-
-
Early release didn't make you a free man. He was put on licence and subject to police supervision. As far as I remember his licence was revoked not long after his release when he was involved in further criminal activity as George Jackson.
I am not disagreeing with you about Sgt James. I have already said in an earlier post, and in the past, that I think he was responsible for pointing the finger at LG and leaking it to the press.Comment
-
Tom
Thank you for correcting me - I was fixating on it being a Society instead of a Committee! Duh!
But surely there is reason to think le grand was never employed by the WVC.
The Morning Advertiser of 3rd October 1888 reported that private detectives were trying to promote themselves to the WVC but they already had three and so didn't need them. Three not two.
Also Hall in his testimony in June 1889 suggests the private detective agency was unsuccessful in getting any clients.
Do you think le grand was employed by the evening news?Comment
-
And who's to say they didn't hire three, such as one of Le Grand's many other colleagues? While you're working on that one, show me where another vigilance committee hired any PI's at that time. And no, there's literally zero reason to think Le Grand wasn't employed by the WVC.
What kind of PI firm do you think Le Grand was running?Originally posted by Edward Stow
On a freelance basis he was, not as a regular employee.Originally posted by Edward Stow
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Debra
Being released under licence did effectively 'free' a convict.
Le grand was free to engage in more crime!
I agree that in all probability James somehow leaked the Portland story on his own authority. This doesn't really make le grand a 'police suspect'.
Tom
I'm mighty pleased you have not silenced yourself!
I think le grand was running a rubbish detective agency - as shown by the testimony I think in the 1889 trial where in his typically overblown and cack handed manner he tried to gain the employ of someone or another. His whole overblown and exaggerated behaviour during the early days of the stride investigation fits the same pattern and I suspect this did not recommend itself to the WVC. Hence why they rejected him as described in the morning advertiser.
Hence why Hall doesn't mention le grand's employment by the WVC.
Hence why he is never referred to as working for the WVC - even by Swanson.
On what evidence are you founding the suggestion that le grand was employed by the evening news on the basis you suggest? Just on Swanson?Comment
-
I have indeed silenced myself as far as discussing evidence is concerned. What you're presenting is of course not evidence. 'Whitechapel Vigilance Committee' is one of the names we have for it today, also 'Mile End Vigilance Committee'. But to the police of 1888 it was simply 'Vigilance Committee'. You might note that the Stride murder falls within the jurisdiction of this specific VC. You've already noted that this VC alone hired private detectives at the same time Le Grand came on the scene. You've already noted Swanson specifically stating Le Grand was working for the Vigilance Committee, which was how Lusk and Aaron's committee was referred to. All of this in itself is iron clad proof that Le Grand was employed by the Vigilance Committee. That's why honest researchers can't and don't call it into question. But a duplicitious researcher might. We'll see with your next post how you see yourself, I suppose. But frankly, I'd prefer you keep building this insanely weird and irrelevant argument about Le Grand not working for the VC so you'll have mud on your face when my book comes out with even more proof.
As for the Evening News, you think Le Grand wasn't paid for the story? Do you not know how newspapers work any better than you do evidence and PI firms?
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Evening News
London, U.K.
5 October 1888
The earnestness and energy with which The Evening News has taken part in the pursuit of the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders, which is sufficiently evidenced by the fullness and accuracy of our reports of every detail of the cases, and by our publication yesterday morning of the startling facts discovered by the private detectives who are working for us, is the best explanation of the premature publication, yesterday, of an uncorroborated report as to the arrest of the supposed murderer. The report reached us from two independent sources (one a parish official of the district) and pending its confirmation by our own reporter, we issued the story in the brief form in which it reached us that the public might at least know what was currently believed to be the truth in the locality.
What were the startling facts discovered by the private detectives who were working for the Evening News and published by them the day before?
Evening News
London, U.K.
4 October 1888
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
TWO PRIVATE DETECTIVES ON THE TRACK OF THE ASSASSIN.
HIS PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
WHERE HE BOUGHT THE GRAPES FOUND BESIDE THE MURDERED WOMAN.
MATTHEW PACKER'S STORY.
INTERVIEW WITH THE MAN WHO SPOKE TO THE MURDERER.
We are enabled to present our readers this morning in the columns of the Evening News with the most startling information that has yet been made public in relation to the Whitechapel murderer, and the first real clue that has been obtained to his identity. The chain of evidence in our possession has been pieced together by two gentlemen connected with the business of private inquiries, who, starting on the track of the assassin without any pet "theory" to substantiate, and contenting themselves with ascertaining and connecting a series of the simplest facts, have succeeded in arriving at a result of the utmost importance. There are no suppositions or probabilities in the story we have to tell; we put forward nothing but simple facts, each substantiated by the evidence of credible witnesses. What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness
TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER
and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed. We proceed to five hereunder the story of the two detectives, Messrs. Grand and J.H. Batchelor, of 283 Strand: When they began their quest, almost from the first place at which they sought evidence from No. 44 Berner street, the second house from the spot at which the body was found. This is the residence of a man named Mathew Packer, who carries on a small business as a greengrocer and fruiterer. His shop is an insignificant place, with a half window in front, and most of his dealings are carried on through the lower part of the window case, in which his fruit is exposed for sale. Mathew Packer had valuable information to give, and after two or three interviews on the subject, made and signed a statement in writing, the substance of which is as follows:
On the 29th ult., about 11.45 p.m., a man and woman came to his shop window, and asked for some fruit.
Packer and the grapes.
Then take into account what Swanson and White said and I posted earlier and tell me that's not a chain of evidence.
Edit: It looks like I misunderstood and you are asking about LG working for the Evening News in a different capacity. Oh well. I'll leave that post there as I always forget these specific links that show LG was the detective hired by the Evening News.Comment
-
Thank you Debra - that does indeed spell out that le grand was employed by the evening news.Rather than as Tom suggested, le grand being paid for a story (in the manner I suspect Robert Paul for example would have been).But again no proof that le grand was ever in the employ of the WVC.
Although at the exact time le grand was making a nuisance of himself, we know the WVC rejected some busybody private dics.
Maybe Tom has some undisclosed evidence - let's hope so for the sake of his book and all those pending Yankee dollars!Comment
-
As I posted earlier; The WVC members even signed themselves as simply belonging to 'The Vigilance Committee' in correspondence.Comment
-
DebraI think Swanson probably was referring to the WVC but he doesn't say le grand was employed by them and I haven't seem any reference by the WVC to le grand nor by le grand or any of his confederates to the WVC.
Maybe there are such references around that I am not aware about.
Was James involved in the whitechapel murders investigation?
James knew nothing of le grand's detective business in June 1889 and le grand was in jail when Mackenzie was killed, the pinchin street torso found and Coles killed.
Hence it seems that le grand's suspect status for the previous murders coincided with his ridiculous and overblown threats to kill in 1891 - some three years after the last murder he could have committed.Comment
-
I think my case rests good enough on the police documents that state as fact that Le Grand was employed by the Vigilance Committee, which was the name of Joseph Aaron's and George Lusk's organization. It doesn't say 'St. Jude's VC', who wouldn't have been in Berner Street any way, nor does it say 'National VC', who were not even active in the Ripper investigation. It says 'Vigilance Committee', just as it reads numerous times when Lusk's group is referenced. As for being employed by the press, Le Grand sold a story to them as a 'special correspondent'. I seriously doubt Paul was paid for his brief interview, though perhaps a little given what a tight wad he was. At no point have I tried to argue that Le Grand was some news reporter. But the police reports that reference this are specifically referring to Le Grand's article in the Evening News, who in fact were employing him at the same time as the WVC. If you want to argue that Le Grand was blissfully unaware of a long article that was all about him, go for it.
Remember, he's a non-starter of a suspect.
As for your inference that the Swanson comment in the police files was hoaxed at a later date, I hope you scream that one from the rafters.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Swanson writes-Packer gave information to two private enquiry men acting conjointly with the Vigilance Committee and the press and mentions the same PI's found the grape stem
White writes- Inquires about the detectives who whisked Packer off and says there is 'no doubt' these are the same detectives mentioned in the press cutting who examined the drain and one of them handed him a letter addressed to Le Grand & Co.
These two snippets combined tell us White encountered LG dealing with Packer and he is sure they are he same detectives that inspected the yard drain-who Swanson tells us where working with the VC and press.
Then the Evening news tells us that they employed LG and he found the grapestalk evidence -and Swanson is still telling us that the detectives who found the grapestalk were working with the VC too.
A definite chain of evidence if you now accept that VC may be the WVC!Comment
-
I have never seen his name mentioned but officers were drafted in from all over so it isn't impossible.
No,it probably coincided with Sgt James discovering in court in June 89 that LG worked as a PI and his company was named Grande & Co. ...Sgt James was a real detective after all and he was given the specific task of looking closer a LG. He had access to police files and information from the convicts office and could have easily put two and two together and discovered the detective representing Le Grand and Co.in 88 and Grand and Co.in 89 wereprobably the same man.
At the time LG was sentenced to two years for blackmailing Dr Morris(1889) there were press reports that it was thought that the Ripper was serving a 15 year sentence in prison for another crime. The length of the sentence doesn't match the two years imprisonment LG got, but if you consider he was originally given 5 years penal servitude, later changed on a legal technicality,then a mistake of fifteen years instead of five isn't too much of a stretch.Comment
Tweet
Comment