William Grant Grainger and censorship

[Chris]

On 25 April Forbes Winslow retaliated again:



"JACK THE RIPPER."
______________

A CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
______________

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

SIR,-Mr. Kebbell, in discussing my communication relative to the above, writes in your issue of to-day :-

I suppose that it never occurred to Dr. Winslow that if anything would ensure the marked attention of the police it would be a man walking about the East End late at night in silent shoes.

This remark is made in reply to my statement that the pair of Canadian rubber shoes stained with blood which I had in my possession were worn by the murderer to enable him to move about unheard by any one.

Mr. Kebbell considers this a "remarkable suggestion" of mine. Noiseless shoes of the same description have for many years adorned my feet when engaged professionally or otherwise either in the West or East of London on rainy or snowy evenings. So far this fact has not attracted the "marked attention" of the police force. It would be a sorry sight if all who followed my example to protect themselves from cold were to engage the attention of the police.

There is one fact which for the moment had escaped my memory, and which is of importance to show that I had the proper clue. In October, 1888, I received a letter stating that a murder would be committed on November 9. On that morning, whilst the public were welcoming the entry of the Lord Mayor into the City, the newspaper boys were yelling in the streets, "Horrible tragedy in Whitechapel." On that day Mary Jane Kelly had been sent to her last account by "Jack the Ripper," this murder having been perpetrated in Miller's-court, Dorset-street, Whitechapel.

From August that year until July 17, 1889, there were no more murders committed. The murderer had had a lucid interval. I was brought into contact with the woman who had, on July 18, the following morning, on his return home about 3 a.m., seen the man washing the blood off his hands at a pump in the yard belonging to the house in which I had traced him.

From July 17 to August 30 I was occupied in completing my clue. One habit he had was to leave behind at his various lodgings voluminous accounts of his views of immorality, written on foolscap. I had many of these in my possession at the time.

In conclusion I would state emphatically :-

1st. That Jack the Ripper was traced by me from lodging to lodging.

2nd. That after each murder he left his lodgings, and I received pieces of ribbon and feathers from the hats of his victims.

3rd. That he was a homicidal religious monomaniac.

4th. That I knew his customs and habits and his haunts. That I could have caught him at eleven a.m. on a certain Sunday on St. Paul's steps.

5th. That I offered to communicate this to the police after completing my clue, and that they refused to listen to what I had to tell them, or, in other words, to test my views.

6th, That after the police declined to adopt my suggestions I published my clue, after giving them due warning of what I intended doing, and that from that time up to the present no more murders were committed.-Faithfully yours,

April 23. FORBES WINSLOW.

[Chris]

And finally here is George Kebbell's closing riposte, published on 26 April.


"JACK THE RIPPER."
____________

THE PUBLIC AS POLICEMEN
____________

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

SIR,-At the risk of wearying your readers, the writer would beg to refer to one statement made by Dr. Forbes Winslow in this evening's "Pall Mall Gazette," not for the first time. "I could have caught him (Jack the Ripper) at 11 a.m. on a certain Sunday morning on St. Paul's steps." Then why in the world did he not do so?

There are times when every one is a policeman. The writer on one occasion, acting for certain firms who had been robbed, arrested, through his own agents, a certain well-known receiver of stolen goods, who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment; whilst, beyond taking the charge at the station, the police had nothing whatever to do with the matter. This course was quite open to Dr. Winslow.

Dr. Winslow says his practice of walking about in noiseless shoes has not attracted the attention of the police; but he cannot know this. However, that the Whitechapel murderer was perambulating Whitechapel in silent shoes during the time of these murders, when every one was a detective, and without inviting or receiving attention, is something Dr. Winslow may be disposed to believe, but will be seriously doubted by many, including yours truly,

GEORGE KEBBELL.

57, Gracechurch-street, E.C., April 25.

[fido]

Just to make it crystal clear that I do not duck out of evidence challenging the reliability of Robert Anderson, let me say that, for me, the most inteesting part of the Grainger case is the newspaper report that a witness the police believed to have had a good sighting of the Ripper was called in to look at Grauinger.
This indicates that (i) Officers in charge of the Grainger case were not convinced, like Anderson, that the Ripper had been positively identified. (Grainger cannot have been Anderson's suspect, as he was not a poor Polish Jew).
(ii) The identifying witness may not have been as positive as Anderson, uncorrected by Swanson, believed.
Ergo, as I have said all along, "Anderson could have been wrong". This is, however, quite different from saying it shows Anderson WAS wrong, and it doesn't make error-filled Macnaghten, womb-seller suspecting Abberline or the completely unknown quantity Littlechild MORE reliable witnesses, let alone any non-police theorizers. I really look forward to hearing Alan Sharp on Special Branch and JtR at Knoxville, as with luck we may come away with a clearer of idea on how much weight to give Littlechild's opinion of Anderson.
All the best,
Martin F

[DVV]

Hi Martin,
to me, it's not exactly about "being wrong", it's rather about Anderson being a liar. If true, the Anderson's story should have been supported by, at least, a handful of people.

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

Here is the entry for Grant/Grainger in the admission register of Banstead Asylum. I think this is the only official record I've seen that calls him "Grainger" rather than "Grant". The information that he was a widower is also new to me.

No. in order of Admission 3602
Date of Admission [1891 Feb:] 12
CHRISTIAN AND SURNAME AT LENGTH. William Grainger
SEX. M.
AGE. 26
Condition as to Marriage. Widowed.
Condition of Life, and previous Occupation. Stoker
PREVIOUS PLACE OF ABODE. No fixed address
Union, County, or Borough to which chargeable. St George's Union
By whose authority sent. John Tilley 9 Feb 1891
Dates of Medical Certificates, and by whom signed. [1891 Feb] 9 H. W. Webster
Form of Mental Disorder. Has delusions of persecution and hallucinations of vision.
Supposed Cause of Insanity. Unknown
Bodily Condition and Name of Disease, (if any). Impaired
Duration of existing Attack. nine days
Age on First Attack. 26
Number of previous Attacks. [blank]
Date of Removal, Discharge or Death. 1891 Mar 26 [Recovered]
[Epileptics and Congenital Idiots columns left blank. No column for "Dangerous to others".]
[LMA H22/BAN/B/01/012]

[Chris]

Union, County, or Borough to which chargeable. St George's Union

It appears that when the Pall Mall Gazette article referred to Grant/Grainger having been removed to Banstead from Fulham Workhouse, it actually meant the Fulham Road Workhouse in St George's Union (covering Westminster and St George's, Hanover Square). Presumably the same goes for all the references to Fulham Workhouse in the article.

[Chris]

An interesting little postscript to Kebbell's advocacy of Grant/Grainger comes courtesy of Google News Archive Search. It seems to have appeared originally in the Pall Mall Gazette, but the report below is from a New Zealand newspaper, the Grey River Argus, of 30 June 1910.

[truebluedub]

I haven't checked this thread in a while. I found this in the Irish Times of Saturday, February 16 1895 page 6
Chris Lowe

[truebluedub]

Since the print on the above is slightly small and unclear here's a transcription:

STABBING OUTRAGE IN LONDON - At Worship Street police court, London, a man named Grant was remanded on the charge of wounding in the abdomen Alice Graham in Butler Street, Spitalfields early on Sunday morning. A statement made in connection to the case gives a very serious aspect to the charge, and suspicions about "Jack the Ripper" murders have been aroused by the facts alleged to have come into possession of the police. A knife of the most peculiar pattern, marked with blood, was found thirty yards from the spot where the accused was found stooping over the woman, and there were clots of blood along the pavement between the injured woman and the place where the knife was found.

[DVV]

Many thanks Truebluedub,
one more source about Grainger, that's nice.
G was at a time my favorite suspect, and though I've changed my mind (mainly on the basis of the "story" of the attack), I still consider him a viable suspect.

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

In his book, Recollections of Forty Years (1910), Forbes Winslow writes that after Kebbell had refused an invitation to his house for a face-to-face meeting with Grant, "I attended at Bow Street the next day, with Grant in attendance, and made an application to the presiding magistrate to stop this unjustifiable cruelty in stating that Grant was Jack the Ripper. The magistrate said it was actionable, and, having fully informed him of the circumstances connected with my application, I withdrew."

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.winslow.html

Courtesy of Google News Archive Search, here are some brief press reports from New Zealand concerning Grant's meeting with the magistrate, based on Press Association material. No doubt it was more fully reported by the Pall Mall Gazette.

JACK THE RIPPER MURDERS.
The man mentioned by Mr George Kebbell was visited by Dr. Forbes Winslow. He will make a statement before the Bow Street Magistrate today that he was not connected with the "Ripper" murders, and denying the mutilation of a woman, for which he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He will add that the authors of the outrage were hooligans, who attacked him.
[Ashburton Guardian, 27 July 1910
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...AG19100727.2.2]

"JACK THE RIPPER" CASE.
LONDON, 27th July.
Mr. R. H. Bullock-Marsham, Police Magistrate at the Bow-street Court, stated that Dr. Forbes Winslow's protege, mentioned yesterday, might sue the writers of any slanderous letters in the newspapers connecting him with the "Jack-the-Ripper" murders.
[Evening Post, 28 July 1910
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...P19100728.2.69]

[Chris Scott]

Earlier in the thread there was mention of George Kebble's statement.
This article (with unfortunately a damaged section) may be of interest

Spartanburg Herald Journal
15 May 1910

CURIOUS CONTROVERY ARISES OVER RIPPER MURDERS IN LONDON

London, May 14.
A curious controvery has arisen over the "Ripper" murders.
Sir Robert Anderson, ex assistant commissioner of the metropolitan police, has declared that the assassin of the unfortunate Whitechapel and Spitalfields women was a Jew, and that the police could not get evidence because those of his race who knew of his guilt refused to give evidence.
Mr. George Kebble, the well known city solicitor, yesterday declared that this was inaccurate, and that the man arrested proved to be of Irish birth, was found guilty of the minor charge (his victim recovering), and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Mr. Kebble added that he believed the man died in prison.
Seen at his office, Mr. Kebble told your representative his reasons for contradicting Sir Robert Anderson.
"I cannot understand him making that statement about a Jew," he remarked, "because he must remember the circumstances perfectly well.
"Moreover, he must have had the knife with which the man attacked the woman, a very curious weapon, and if it is not in the criminal museum has probable got it still.
"The newspapers came out one afternoon with the bills announcing 'Arrest of the Ripper.' Next morning someone who had interested himself in the matter asked me to represent the man.
"When he was brought up at the Old Worship Street police court I found that the woman was in such a critical condition that we all expected he would have to answer the capital charge.
"He had been caught in the very act of mutilation, with the knife in his hand, and he had removed parts of the body which had always been the objects of attack in the earlier cases.
"To the surprise of every one the woman recovered, and as the police could not obtain evidence to convict the man of the murder he was for the time charged with the minor offence.
"When he was committed for that I got into communication with his friends.....

ILLEGIBLE SECTION

He had been under suspicion some time before he was arrested, and that was how they were able to get him."
"Have you any doubt from your knowledge of the case, as his legal representative, that he was the guilty man?" Mr. Kebble was asked, and he immediately replied with emphasis;
"I have no doubt whatever; it was always assumed that he was the man. And the most significant is that there were no more murders."

[Chris]

Chris

Thanks for posting this. At genealogybank.com I found another version of the same report, from the Beaumont Enterprise and Journal of 15 May 1910, in which the illegible section reads as follows:



That version continues with the contribution from Forbes Winslow that was published by the Pall Mall Gazette on 19 April, posted above:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=36290&postcount=24

[Chris Scott]

Hi Chris
That's the one!
Thanks for posting so I can transcribe for the Press Reports
The version I saw also had a long bit about Forbes Winslow but it was the "Canadian Moccasin" sory again
Chris S

[Chris]

That version continues with the contribution from Forbes Winslow that was published by the Pall Mall Gazette on 19 April, posted above:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...0&postcount=24

I should say that the part of the article on Forbes Winslow is the same in essence at the 19 April contribution, but seems to have been reworded pretty extensively.

I was flabbergasted to read Kebble's claim that Grant "had removed parts of the body which had always been the objects of attack in the earlier cases". No wonder people were surprised that she recovered!

But seriously, I think this recalls the original subject of the thread, which was why the evidence in the case was considered "unfit for publication". The most explicit statement I can see about the injury was that it was an "internal wound".