Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Case For William Grant Grainger

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Alex H. View Post
    So that would have been in 1895? Seven years after the occurrence in Mitre Square when Lawende said that "He did not believe he would be able to identify the man again"? Hard to believe.
    Exactly right Alex

    There are caveats such as Lawende being a better witness than was evident by that statement, him being sequestered by the police etc, but most people would expect an eye witness several years after the sighting to be at minimum unreliable

    That goes for the Kosminski ID also if it occurred in 1891

    As Howard and Jonathon Hainsworth often mention, the use of Lawende in 1895, especially if he positively identified Grainger, has repercussions for the case against Kosminski and the statement by Swanson that the Ripper was dead went largely unreported

    If Anderson was the person who fully acknowledged Grainger was the Ripper in 1895 and Swanson at that time believed the Ripper to be a man who had died some years previously, that reflects on the Kosminski case and particularly on the Swanson marginalia

    A case has been made previously that the positive ID of Grainger was somehow mixed up with the case against Kosminski which, though possible, I don't really believe could have occurred

    Grainger was Irish and of good family and there are aspects of his case that point to one of the very few occasions when some sort of cover-up occurred

    Though I don't think Swanson or Anderson would have believed that Grainger was the Ripper and covered up the fact, there does appear (to me) to be some sort of damage limitation to protect the good name of his family who Anderson may have known personally or at least felt sympathy for, having a wayward son accused of being JtR

    I forgot to mention that the trial details of the Grainger case were considered unfit for public consumption and I don't believe that was because of the intimate nature of the injury to the victim, Alice Graham

    Comment


    • #17
      Also, Grainger was listed as a widower when in Banstead asylum in 1891, which may or may not be connected to the claim about his wife dying in 1889

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't know how this works legally for certain, I hope someone can put me straight- If Lawende had previously 'indicated' in an ID that he thought Kosminski was the ripper, wouldn't that rule him out of being involved in any further identifications? Or does the fact that he wouldn't swear to Kosminski make a difference?

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm not certain either Deb

          It makes me wonder in what way Lawende indicated that Kosminski definitely was the man if that's what happened

          MacNaghten only said Kosminski "strongly resembled" the suspect which sounds somewhat less definite

          We have Lawende supposedly positively identifying a Jew, negatively identifying a Gentile (Sadler), and a positive ID of a Gentile (Grainger)

          I don't see how Swanson or Anderson could put any faith at all in any of the identifications, yet they mention it as practically the main evidence against Kosminski, the rest being circumstantial

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Nemo View Post
            I'm not certain either Deb

            It makes me wonder in what way Lawende indicated that Kosminski definitely was the man if that's what happened

            MacNaghten only said Kosminski "strongly resembled" the suspect which sounds somewhat less definite

            We have Lawende supposedly positively identifying a Jew, negatively identifying a Gentile (Sadler), and a positive ID of a Gentile (Grainger)

            I don't see how Swanson or Anderson could put any faith at all in any of the identifications, yet they mention it as practically the main evidence against Kosminski, the rest being circumstantial
            It doesn't seem to make sense to me Nemo.
            Anderson and Swanson seem to think the identification was positive, if not a sworn positive for religious reasons-that's fair enough but then shouldn't this witness become null and void? He's identified the man he saw with Eddowes. There was only one man seen with Eddowes and he identified him. How can he be used in ID parades for anyone else?

            Comment


            • #21
              Yes strange isn't it?

              I can only explain it if Swanson or whoever observed the confrontational identification of Kosminski only assumed the reasons for the witness to not wish to testify against him - which is possible

              The other identifications might have been as much a test of the witness as they were of the suspect

              It is the certainty of Anderson and Swanson of the ID of Kosminski being 100% that creates the mystery

              I could imagine a policeman asking how certain the witness was on a scale of say 1-10 and the witness says 9, still leaving possibilities for more certainly identifying a different suspect in the future

              On a different note, should we consider that Kosminski resembles Grainger?

              Comment


              • #22
                But do/did they ask the degree of certainty?

                Comment


                • #23
                  I doubt it Deb

                  The statement that the suspect knew he was identified seems strange to me

                  I don't think the witness made a positive statement

                  In regard to the marginalia, I've recently been considering whether "because the suspect was also a Jew" actually indicates that the witness was a Jew

                  If that statement was at the end of the reasons given by Swanson then it would read something like the witness didn't want to be the means by which the man was hanged and also the suspect was a Jew, which can have different connotations than how we've read it previously

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think you need to again read what Anderson wrote first and then read what Swanson wrote in response.
                    Best Wishes,
                    Cris Malone
                    ______________________________________________
                    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Nemo
                      Patricia Cornwell owns a clippings book which appears to be a collection of articles and notes from some type of investigator of the Ripper crimes in 1888

                      In this book there is a note from around the time of the Annie Chapman murder which asks "Which regiment does Grant belong to?"
                      Hi Nemo. Could you expand on what 'regiment' (I presume military?) has to do with Grainger? I didn't see you mention he had military experience, but perhaps I missed something?

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                        I don't know how this works legally for certain, I hope someone can put me straight- If Lawende had previously 'indicated' in an ID that he thought Kosminski was the ripper, wouldn't that rule him out of being involved in any further identifications? Or does the fact that he wouldn't swear to Kosminski make a difference?
                        But Lawende didn't identify Kozminski as the man he saw. He refused to. And maybe, just maybe, it was because Kozminski wasn't the man he saw. The reasons why he refused to do so seem to be Anderson's conjecture (give to us via Swanson). And of course this is all assuming Lawende was even the witness who saw Koz. Most of us agree he was.

                        If Lawende saw Kozminski, said "That's him!" but then refused to identify him (which rather contradicts itself, if you think about it) and stated the reason is because he's a Jew, then yes, he'd never be used again as a witness. IF Lawende was the man who viewed Kozminski and IF Lawende identified him, but refused to do so officially on the grounds he was a fellow Jew, then Lawende IS NOT the man who identified Grainger.

                        IF Lawende is the man who identified Grainger, then he's either not the man who viewed Kozminski (unlikely) or he refused to ID Koz because he really wasn't the man he saw (most likely) and the rest was conjecture made years later.

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott

                        P.S. I wasn't preaching at you Debs, just using your post as an opening to post my thoughts on the matter.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                          But Lawende didn't identify Kozminski as the man he saw. He refused to. And maybe, just maybe, it was because Kozminski wasn't the man he saw. The reasons why he refused to do so seem to be Anderson's conjecture (give to us via Swanson). And of course this is all assuming Lawende was even the witness who saw Koz. Most of us agree he was.

                          If Lawende saw Kozminski, said "That's him!" but then refused to identify him (which rather contradicts itself, if you think about it) and stated the reason is because he's a Jew, then yes, he'd never be used again as a witness. IF Lawende was the man who viewed Kozminski and IF Lawende identified him, but refused to do so officially on the grounds he was a fellow Jew, then Lawende IS NOT the man who identified Grainger.

                          IF Lawende is the man who identified Grainger, then he's either not the man who viewed Kozminski (unlikely) or he refused to ID Koz because he really wasn't the man he saw (most likely) and the rest was conjecture made years later.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          P.S. I wasn't preaching at you Debs, just using your post as an opening to post my thoughts on the matter.
                          That's exactly what I was asking/saying anyway, Tom.
                          The implication is that all involved in the ID knew the witness had positively identified the suspect, even the suspect himself, but that the witness refused to swear to him on religious grounds. Perhaps he really just wasn't certain? Anyway,the attempted Sadler ID came first, four years before Grainger so it would apply there first I guess.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Nemo View Post
                            I think the only "suspect" we can have relative certainty of being in the East End at the right time is perhaps Donston in the London Hospital
                            I donĀ“t agree, Nemo. Not at all, in fact.

                            The best,
                            Christer Holmgren
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                              I think you need to again read what Anderson wrote first and then read what Swanson wrote in response.

                              I know Cris - I tried to squeeze in that interpretation but I don't think it's viable unless Swanson used bad grammar

                              Tom, Grant/Grainger had joined the Cork militia in 1883 and was discharged in 1889 as of bad character, so the reference may apply to him in 1888

                              I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll comment on Lawende later

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi Christer

                                There are a number of suspects I would assume were in the East End at the relevant times but I was was referring to criteria required by someone who might want to dispute that, in that we would have to have some type of evidence toward that fact to satisfy that person

                                I was specifically referring to Wickerman's comment that we don't know for certain that Grainger was in the East End - which is true, but let's take the example also of Lechmere

                                Was he for instance in the East End on the night of the double event, or could he have been outside the area for some reason?

                                Unless we have work records or eye witness accounts of him being present or similar, then we couldn't be absolutely certain he was there, and if you wanted to be pedantic that goes for most every suspect I am aware of except Donston who we know was was in the hospital

                                I don't mind being corrected on that point

                                Anyway, there are more reasons to research the Grainger case than to qualify him as a good Ripper suspect

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X