Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Case For William Grant Grainger

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

  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Well, the police couldn't establish any ship he'd been on even though it seems he had been a sailor for years and the mention of his mother not being able to name one indicates to me that Grainger wasn't giving them any useful information like the name of a ship either

    He did say that he arrived in London in January 1895 and that was the first time he'd ever been in London

    That was untrue because workhouse and asylum records placed him in London prior to that date

    He had also mentioned to his mother that he had been robbed and stripped in Whitechapel some years prior to 1895

    I've checked the same workhouse records as the police and in those records he is registered under the name Grainger which Kebbell tried to establish, but the police did not acknowledge this and prosecuted and imprisoned him under the name Grant

    He also said that he was innocent of the stabbing and that the hooligans had done it, so he was quite the liar

    He was said to be well known to the police in the East End but I can't establish if that was in 1888 or later years

    There is also the possibility that he was the same man Kebbell tried to link him with who was a medical student in St Barts hospital circa 1889

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    As the article suggests, that the police had cause to thoroughly investigate Grainger's whereabouts at the time of the 'previous murders' (in 1888), but could not even place him in London, and with all the connections at their disposal then their failure to meet this basic requirement could be that he simply was not there.

    Investigating him will include asking him directly. It will also include telegraphing the various shipping lines, and no doubt the police in Cork to obtain the workhouse records.

    This must surely indicate that Grainger did not say he was in London.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Nemo
    Elsewhere it was stated that he could not be connected to any previous knife attacks.
    Well, that was a short discussion. LOL. Thanks for the info.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Hi Tom

    IIRC In 1895 Grainger was said to have attacked a woman previously in a similar fashion to the attack on Alice Graham but he was not convicted

    I'm pretty certain this was shortly before his arrest in 1895 though so doesn't stretch back to 1888

    Elsewhere it was stated that he could not be connected to any previous knife attacks

    I don't think he is connected with Ted Stanley

    Grainger used a number of aliases which Deb uncovered, and all the names appear to have the initials WG such as William Grant, William Green, William George etc which we speculated as being because he had WG tattooed in a visible location on his wrist

    Before Kebbel became involved with his case it was stated that the police had obtained clues that pointed toward him being the Ripper

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Let's talk about the possibility that the reason Grainger was taken so seriously (assuming he was) in 1895 is because he had cropped up as a suspect during the height of the murders. One unnamed suspect I'd like to know about is the "seafaring man" who became a suspect in the Nichols murder and who had been implicated, but not charged in previous attacks upon women.

    And have you considered a link between him and Ted Stanley, given the notes about "Grant's regiment" in association with the Chapman case, where Stanley's militia was brought into question? Just doing a little brainstorming here.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    PS
    I don't like speaking for people but I think Howard is interested in the Grainger case primarily because it is the first time Swanson is quoted as saying that he believed the Ripper to be a man who had died previously, and this went largely uncommented on

    I don't think Howard would single out Grainger as a suspect more likely than any other

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Hi Tom

    Sorry if I've appeared offensive when discussing Grainger, it wasn't intentional and I don't really know to which comments you are referring but no matter

    I wouldn't at all say Grainger was likely to have been in the East End but it is a strong possibility considering he may have confessed to being the Ripper and that George Kebbell thought strongly that he was the man

    Some aspects of the attack on Alice Graham do not sound Ripper-like, his allowing her to cry out for example

    However, the time and location of the attack, 2am near Dorset St are similar, also that he was able to get the woman on her back with his hand around her throat and over her mouth sounds Ripper-like to me

    Also the genitals being the focus of attack and the fact that he was using a long surgical knife appear significant

    I would speculate that she gripped her thighs together and he lost control of the knife, which was discovered after his arrest at the end of a 30yd trail of blood and clots of blood by the arresting police officer

    Most of that which points toward Grainger being a good suspect for the Ripper comes from George Kebbell, his solicitor, commenting in 1910 to dispute Anderson's claims that the Ripper was a Polish Jew

    I agree that the personality of Kebbell is therefore a crucial aspect of Grainger's candidacy and I propose to expand on the known facts about Kebbell in an article about the case

    Even if Grainger is not the Ripper, he could be a good suspect for Alice McKenzie for example

    The insertion of an object into the vagina of a prostitute also reflects the attack on Emma Smith

    Some unknown evidence cropped up in 1895 that caused the police to investigate Grainger as the Ripper

    Subsequent evidence, in the main uncovered by Debra Arif, points toward him being a persistent drunk constantly in trouble with the law and he appears to me to be somewhat of a loner

    Mentally I can fit him easily into the role of the Ripper, a medically trained military man, intelligent but down on his luck in menial jobs with a motive for attacking prostitutes who had robbed and stripped him previously, encouraged in drink to carry out such murders, though I'm trying to steer away from speculation at the moment and just present what is factually known about the man

    I've deliberately summarised the facts about him but I'm happy to expand on anything you like so please don't hesitate to ask questions, I'm not trying to be cryptic or anything or holding anything back

    Most of what I've stated is already on the boards within press articles such as the description of the witness who identified him, posted above in the PMG May 7 1895, and I'd be more than happy to direct you to the other relevant ones featuring Kebbell etc or whatever you have a question about

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    I agree, Nemo. I can say that Debs and I always looked for ways that Le Grand COULD NOT have been the Ripper. It would have saved us both lots of time and energy. I figured the best way was to see if we could place him outside of London on any of the given dates, but we couldn't. That doesn't mean he wasn't, of course, just that it seems he was in London the whole time.

    I'll take your word that Grainger is likely to have been in London the whole time. I certainly don't know any different.

    It's very easy to come up with reasons why Grainger is an unlikely Ripper because the rest of us don't have the grip you do on why we SHOULD consider him. The two main reasons I see him as unlikely are:

    His crude attack on the prostitute in 1895. It reads like the attack of a man who hadn't killed a person before, or even engaged in knife fights. This I consider strong evidence against him having been the Ripper. Suspects with no known attacks with a knife would fair better than Grainger in evaluation because of this.

    The other reason is his bravery in taking off his jacket to fight a group of men. This is not a big reason for me, just seems that he was out to get hiimself into trouble that night and did a good job of it.

    In short, if the only reason we should suspect him is because he clumsily and crudely attacked a woman with a knife in 1895, then the argument against Grainger doesn't seem to get out of the gate. But I'm more intrigued by your other hints...the stuff I don't know much about...such as the extensive investigation into him and the comments from Kebbel. As you stated, an evaluation of Kebbel's career, character, and statements is crucial here. Like we've seen ad infinitum with Anderson (who never fairs well under unbiased scrutiny).

    I will say at this point, with what little knowledge I now have, that Grainger seems to be more appealing than many of the suspects that have been discussed endlessly for decades. And if you and Howard think there might be something there, then the idea certainly deserves everyone's attention.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Hi WM

    I'm not irritated at all - I'm sorry if my replies make it seem so

    I've tried to word everything so no assumptions are made which is why I said Lawende is "probably" the witness because he wasn't actually named in the Pall Mall Gazette of 7th May 1895, the only place an identification of Grainger is mentioned as far as I know, but I personally am confident it was him who was being referred to

    I totally agree with you that Grainger cannot be categorically placed in the East End on the murder dates but what I'm trying to get across is that having no definite evidence of their presence on all the murder nights should not call a halt to any investigation into any reasonable suspect, it doesn't point away from a suspect being there unless it's proven otherwise

    If someone is likely to have not been in the East End then that is a different matter

    I think Scotland Yard personnel would agree with me as shown by their investigation into Grainger as the Ripper and others, Deeming for example

    I'd say that most investigations into murder suspects begin before evidence is obtained that the suspect was actually at the crime scene

    If everyone used your premise as a starting point then I don't think any research into any known suspect would continue

    I'm only putting forward the facts which I think make Grainger a reasonable suspect and invite readers to consider him worthy of suspect status or not

    I don't feel obliged to come up with an answer to everything against Grainger being the Ripper, I could come up with a few points myself

    If you think that not being able to prove he was in London on the murder dates is significant then that's OK with me and I'm glad to hear your point

    I'd like to hear more objections to Grainger's suspect status if anyone has any


    Tom, I totally agree

    The best reference to the movements of Grainger in 1888 is in the PMG of May 7th 1895 which I reproduce here, previously posted by Howard...

    sc1-1.jpg
    sc2-1.jpg
    sc3-1.jpg
    sc4.jpg
    sc5.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man
    If I told you I was at the Twin Towers when they were brought down, would that make it true?
    A little piece of trivia for you. The widow of Anthony "Norman Bates" Perkins was on one of the planes that crashed into the towers.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Nemo
    Maybe you have Nemo, but in this thread you wrote:
    "During his trial it was reported that he was positively identified by a Ripper witness, probably Joseph Lawende who saw a man dressed like a sailor at the head of Church Passage off Mitre Square with Catherine Eddowes"

    May I ask, how does "probably" turn into "positive"?
    I've been wondering the same thing. We all love Nemo, but he posts cryptically and sporadically on the subject of Grainger, yet expects us all to have the same level of knowledge he does and gets offensive when we don't see how Grainger makes a good suspect. We don't have his level of knowledge. We need a discursive essay on the subject. Treat us like newbies, Nemo, and help us out. And yes, I'm aware of my own hypocrisy, as I post even more cryptically and more sporadically on Le Grand, but the flipside is I don't expect anyone else to know what I do.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Nemo View Post
    Yes WM, for what it's worth, there is the positive ID by Lawende, as I'm sure I've mentioned before
    Maybe you have Nemo, but in this thread you wrote:
    "During his trial it was reported that he was positively identified by a Ripper witness, probably Joseph Lawende who saw a man dressed like a sailor at the head of Church Passage off Mitre Square with Catherine Eddowes"

    May I ask, how does "probably" turn into "positive"?

    His own confession to his solicitor also places him there doesn't it?
    If I told you I was at the Twin Towers when they were brought down, would that make it true?

    I do see that you feel irritated when I raise certain questions, but if the conclusions you choose to harbor had any merit, I mean, did not require major assumptions, then you wouldn't need to sell the idea - it would be adopted quite readily.
    Sadly, all the suspects offered up fail on this count.

    As it stands we know Grant/Grainger was in Ireland both before AND after the killings, so by what rationale are we able to relocate him in London between those dates?
    It is an honest question.

    You stated previously something along the lines that before any research is continued on a suspect, it is essential to prove that person was in the East End in 1888 on the significant dates

    If you remember, I pointed out that not one single major suspect can be proven categorically to have been in the East End on all the significant dates, so where does that leave us if we follow your line of thinking?
    Your second paragraph demonstrates the viability of the first.
    None of the suspects so far offered are 'good' suspects.

    If any theorist cannot place his/her suspect in London at the critical times, then promoting the suspect is a complete waste of time.

    One of the first priorities at Scotland Yard is to verify if their suspect was even in London at the time - why do you think that is Nemo?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    I notice everyone talking about "suspects we know were in the East End" but shouldn't that read London? It might be too much to ask to have detailed movements on any suspect on each murder night. That would be great, of course. But if Nemo feels he has this on Grainger, that simply doesn't remove him from the list. But it alone won't promote him up the list. People like Hutch, Cross, Kozminski, etc. can reasonably be expected to have been in London and even the East End throughout the entirety of the murders by virtue of the fact they lived there, were not rich men, and can't be expected to travel. Well, maybe not Hutch, because he did stomp off to Romford sometimes, or so he says.

    I'm not big on Cross as a suspect, but his loyalty to his job gives me little reason to expect he'd be anywhere but the East End on the nights of the murders.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Originally posted by Nemo View Post
    Thanks Christer

    I'd just like to point out on this thread that most all details on Grainger have been researched and discovered by Debra Arif, Chris Phillips and Chris Scott
    ...and Howard Brown of course

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Thanks Christer

    I'd just like to point out on this thread that most all details on Grainger have been researched and discovered by Debra Arif, Chris Phillips and Chris Scott

    My attempt was just to collate all the details that are spread across the boards somewhat both here and over at CB

    I have personally obtained some information about George Kebbell who provides most of the information available pointing toward Grainger being the Ripper

    Kebbell comes from a highly respected family and has a career history and personality that points toward him being an honest and reliable source

    His descendants confirm that he was a reliable and honest person and is extremely unlikely to have fabricated or exaggerated any claims

    He was absolutely convinced that Grainger was the Ripper and was quite affronted that Sir Robert Anderson blamed a Polish Jew and commented directly on Anderson's statements about Kosminski in 1910 when he said he couldn't understand why Anderson said that as Anderson knew full well the circumstances of the Grainger case and that the Ripper was a medically trained Irishman of good family

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X