept his mouth shut?


>> Do the trial transcripts still exist so Hall's statements and the context in which they were made can be verified? (Sorry, I don't recall if you already addressed this.)

Don't get me wrong, Tom; I think you wrote a very interesting article and you exponentially increased our knowledge of Le Grand. I really do appreciate you sharing your work with the rest of us, and I hope you write your book. I also give you credit for at least putting your man in Whitechapel; I agree that's an important consideration when it comes to potential Ripper suspects.

We all have different opinions. That's to be expected. In all honesty I see Le Grand as a fairly low-level money-hungry racketeer and extortionist, not as a serial killer obsessed with the most extreme forms of sexual violence.

But I always try to respect the differing opinions of others. It would be so boring if we ever all agreed.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Archaic. The police came to suspect Le Grand was the Ripper for some reason, and I'd be amazed if at least part of this reason wasn't testimony from those close to him, and Hall (along with Demay) would be at the top of the list of people likely to squeal. I'm not saying Hall had knowledge of Le Grand as the Ripper, but he might have suspected, and most likely learned through PS James that Le Grand was suspected, so mentioning his knives would be a direct shot to Le Grand's heart. It seems Le Grand got rid of his knives in 1889, and Hall would have been aware of this, so the odd mentioning of 'cleaning knives' at the 1891 trial had to have been for Hall's benefit.

As for this perception of Le Grand as a merely a crook, this is probably because most of the information we have on him comes from his few trials, so this is how we perceive him. This might also leave the reader with the impression that Le Grand was arrested at every turn and therefore a bad crook. But this is certainly not the case. In fact, the police generally had a hard time catching him at anything or getting a case to stick. We actually only have knowledge of his lesser crimes and not the greater ones, which is unfortunate. It therefore falls to the researchers, writers, and readers to look beneath the surface and see what we can learn. Certainly the people who knew him best were frightened of him and saw him as much, much worse that a low rent con man.

Regarding trial transcripts and such, unless otherwise noted in my essay, I was quoting from the Old Bailey.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

Thanks for your reply Tom.

I encourage you to keep going on your Le Grand research; who knows where it might lead you?

And thanks for making an effort to reply to all these posts and questions regarding your article.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Tom

Firstly I would like to congratulate you on your research. As you know I have always been a champion of people willing to put their heads above the parapet and suggest possible suspects. I have no problem with suspect based Ripperology.

However I did raise concerns elsewhere that you have not addressed.

Namely that if we take Schwartz account from the Star and the home office report, it seems likely that Schwartz turned into Berner Street at 12.45 and followed BS man down the street towards Dutfeild Yard.

The man stopped and spoken to a women (Stride) where he either pushed her to the ground, or more probably pushed her into Dutfeild Yard cutting her throat from behind, in a fast and vicious attack.

My problem is that if BS man had any connection to Pipeman ie they were working together? Then BS man would have had to have walked completely around the bloke for his direction to have made any sense. This seems most unlikely.

If they were working together then they would have come from the same direction. They did NOT.

I just wonder how you explain this fairly basic and apparently contradictory set of FACTS?

Yours Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jeff. I'm surprised to see your post because yesterday on the forums you were calling Ally and the Casebook hierarchy Nazis and said they'd banned you. But I digress...

That's a good question. Yes, in the general course of life two people together would be assumed to be walking the same direction. But in the scenario where Pipeman and BS Man are serial killers, I would suggest that it's possible they might not behave like normal every day people. So you see, there's only a contradiction in facts if you first presuppose that Pipeman and BS Man should be expected to behave as you and I would.

But what does this have to do with my essay? I barely mentioned Schwartz and only once. This kind of talk is more suited for a Stride thread. Let me say that I'm not 'hanging my hat' on an accomplice theory. Le Grand may very well have been the Ripper AND worked alone. But Le Grand's criminal history raises the possibility for their having been an accomplice, as does Schwartz's evidence, so I'm sure you'd agree I'd be neglectful not to pursue it. It would also answer alot if not all of the peripheral mysteries that haunt this case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

His only fault to my mind is in trying too hard to argue for a sinister interpretation of the material provided. The material should do that all by itself, but in any case the author can't make the reader see 'sinister' just because he sees it; he can only hope that will be the case.

Hi Caz, nice to see you're willing to comment on something other than a typo. Regarding my 'sinister interpretation' which you, Phil and Archaic feel was a 'leap of logic' on my part, my conclusion was informed by more than just Hall's own words. First, there's how he answered that same question in 1889, then there's the fact that he chose to mention 'cleaning knives' before and above his other duties. What can't be overlooked is the tension between Hall and Le Grand at this time, Le Grand having attempted to get Hall put up for stealing (which he was probably innocent of) causing Hall to run straight to PS James, Le Grand's arch rival. During the trials, Le Grand would often do a lot of his own questioning in order to intimidate his witnesses. One of his ploys with Hall was to make mention of other crimes in order to scare Hall, such as the Kennington 'Jack the Ripper' extortion case, which I talk about in my essay. I feel that bearing this all in mind, the likely explanation for why Hall would choose to say 'cleaning knives' for Le Grand was a primary function of his when he had never done so before, and considering it doesn't fit at all with his actual duties, was that he wanted to turn the tables and make Le Grand sweat for a change.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm sorry, Tom. I was wrong.

Your second fault is not seeing your first in action.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Incidentally, Tom, I haven't commented on a single typo [= typographical error, or literal] in your article. I can't recall any offhand, but if you want me to go back and check...

You said that you actually thought 'stationary' was the correct way to spell stationery, as in writing requisites. It was a delightfully honest admission, showing you in a better light than if you'd tried to put it down to a slip of the typing digit. Why spoil it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

The material should do that all by itself, but in any case the author can't make the reader see 'sinister' just because he sees it

Your second fault is not seeing your first in action.

I'm surprised to see this from someone who has written a book. The writer's job is to become familiar with the material and where necessary interpret it for his readers. This is precisely what I did, and I imposed no interpretations upon it that weren't suggested by the evidence. Yes, you knew how to spell 'stationery' and I didn't. Congrats, you're like 25 years older than me and weren't raised in Oklahoma. Your gift is grammar, mine is instinct, which tends to be proved right more often than not, in case anyone has been keeping score. I'm more than willing to change my mind or admit where I was wrong, but I see absolutely no reason to do so in the instance of Hall's testimony.

In fact, I've figured out who wrote the Pall Mall Gazette letter about Le Grand, and it wasn't who I suggested in my essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Smith

Hello Tom. Congratulations on your Le Grand article. Careful research is evidenced here.

Do you think it feasible that Le Grand might have been involved in the Smith murder as well? That one does have some earmarks of a "pimp's persuasion gone too far" and, given a gang of 3 as perpetrators, looks initially favourable as his work.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

Le Grand is the only suspect ever put forth who I could see as possibly culpable for the Smith murder, simply because he did run with a pack and of course carried a heavy stick. Smith named one of the attackers as a 19 year old, leaving us to assume the other two were older. Since we have virtually no information on this case it's not really possible to take the argument further. But sure, it's possible. I didn't talk about this in my essay because it's pure conjecture, and if I started with Smith I would have kept going and my essay would have been 150 pages. LOL. But it's certainly worth considering, and you're the only person who has thought to suggest this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Tom. Thank you.

The scenario that naturally suggests itself is that Smith was somewhat in arrears with his portion of the proceeds (not uncommon, although it could be a case of a territorial dispute as well). Le Grand and 2 cronies set upon Smith by way of a reminder. As a last gesture, he indicates--quite graphically with his stick--how she could lose her livelihood. Of course, it might be unlikely that he intended her death and inadvertently overreached himself.

But again, as you indicate, speculation is best left only for fueling hypotheses which may, in turn, lead to a new avenue for research.

Cheers.
LC