Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

William Grant Grainger, Sor

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
    Howard and Debs,

    If, big IF, Grant/Grainger was proven to be in London in the autumn of 1888, how far up your suspect list would that place him? He's been creeping up my own suspect list, as of late.

    Maybe it's just me but, being in London in 1888 is a pre-requisite.
    If a suspect can't be placed in London at the time of the murders he doesn't even make the 'list'.
    Regards, Jon S.
    "
    The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
    " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
    Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

    Comment


    • #17
      Wick:

      I understand what JD is driving at...that if he were in London in 1888 ( naturally) that his 1895 assault conviction, which ought to be of interest to Ripperologists, would place him higher on Jerry's list of potential Rippers.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
        Howard and Debs,

        If, big IF, Grant/Grainger was proven to be in London in the autumn of 1888, how far up your suspect list would that place him? He's been creeping up my own suspect list, as of late.
        Hi Jerry
        Of course it would have to bump him up but the big interest with Grainger is that thanks to the press, he entered prison after his 1895 conviction with a suspicion he could be "Jack the Ripper" going with him. Certainly the lawyer who abandoned him at his trial, Kebble, thought he fitted the bill, so much so that he publicly promoted the idea in the face of Anderson's 1910 claims.
        There's something intriguing about Swanson saying the Ripper was dead in 1895 and I wonder if Kebble assumed Grainger had died in prison on reading that, because he believed he was the ripper?

        Comment


        • #19
          There's something intriguing about Swanson saying the Ripper was dead in 1895 and I wonder if Kebble assumed Grainger had died in prison on reading that, because he believed he was the ripper?
          -Debs-

          I was going to say that the Swanson comment appeared in the same edition of the Pall Mall Gazette ( May 7, 1895)...so Kebble had to know he was alive....but, the Old Bailey trial was in March (March 27th).....so you might be on to something there, Debs....if Kebble believed Grainger was the Ripper at the time of the trial and didn't know if he was alive at the time of the PMG article.

          Good thinking !
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact [email protected]

          Comment


          • #20
            Thank you Debs and How,

            Did the ID of Grainger by the 1888 Ripper witness (supposedly Lawende) take place before or after Grainger was incarcerated in 1895? Just wondering if Kebbell was acting as his attorney during the ID?

            Comment


            • #21
              JD:

              Unless Debs or Chris Phillips know better, I believe it was after he had been arrested for the assault on Graham.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                Thank you Debs and How,

                Did the ID of Grainger by the 1888 Ripper witness (supposedly Lawende) take place before or after Grainger was incarcerated in 1895? Just wondering if Kebbell was acting as his attorney during the ID?
                Hi Jerry,

                I'm not sure when the ID would have taken place;after being arrested and charged with Graham's attack or after conviction for the same, I mean.
                Grainger was undefended at his 1895 OB trial for wounding Alice Graham when Kebbel withdrew his defence services for some unspecified reason, so Kebbel would not have been around if it was after conviction.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                  Here is an interesting conviction in London, 1891. Covent Garden area. His repeated use of "Sor" reminded me of a certain letter.

                  London Middlesex Gazette January 31, 1891

                  Hopefully if I quote this it will move to the top? I found this on a Google search for images and it was sourced to the Forum. So much for WGG to have never been in England before 1895! It sounds like he drank so much that he was a confabulater.
                  The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi all.

                    I don't know why it didn't dawn on me the first time I read this clipping; Grant states he came from New York in October of 1890. Could that indicate him possibly working on a cattle boat at that time?

                    The other part that interests me is where he was picked up. Henrietta Street borders St. Pauls Cathedral to the south. Think Forbes Winslow. The leg that was found in 1890 was a few blocks from Henrietta Street, to the north. The leg was found at the end of September, 1890. It is also very close, again a block or two, from #2 Harvey's Buildings.

                    Just food for thought.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                      Hi all.

                      I don't know why it didn't dawn on me the first time I read this clipping; Grant states he came from New York in October of 1890. Could that indicate him possibly working on a cattle boat at that time?

                      The other part that interests me is where he was picked up. Henrietta Street borders St. Pauls Cathedral to the south. Think Forbes Winslow. The leg that was found in 1890 was a few blocks from Henrietta Street, to the north. The leg was found at the end of September, 1890. It is also very close, again a block or two, from #2 Harvey's Buildings.

                      Just food for thought.
                      Hi Jerry,

                      I know of two Henrietta Streets, one in Covent Garden and the other near Cavendish Square.

                      Gary

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Thanks, Gary

                        He was picked up at the Covent Garden one.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X