The Other Line Up : William Grant Grainger In 1895

[Howard Brown]

This following article...to me... is one of the most important reports in all of the contemporary papers.

The Pall Mall Gazette is one of the most frequently quoted/referred to newspapers from the days of the Autumn Of Terror. Its editor, W.T.Stead, is a "household name' in our field.

However, Mr. Stead was not the editor of the PMG in 1895. Henry Cust took over the reins of the editorship in 1892 and remained there until 1896. The owner of the PMG in 1892 ( until 1917 ) was the German-American William Waldorf Astor.



Pall Mall Gazette
May 7, 1895
Henry Cust, editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cust )



*************************


On another thread which pertains to the issue of the Anderson witness and the alleged identified individual, the suggestion was made by me that Robert Anderson may have been "half right" in that the elements of his recreation of the identification were applicable to one murder ( Berner Street ) and not the entire skein.
Some good advice recently offered by SPE just today here on JTRForums on maintaining objectivity in regard to preferring suspects or pushing a suspect's candidacy will be taken as I will try to crank up some discussion on what I think is a possible solution to (one of) the problems in the Anderson identification scenario.

I have no agenda,axe to grind, or theory to promote. I do, however , have reservations about the witness/suspect affair being related to the entire skein. While some Anderson related threads invariably evolve into what some researchers speculate one official was doing when they prepared a memoranda or whether another official, due to his religious beliefs, would lie or not...what I hope we'll do is focus on what the police did in 1895...here on this thread.

Somewhere, in the middle of the debates and presentations of data relative to Anderson and a whole host of other issues...there may be another explanation as to why, while Swanson and Anderson suggest that their witness/ suspect scenario provided the person they felt was indeed the likely candidate/culprit, we'll encounter an action, not thoughts , perceptions, or speculations over 6 years later that demonstrate that the department that both of these officials held high rank in were still engaged in attempts to link a perpetrator arrested for the violent assault on a woman in early 1895.



I don't know, in all honesty, if Swanson was still in charge of the Whitechapel Murder investigation cadre when Grainger attacked Graham.
I do know Swanson was assigned the rank of Superintendent in 1896, one year after the Grainger assault on Alice Graham.
It would be appreciated if someone chimed in and informed me/us whether he was still involved in early 1895.

Speaking only for myself, it doesn't matter much whether the witness brought in to identify Grainger in 1895 was Joseph Lawende, Israel Schwartz, or even if he or she or they was/were sightless and weren't even in London in 1888.

The very fact that someone thought of bringing in a witness by 1895 does considerable damage to the theory that the Anderson-scenario, identified suspect committed all of the crimes attributed to the Ripper or the bulk of the unsolved murders in the Whitechapel Murders File.

Speaking for myself once more, it doesn't matter whether Swanson was mistaken about the date of death for this Anderson-scenario suspect...nor do I feel that it matters that the police were satisfied with Grainger's whereabouts in 1888...again, all that matters is that an attempt...the very thought...of taking a witness from 6 1/2 years before the 1895 assault and presenting Grainger in a line up says it all. I really see no way around this fact.

It is why, while I do not subscribe to the theory that SRA pulled the identification out of a hat...I do believe that the police were not satisfied with whomever Anderson suggested was the Polish Jew suspect or the killer and either proceeded to make inquiries into the background of Grainger as being the (possible) Whitechapel Murderer and culprit behind all of the crimes or all of the crimes save the Berner Street murder.

[John Malcolm]

What other sources do we have that suggest that Sadler had been identified or confronted by a witness? This particular vague account sounds suspiciously like embellishment by a creative journalist writing for this somewhat sensational paper. I apologize for my faulty memory, but surely there is a more credible source for this story- any help in setting me straight will be very much appreciated.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Nothing was found to warrant putting him on trial for any previous outrage - despite an apparent positive ID from Lawende

Swanson's view there that JtR was dead is adequately described as worthy of respect, but I think it is identified correctly as a theory only

When Anderson put forward his theory in 1910, it seems a bit strange for Kebble and Forbes Winslow to continue to push their preferred suspect in the face of definitely ascertained facts from the head of the CID

Winslow was walking on particularly shaky ground with his dodgy evidence

[Howard Brown]

What other sources do we have that suggest that Sadler had been identified or confronted by a witness?---John


This story refers to Grainger, John...and offhand, I don't have another source. I appreciate you pointing that out, because if the basis for this thread or idea I have is incorrect, again, I have no agenda, it won't matter if the suggestion that SRA was half right is flawed. I'm also not trying to revise the history of the Case, only pointing out something which has been around for 116 years that I think deserves more consideration.

I think that, even without the remarks about Grainger being sized up by a witness ( I doubt that an error was made here...as in the PMG really referring to Sadler being sized up 4 years before )...there is still the fact that Grainger's background was investigated assiduously.

I also think that the length the police went to in determining Grainger's whereabouts are pretty extraordinary considering he didn't murder Alice Graham. I suppose one could also question what it was about Grainger that inspired such scrutinization as well. After all, this was an assault that took place almost 7 years before the Emma Smith murder.

His known association with what were termed "loose women" and having had his clothes taken from him while in Whitechapel years before by prostitutes ( something Grainger related, according to the press report, to his own mother ) or that he claimed he worked as a ship's fireman ( the seaman-angle, which we know the police had considered since 1888 ), or that he used a knife on a woman on the street...all or perhaps one or two factors which encouraged the police to look into Grainger's past.

John....a couple of years ago,when I first really read this article, the idea that SRA was half right ( not that he was or that I am on to something/anything...) started to develop. More than anything, the mere fact that the police were as interested in Grainger that they appear to have been...that they would trace his antecedal history and we'd read about what they uncovered in the PMG makes me feel that the question of the killer's identity was still an unanswered question.

In regard to corroborative, official evidence that Grainger was scrutinized by a witness ( this being the rara avis that even mentions this occurring, so far ), I'd also keep in mind other documents or files which were appropriated that have yet to be returned, if they are indeed capable of being recovered at all.

I appreciate your reply and want to ask you, you being an avid student of the issue at hand and who I consider a reference for Anderson-related matters.....where did or do you think the PMG obtained the remark attributed to Swanson that the killer was dead ( first eight sentences of the first paragraph ) ?


Neems....


"When Anderson put forward his theory in 1910, it seems a bit strange for Kebble and Forbes Winslow to continue to push their preferred suspect in the face of definitely ascertained facts from the head of the CID..."

If you are inferring that because Winslow and Kebble were not police-officials, but rather citizens and it seems strange because of that...then what do we/you get from the counterpoints of police officials to his remarks ( Reid,Abberline,Smith) not to mention the position of Macnaghten ?

Thanks a lot for the replies,gents.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Well, it just indicates to me how little sway Anderson's comments held at the time

Even if he was held in high regard, it's a bit like me having a vague theory about someone and Stewart Evans pops up and says it is a definitely ascertained fact that it was Joe Bloggs, and then I choose to continue with my vague little theory totally disregarding and actually disputing Stewarts info

Why didn't anybody agree with Anderson's suspect being JtR?

As well as rival suspects being put forward by people such as Kebble and Winslow, there appears to be a general acceptance of JtR being still abroad, reflected in the investigations surrounding suspects like Grainger

If Anderson had confidence in an ID of Kosminski by Schwartz, I would have expected him to have had a keen interest in the ID(s) by Lawende, especially his positive ID of Grainger, if indeed that occurred

However, he might not have wanted to discuss these later developments as significant as they reflect on his earlier definitely ascertained suspect and dispute his initial inferences about Kosminski

[Howard Brown]

Understood, Nemo...good points.

Above all, the mere fact the police department thought about looking into Grainger's past in possible relation to the murders, already 6 years and a few months in the past, is sufficient evidence that something was out of order.
You have to ask yourself why the police went to the length they did to determine his whereabouts if this had so few of the hallmarks of a Ripper crime ( murder, throat slashing, evisceration,etc..) save for the use of a knife.

The police made just as much of an issue of Grainger that they did with Sadler almost exactly 4 years before...a period of time ( Feb 1891-Feb 1895) in which Swanson's suspect is said to have died.....yet they pursue the Grainger affair as if Swanson's input was meaningless.

This article isn't some rehash of an old crime that the police might have felt they overlooked,obviously....they pursued this issue of Grainger and his whereabouts for 11 weeks ( 80 days between the incident and the PMG article ) before this issue appeared in print. They knew he had been put in jail in January of '95 for drunkeness in Spitalfields for starters.

[John Malcolm]

I meant Grainger! (It was late when I posted "Sadler", I think I was already halfway in sleepy-time world.) What I'm trying to ascertain is what other sources there might be to corroborate the PMG's details. Because if we are simply assuming the details are correct, I think it unwise- not just because of the PMG, but because of the general wariness we should have regarding the origins of stories in the Press. I certainly have no grounds to call the details wrong, nor am I assuming them to be in light of my scepticism, I just think that using Press reports to substantiate any type of theorizing is inherently precarious. But yes, Anderson could have been half right, half wrong, all right, all wrong or (most likely) somewhere in between. As for the Swanson theory, I can't seem to recall where else I heard this...my memory fails me once again!

[Howard Brown]

" What I'm trying to ascertain is what other sources there might be to corroborate the PMG's details."

JM...I can provide none.

Because if we are simply assuming the details are correct, I think it unwise- not just because of the PMG, but because of the general wariness we should have regarding the origins of stories in the Press.

Again,old friend, its not the details...its the mere thought of the police spending as much time tracing Grainger's antecedal history down in relation to the WM as a result of the Graham stabbing. I assume nothing buddy.


I certainly have no grounds to call the details wrong, nor am I assuming them to be in light of my scepticism, I just think that using Press reports to substantiate any type of theorizing is inherently precarious.

I agree 100 percent John...believe me...as I have absolutely no problem saying that this whole idea is kaput,either. The effort the police undertook, however, is not a theory..while certain details or almost all the details may be out of whack....like a broken record...its the effort they undertook that is significant.

But yes, Anderson could have been half right, half wrong, all right, all wrong or (most likely) somewhere in between. As for the Swanson theory, I can't seem to recall where else I heard this...my memory fails me once again!

The implication, or at least the most significant effect that this PMG story might have on the community ( again in my view ) is that it could mean that the positive identification of a man seen near the Berner Street murder was not considered an end to the puzzle to the police department and that the police felt the murder in Mitre Square, as well as other murders in the skein, were committed by someone else other than Anderson's suspect. That is, if other police officials ( aside from Swanson ) even knew about Anderson's described identification.

As always, thanks for your response John. I appreciate it and hope you understand that I'm not merely trying to make everything happy and rosey and lover-ly....but attempting to explain why the police would continue to explore the possibility of Grainger-as-Ripper despite SRA's opinion on the issue of the witness/suspect identification. I think its a possibility...a very real possibility...and would mean that the Berner Street murder,while not being openly questioned (to any great extent) as a murder committed by a hand other than that of the Ripper, might have been considered in that light to a far higher degree than we think it was.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Good point about the Berner St case Howard, however, I suspect that most police/public had no idea about the ID and the witness utilised - it's interesting to speculate along those lines though

I was already contemplating why the police would deem Grainger's crime as so resembling the Ripper crimes that he warranted such an intense investigation

If you list the salient points then he does fit certain aspects that were mentioned early on in the WM investigation

Primarily, his crime was near to Buck's Row and he used a knife on a woman, who was almost certainly an unfortunate, to cause abdominal injuries

The anecdotal evidence from his mother gives him a motive specifically against Whitechapel women

That he spent some time with the victim sort of fits the idea that the Ripper used "Judas-like" advances to manipulate the victim into a convenient location, described as a yard by the victim

However, Abberline stated that he didn't think the Ripper spent any length of time with the victim and also the policeman described the crime scene as being on the street

Not being able to place him in Whitechapel at the relevant time may indicate he was not cooperative with the police, and some suspicion may have been aroused by conversation with him

He seems to have been an asylum inmate at certain times of his life

So I suppose when you list certain aspects and look at them in a biased manner, he could well have made a viable Ripper suspect, rather than being just another knife-man in the East End

Did the police have Lawende at hand for an early ID? and if so, would Lawende have been used in other (failed) ID's of knife men over the years that we don't know about -or was he saved and utilised for the "prime candidates" only?

I do find Grainger's comment/excuse that "She was extortionate" a bit strange

Perhaps it was this blase attitude that condemned him as a possible psychopathic personality

Most of this comes from the early investigation because when Forbes Winslow relates his tale at a later date, the details are changed somewhat and Grainger's explanation for the events that night sounds reasonably plausible,though still almost certainly a lie

[Howard Brown]

Neems:

One further example of dismissal of the identification Anderson describes or absence of awareness of the identification Anderson describes or understanding of the identification that Anderson describes,but dismissal of it as it applied to murders other than that of Berner Street...is the scrutinization and rejection of the 1896 letter sent to the police with the salutation "Dear Boss"...

Donald Swanson ( a Superintendent by this time and still involved in the by-then backburner Case...which answers my own question from yesterday about his possible involvement at the time of the Grainger assault on Graham ) says ( found on page 723 of The Ultimate ) that he felt the handwriting was not the same as that of the original "Dear Boss" letter.

To me, the mere fact that Swanson scrutinized the handwriting of this letter, as did Inspector Henry Moore... gives me the impression that in his mind, the resolution of the WM was up for grabs. Yet, we see Swanson's opinion back in May...5 months earlier as the letter sent to Commercial Street Police Station arrived in mid-October....that the killer had died.

I don't know where the PMG got the nerve or idea to publish the opinion of a Scotland Yard Superintendent that the Ripper was dead in May...and that they would not be challenged by Swanson. An internal police memo shows that Swanson, a year and a half after the Grainger assault, was still perusing letters sent to the police . Why else would he be doing this unless he was not entirely convinced of the Anderson identification...unless of course he himself did not know about it until after several years had gone by.

In fact, I'm curious as to why no one apparently challenged Swanson,The PMG reporter, the police, or the editor of the PMG about the "death of the Ripper" which is clearly presented in that article.

[Howard Brown]

By the way, the assault on Alice Graham occurred on Sunday, February 10th,1895.
On page 189 of the new A to Z it is stated that the assault occurred on February 16th.

[Cris Malone]

As for the Swanson theory, I can't seem to recall where else I heard this...my memory fails me once again!

It was from Swanson's own annotations on the endpaper of Anderson's book, "...he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colony Hatch and died shortly afterwards".

I don't know, in all honesty, if Swanson was still in charge of the Whitechapel Murder investigation cadre when Grainger attacked Graham.
I do know Swanson was assigned the rank of Superintendent in 1896, one year after the Grainger assault on Alice Graham.
It would be appreciated if someone chimed in and informed me/us whether he was still involved in early 1895.

Although there is no surviving document that says so - beyond Warren's communication in Sept. 1888 - I believe it would be safe to assume that Swanson was still in charge of the investigation... at least through 1896... albeit in a less demanding and consuming role than he played in the fall of '88; as evidenced by the other cases he was subsequently involved in during that period.

Some of the remaining reports sent to the Central Office specify that he should see them and are signed by him, clearly indicating his position in the case. From the 'mad doctor' suspect, to the foreign suspect submitted by an Italian gentleman, he is notified and offers his opinion on their veracity or lack thereof. He personally interrogates Sadler and his wife and is the man that Moore sends his ' Ripper letter' report to, in 1896 - by that time a superintendent - commenting in the marginalia of that report (imagine that) and at the end of said report.

I agree with Nemo's ideas on why Grainger would garner attention from the police and with John's caution on the veracity of press reports alone. However, the PMG article expresses some detail that suggest that they had a good source from somewhere.
Couple this with the Daily Telegraph report on the Sadler ID attempt and Anderson's/Swanson's statements of another ID attempt of a Polish Jew, there is a possible pattern, here, that can't be easily dismissed despite the lack of surviving official documentation.

I may be in the minority here - and I have stated such before - but if these ID attempts did take place, I believe that Lawende was the witness in all of them... for reason's I have also stated on another thread, but will not add further redundancy here.

[Cris Malone]

Just read How's post after I had submitted mine.

[Howard Brown]

Cris:

Thank you...and thanks for the reference to Swanson's involvement in the Case in 1895. Our posts might have crossed as his memo in reference to the "Dear Boss" letter of 1896 shows he was still in the loop.

I meant to mention that the PMG...in February of 1895...wasn't hyping the assault on Graham up. Their reporting is balanced...and I'm putting up articles on a new thread which show that.

Its precisely why I mentioned the editorship of the PMG changing hands at the beginning of this thread. Stead would have probably hyped up this incident had he been the PMG's editor...but he was not involved with the PMG in 1895.

[Howard Brown]

Another quick in n' out....
We often find articles after 1888 in which an anonymous man who committed an assault on a female is fluffed up by the press with headlines such as "Another Jack the Ripper ?"...."Is This The Work Of The Ripper ?"...or headlines which are very similar to these.

However, in the cases where the assailant was eventually discovered...a "known", so to speak.., with the obvious exceptions of Bury in 1889, Sadler in 1891, Deeming in 1892....between 1888 and 1895 there aren't as many headlines which tout known individuals in such a fashion. Its usually the anonymous ones.

The same investigative procedures for these other murderers or suspected murderers were applied to Grainger.

I said that to say this. It appears that the press applied a degree of restraint ( specifically the PMG which was now without headline hunting Stead) in how they presented the facts and details in the Grainger case.

I know as well as anyone in our field that newspapers could and would embellish incidents to a high degree....but this incident of Grainger and Graham appears to have been presented with a modicum of balance.