Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Case For William Grant Grainger

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

  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    Originally posted by Nemo View Post
    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
    Ah - then I understand what you´re after. And of course we cannot certify that Lechmere was around in the East End other than on the Nichols murder night.

    Carry on. You are doing a sterling job!

    The best
    Christer Holmgren

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    I'd go with what Tom and Deb appear to be leading up to, that it's unlikely Lawende would have stated that Kosminski was definitely the man he saw but that he was not going to swear that in court because the man was a fellow Jew and would probably be hanged

    It seems much more likely to me that he said something like Kosminski resembles the man he saw but he couldn't swear to it

    That would tally with MacNaghtens statement that Kosminski only resembled the man Lawende saw and it wouldn't go against Lawende being used in future identifications

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    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 don´t agree, Nemo. Not at all, in fact.

    The best,
    Christer Holmgren

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    I think you need to again read what Anderson wrote first and then read what Swanson wrote in response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    But do/did they ask the degree of certainty?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X