Schwartz v. Lawende

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Well, I seriously doubt that Sergeant White lied in his report.

Correct John, but to be fair it is an alternate, regardless how doubtful it is.

I also doubt that Packer lied because he didn't want to get involved.

The desire to get involved is not always planned ahead of time. It can evolve, especially if the prospective witness becomes aware there may be a small financial benefit.

[curious4]

Hi Jon,

Well, I seriously doubt that Sergeant White lied in his report. I also doubt that Packer lied because he didn't want to get involved. In fact, I would argue the opposite, i.e. that he was an attention seeker, based upon his continued attempts to insert himself into the inquiry. Thus, as I noted previously, he subsequently claimed to have seen the suspect again, but he apparently escaped on a tram; and then claimed that he sold rabbits to a man who suspected his cousin was Jack the Ripper: in fact, he gave a very detailed account of this encounter, recounting what the man had to say in graphic detail: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

And, as I noted in my earlier post, he also lied when he said he hadn't been spoken to by the police, when Sergeant White had clearly taken a statement for him.

Regarding Packer's timings being consistent with other witnesses. Firstly, he gives different times, in different accounts, for the closing of his shop, i.e. 11:30, 12:30. Secondly, by the time he gave his second statement he would no doubt be aware, from the newspapers, of statements given by other witnesses who claimed to have seen Stride, and the timings they gave.

Of course, the fact that Packer only came forward with his second account at the behest of a convicted criminal excites suspicion, as does his subsequent complaints about not receiving expected remuneration.

Hello JohnG

Le Grand was a criminal, but as far as I know there was nothing fishy about
Batchelor. He may have taken on Le Grande in good faith. As for the times Packer gave the police, Swanson was, it appears, satisfied, although he (Packer) may have been quoted as giving different times in the newspapers, or become confused afterwards. Presumably White checked how late he stayed open while it was fresh in his mind.

Best wishes
C4

[S.Brett]

Thanks John,

Hi Karsten.

I hadn't thought of that, not being a pipe smoker

I used to work with a man who cleaned the bowl of his pipe with a small knife before he filled it to smoke again.
So Schwartz may have seen a man cleaning his pipe rather than lighting his pipe, or perhaps he determined the cleaning was all part of the function of lighting the pipe, which wouldn't actually be incorrect.

Schwartz: "I saw a second man standing lighting his pipe."

Reporter: " Just standing there watching?"

Schwartz: "No, actually he took out a knife to clean the bowl....."

Reporter: (interrupting) "..you saw the man had a knife?, ok, this is great stuff Mr Schwartz, carry on"

Who knows how misleading stories begin...

That is the answer I expected from you! Back to Packer:

I think it is possible that Packer knew the man and the woman who bought the grapes but did he know that she is the same woman murdered next to his shop when the police came questioning him?

Maybe he believed that this persons ("the man in the next street"), knowing them by sight, had nothing to do with the crime. I think it is not impossible when he saw Stride in the mortuary (days later) that he did realize the man he saw with her ("the man in the next street") could be her murder (and perhaps Jack the Ripper). It is very likely that he saw this man again (end of October 1888) coming out from the Greenfield Street. If "Kosminski" is Aaron Kozminski we know that his sister (Matilda) and one of his brothers (Isaac) were living in Greenfield Street at that time. And on the way to the other brother (Woolf) in Providence Street was the shop of Packer...

I am convinct that "Kosminski" was already a prime suspect in October 1888. Maybe the police thought (during the October) that BS Man is the murderer more likely than PC Smith´s suspect. And maybe they thought Packer is telling the story of PC Smith (in each case "Kosminski" did not correspond with the descriptions Schwartz, PC Smith, Packer gave). But everything changed when Packer saw this man again...

Scenario:

Stride lying inside the Yard, dead. Packer is present.

Policeman: Hey,you, Mr. Packer, do you know this woman?
Packer: Yes, by sight. I saw a man with her that night, buying grapes in my shop!
Policeman: Do you know the man?
Packer: By sight, he is living in the next street!

In this case Packer would have seen the same couple as PC Smith did. And if this man was "Kosminski", Packer would have seen a police suspect, a strong suspect with many circs from other sources (City Police, bloody shirt). Very likely that Packer told the truth. And maybe the police changed their mind about BS Man being the murderer of Stride.

Maybe that the man with Stride, seen by Packer and PC Smith, was already inside the Dutfields Yard when BS Man, Schwartz and Pipeman appeared on the scene.

Karsten.

[John G]

Hello JohnG

Le Grand was a criminal, but as far as I know there was nothing fishy about
Batchelor. He may have taken on Le Grande in good faith. As for the times Packer gave the police, Swanson was, it appears, satisfied, although he (Packer) may have been quoted as giving different times in the newspapers, or become confused afterwards. Presumably White checked how late he stayed open while it was fresh in his mind.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4

Yes, as far as the differences in timings are concerned I think it is possible to give Packers the benefit of the doubt, particularly as other witnesses had timing issues as well (although revising the 11:30 time he gave to Sergeant White for the closing of his shop to 12:30 in his Scotland Yard account, meant that his timings accorded much more closely with those of Schwartz and PC Smith and, of course, their evidence had been published in the newspapers by the time he visited Scotland Yard on the 2nd October.) Moreover, I would even accept the possibility that Grand and Batchelor were acting in good faith.

Nonetheless, that still leaves major problems. Thus, Swanson is incorrect when he states that Packer was asked if he'd seen anything suspicious. What Sergeant White actually asked him was whether he'd seen anyone "standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop", or any man or woman going up Dutfield's Yard. His reply was emphatic: "No, I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard." This is completely irreconcilable with his second police statement, where he claims to have observed a man and woman for over half an hour-first standing and talking by the Board School, and then near to the club-up until the time when he "shut up [his] shutters."

And, of course, he also told the press that he hadn't been spoken to by a police officer prior to his interview with the two private detectives, which is quite wrong as Sergeant White had taken his statement just two days earlier.

And, as I stated in my previous post, I also think it suspicious that he continued to involve himself in the investigation:firstly, claiming to have seen the suspect again, and subsequently when he claimed to have sold rabbits to Jack the Ripper's cousin (in fact,the gives quite a detailed, and somewhat graphic, account of the conversation he had with the man.)

So what could Packer's motives be for lying? Well, Philip Sugden suggests that he may have been influenced by the fact that the reward money greatly increased- in the intervening period from the time of the Sergeant White interview, to when he was spoken to by the private detectives: see Sugrden, 2002. And he certainly complained that he had failed to receive the remuneration he was promised. Another possibility, suggested by Sugden, is that it was a fantasy "designed to increase his modest grocer's status amongst his neighbours."

The issue of the grapes also impacts on Packer's credibility. Thus, on 1 October, one day before he spoke to the private detectives, resulting in the the revised Scotland Yard statement, the Daily News carried statements from Louis Diemshutz, Issac Kozebrodski and Fanny Mortimer, claiming that Stride was found holding a bunch of grapes in her hand (Packer of course, would have had the opportunity to read these accounts, as would Grand and Batchelor).

However, as Sugden also points out, the "details about the grapes appears to have been a baseless fiction." Both Dr Phillips and Dr Blackwell emphatically denied that they'd seen any grapes, and even Louis changed his account, whilst under oath at the inquest, telling Baxter, "I did not notice what position her [Stride's] hands were in."

[curious4]

Hello John G

Do you have a source for what White actually asked Packer?

Was he quoting from his notebook?

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Hello John G

Do you have a source for what White actually asked Packer?

Was he quoting from his notebook?

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Yes, the quotation is from Philip Sugden's book, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, 2002 edition, pp219-220. He cites Report of Segeant Stephen White, 4 October, 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff.212-3.

Apparently he was supplied with a special notebook to record his findings, but this has disappeared. However, his written report of the interview has survived:

"About 9 a.m.[30 September] I called at 44 Berner Street, and saw Matthew Packer, fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied 'half past twelve in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open'. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield's Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied, 'No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise. And knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.'"

"I also saw Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter."

[curious4]

Hi C4,

Yes, the quotation is from Philip Sugden's book, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, 2002 edition, pp219-220. He cites Report of Segeant Stephen White, 4 October, 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff.212-3.

Apparently he was supplied with a special notebook to record his findings, but this has disappeared. However, his written report of the interview has survived:

"About 9 a.m.[30 September] I called at 44 Berner Street, and saw Matthew Packer, fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied 'half past twelve in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open'. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield's Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied, 'No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise. And knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.'"

"I also saw Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter."

Hello John G

I wonder what happened to his notebook? Writing a fresh report some days later, I wonder if White succumbed to the temptation to embellish a little? Nevertheless, to the question whether or not he saw anything suspicious is still no, likewise to the question whether he saw a man and a woman enter Dutfield's Yard. Whether he saw anyone standing about could be understood to mean in a strange or suspicious manner, to which the reply would also be no.


At this stage in the murders I would choose to believe Swanson over White, but it is a question of interpretation. Swanson chose to believe Packer but acknowledged that he would make a poor witness.

Best wishes
C4

[lynn cates]

far sighted

Hello Jon.

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if his eyesight was deficient, probably near-sighted?"

With an old chap, far sighted like as not.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John G

I wonder what happened to his notebook? Writing a fresh report some days later, I wonder if White succumbed to the temptation to embellish a little? Nevertheless, to the question whether or not he saw anything suspicious is still no, likewise to the question whether he saw a man and a woman enter Dutfield's Yard. Whether he saw anyone standing about could be understood to mean in a strange or suspicious manner, to which the reply would also be no.


At this stage in the murders I would choose to believe Swanson over White, but it is a question of interpretation. Swanson chose to believe Packer but acknowledged that he would make a poor witness.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Regarding the notebook, I would be surprised if many of the police notebooks of the period survived, unlike the official reports, of course.

I doubt if anything Swanson had to say was meant to be a criticism of Segeant White, who as far as I know had an unblemished record. Clearly, in his report to the Home Office, he was merely summarizing Packer's statement, and at no point does he suggest his police officer lied or embellished his report.

In fact, to the contrary, his reference to Packer being an "elderly man" might be taken to imply that he thought the witness was confused, as patronizing as that might seem to a modern observer!

And I still cannot understand why Packer didn't mention to Sergeant White the couple he'd observed for over half an hour, particularly as he subsequently considered the information to be significant. In fact it seems to me that, unless Sergeant White wrote a false report, the only logical conclusion is that he [Packer] must have lied, i.e. either in respect of his revised evidence, or when he denied that there was anyone standing about at the time he closed his shop. And his assertion that no police officer had spoken to him was certainly untrue.

Packer's subsequent conduct also invites suspicion. Thus, his claim to have seen the suspect again, before he escaped on a tram, appears to be somewhat fantastical, likewise his claim to have conversed with the Ripper's cousin! In fact, the detailed, and graphic, account of the conversation he had with the man reads, to me, like a total fantasy!

I do, however, acknowledge that it is a little odd that Sergeant White's report is dated several days after the interview but, considering the number of interviews that must have been carried out, perhaps it was common for their to be a significant delay before reports were probably typed up.

[curious4]

Hi C4,

Regarding the notebook, I would be surprised if many of the police notebooks of the period survived, unlike the official reports, of course.

I doubt if anything Swanson had to say was meant to be a criticism of Segeant White, who as far as I know had an unblemished record. Clearly, in his report to the Home Office, he was merely summarizing Packer's statement, and at no point does he suggest his police officer lied or embellished his report.

In fact, to the contrary, his reference to Packer being an "elderly man" might be taken to imply that he thought the witness was confused, as patronizing as that might seem to a modern observer!

And I still cannot understand why Packer didn't mention to Sergeant White the couple he'd observed for over half an hour, particularly as he subsequently considered the information to be significant. In fact it seems to me that, unless Sergeant White wrote a false report, the only logical conclusion is that he [Packer] must have lied, i.e. either in respect of his revised evidence, or when he denied that there was anyone standing about at the time he closed his shop. And his assertion that no police officer had spoken to him was certainly untrue.

Packer's subsequent conduct also invites suspicion. Thus, his claim to have seen the suspect again, before he escaped on a tram, appears to be somewhat fantastical, likewise his claim to have conversed with the Ripper's cousin! In fact, the detailed, and graphic, account of the conversation he had with the man reads, to me, like a total fantasy!

I do, however, acknowledge that it is a little odd that Sergeant White's report is dated several days after the interview but, considering the number of interviews that must have been carried out, perhaps it was common for their to be a significant delay before reports were probably typed up.

Hello John G

"Subsequently" - that's the key word in this to me. After reading the newspaper, talked to neighbours (perhaps) and hearing the murdered woman's description, he realised that the couple he'd seen might have been of importance. As to his nervousness, perhaps he was the recipient of the "threatening" letter. Or if not, getting slightly paranoid. I don't believe he deliberately made anything up. The "cousin" incident could have been journalists hoping to get more out of him, perhaps. As for the money he hoped for, at his age a little extra money would have meant a little more security - nothing is more worrying than facing a poverty-stricken old age.

Useless as a witness yes, but not a liar, poor old Packer.

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

I do, however, acknowledge that it is a little odd that Sergeant White's report is dated several days after the interview but, considering the number of interviews that must have been carried out, perhaps it was common for their to be a significant delay before reports were probably typed up.

And I think John, that there is your first clue that the summary written by Sgt. White is not his report of the incident.
Reports will be written at the end of the day (the 30th), or at the end of his shift. Not four days later.

Sgt. White would, I think, make his report to his immediate superior, Insp. Abberline, but as Abberline is mentioned within this report then Sgt. White was writing to someone superior to Abberline, Swanson perhaps?

Whoever the recipient was, White had to explain what the notebook was used for, which he wouldn't have had to do if he was writing to another police official.
Possibly then, White had been asked to summarize the sequence of events to someone at the Home Office?

Why he makes reference to an extract from the Star (no date given) is odd as there is nothing about Packer in their publication from the 1st, and nothing at all from the 2nd or 3rd, but only this from the 4th:

The police most emphatically deny the truth of the story that has been published as to the discovery of a shopkeeper who had talked with the murderer and his Berner-street victim, had sold them grapes, and had seen them at the entrance to the fatal alley ten minutes before the deed was done. The fact is, that the alleged informant contradicts himself, and there is no evidence that there were any grapes in the possession of the woman.
Star, 4th Oct. 1888.

Is Sgt. White trying to allay any fears that this Packer incident is nothing more than a storm in a teacup?

[John G]

And I think John, that there is your first clue that the summary written by Sgt. White is not his report of the incident.
Reports will be written at the end of the day (the 30th), or at the end of his shift. Not four days later.

Sgt. White would, I think, make his report to his immediate superior, Insp. Abberline, but as Abberline is mentioned within this report then Sgt. White was writing to someone superior to Abberline, Swanson perhaps?

Whoever the recipient was, White had to explain what the notebook was used for, which he wouldn't have had to do if he was writing to another police official.
Possibly then, White had been asked to summarize the sequence of events to someone at the Home Office?

Why he makes reference to an extract from the Star (no date given) is odd as there is nothing about Packer in their publication from the 1st, and nothing at all from the 2nd or 3rd, but only this from the 4th:

The police most emphatically deny the truth of the story that has been published as to the discovery of a shopkeeper who had talked with the murderer and his Berner-street victim, had sold them grapes, and had seen them at the entrance to the fatal alley ten minutes before the deed was done. The fact is, that the alleged informant contradicts himself, and there is no evidence that there were any grapes in the possession of the woman.
Star, 4th Oct. 1888.

Is Sgt. White trying to allay any fears that this Packer incident is nothing more than a storm in a teacup?

Hi Jon,

Yes, I don't think Sergeant White wrote up a report on the 30th. What is interesting is the various report references, which follow sequentially, suggesting they were compiled at around the same time:

Report of Sergeant Stephen White, 4 October 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff. 212-3

Report of Inspector Henry Moore, 4 October and report of Sergeant White, same date, MEPO, 3/140, ff.211 and 213-4 respectively.

Statement of Matthew Packer, 4 October 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff. 215-6.

The middle report refers to Grand and Batchelor's involvement.

It therefore think it likely that the interview with Packer on the 30th didn't initially warrant an official report, i.e. because he had nothing significant to say. However,when he gives a revised version of his evidence to Scotland Yard, Sergeant White is then asked to draft a report, referring to his notebook for guidance.

In fact, I suspect Sergeant White would have had set questions with which to put to the various potential witnesses he interviewed, and I'm sure he wouldn't have simply asked whether they'd seen anything suspicious otherwise, if that was all that was being asked by the police, both Marshall and Brown would have answered in the negative.

And, of course, the lie Packer told to a journalist on 3 October, about not having previously been spoken to by a police officer, speaks volumes, i.e. he realised he'd contradicted himself and was attempting to cover up the fact.

[John G]

Hello John G

"Subsequently" - that's the key word in this to me. After reading the newspaper, talked to neighbours (perhaps) and hearing the murdered woman's description, he realised that the couple he'd seen might have been of importance. As to his nervousness, perhaps he was the recipient of the "threatening" letter. Or if not, getting slightly paranoid. I don't believe he deliberately made anything up. The "cousin" incident could have been journalists hoping to get more out of him, perhaps. As for the money he hoped for, at his age a little extra money would have meant a little more security - nothing is more worrying than facing a poverty-stricken old age.

Useless as a witness yes, but not a liar, poor old Packer.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Well, perhaps "attention seeker" is a more apt description for Packer than "liar"! And I doubt the old romancer needed much encouragement from the press as he continued to regale them with stories-in fact, I suspect it was the press who became tired of him!

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if his eyesight was deficient, probably near-sighted?"

With an old chap, far sighted like as not.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

In this particular case, I was speaking from experience.

[Hamrammr]

Hi all,

I was going to post this as a seperate thread, but as Packer is already under discussion I thought I would jump in if that's ok. So, I'm confused . . . On the one hand the Machester News states that a customer told Packer that his (the customer's) cousin was the ripper:

'The statement made by a man to Packer, the fruit seller of Berner-street, that he was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds, is still being investigated by the detectives, who are inclined to doubt the veracity of the greater portion of the details. They, however, believe they have found the cousin referred to, and attach little importance to what was at first supposed to be a substantial clue.'
-- Manchester Guardian - 19 November 1888

On the other hand, this police statement is written in such a way as to suggest it is Packer's cousin that was suggested to be the ripper:

Or are they both referring to Packer's cousin . . . Thoughts?