Schwartz v. Lawende

[John G]

Thanks JohnG
Wasn't Levy also possibly related to Jacob Levy (another of the crazy jew suspects) and has been posited that he recognized him, another possible reason for his reticence in talking about it?

Any further developments in this area?

Hi Abby,

I must confess that I haven't really kept up with the most recent Mitre Square developments! However, I believe Jacob Levy was a butcher, who was incarcerated in an asylum in 1890. It appears there are two connections: firstly, Joseph Levy's occupation was also a butcher; secondly, Jacob's butchery business was situated in Middlesex Street, whereas Joseph's butchery business was located just 60 yards away, at the junction of Middlesex Street, in Hutchinson Street. It's therefore argued that, at the very least, they must have known each other.

However, the difficulty for me with this type of candidate is that it's something of a stereotype to view serial killers as suffering from mental illness. In fact, most serial killers present with anti-social personality disorders, and Castle and Hensley (2002) even went as far as arguing that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer (although Robert Napper was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.)

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

I think this causes further problems for Packer's evidence. Thus, he told Sergeant White that he closed his shop, "in consequence of the rain. It was no good for me to keep open".

However, if it stopped raining just after 11:00am, and no later than 11:30, then he must have closed up when the pubs were still open, a fact which directly contradicts his account.

Hi John.

I know the "rain" issue seems popular, but we also know, or at least most of us are old enough to know, that it can rain on one side of the street, but not on the other.
When James Brown says "it wasn't raining", he doesn't mean anywhere, conversely, when John Best says, "it was raining", he doesn't mean everywhere.
Whether it was or wasn't raining is a precarious detail to judge the reliability of a witness by.

Packer likely saw it was raining that night, he was not out in the rain, but inside his shop looking out the window. Beads of rain on his window panes testify to that fact, but could he tell if it had stopped by looking through the same window panes still bearing beads of rain?
The point is, we can't be sure of the circumstances, nor why he thought it was still raining after midnight.
I would say the roads were still wet, the windows were still wet, and he had no more customers, he assumed it was still raining.

Given the uncertainty of where it will rain when it does rain, and in some cases heavy rain but in others only spitting, being hardly noticeable. I wouldn't pass any judgements on a witness if it looked like it was still raining from inside his house, and he was only looking out.

[drstrange169]

>>Nothing suspicious in a couple buying grapes.<<

Certainly not by itself in ordinary circumstances but, of course these were not ordinary circumstances. There had been a woman murdered and police were asking if anybody had seen a. the victim and/or b. the victim and the killer.

Packer claimed that a couple standing in the rain, looking at the club was sufficiently weird enough to call his wife's attention to it.

If true, it's hard to understand why the story wasn't immediately recounted to an inquiring policeman either by Packer himself or his wife. Even harder to understand is the sheer amount of detail he eventually remembered about the incident if it was so unremarkable.

I could well be doing the man an injustice but, it just doesn't sit right for me.

[DJA]

But that's also problematic because John Best stated that it was raining heavily at that time.

This 82 year old gent stated it had been raining and the couple he saw left the pub at 11pm.

Fits my time frame.

[Wickerman]

This 82 year old gent stated it had been raining and the couple he saw left the pub at 11pm.

Fits my time frame.

Stride and her companion arrived..."shortly before eleven", and after some time passed, they left..."soon after eleven".

By the way, 82 was his address, not his age. "J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street,.."

[DJA]

Thanks again.

[DJA]

When I was a kid rather than a silly old goat......

the kitchen clock was always fast to ensure we caught our bus,tram,train,stagecoach,etc after breakfast

the living room clock was accurate,formal dining and later TV.

Some hotels still keep their bar clocks fast to facilitate customers' exit after closing.

Same ones close early for lack of clients in the Winter due to poor weather.

I remember a watch repairer in Cookson Street who had an electric clock in his window.
Usually fast.
Opposite Camberwell Railway Station.

GUT might remember Jack Little from Ch 9 TV.
He often dined at Yen's almost next door.

[Jeff Leahy]

By the way, 82 was his address, not his age. "J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street,.."

I must admit I was following this thread with a little amusement trying to picture the 82 year old man giving evidence

[DJA]

The fact that he did not give evidence at the Inquest did contribute to my error.
That coupled with the possibility of his age being a barrier.

I again thank Wickerman for his assistance.

[John G]

Hi John.

I know the "rain" issue seems popular, but we also know, or at least most of us are old enough to know, that it can rain on one side of the street, but not on the other.
When James Brown says "it wasn't raining", he doesn't mean anywhere, conversely, when John Best says, "it was raining", he doesn't mean everywhere.
Whether it was or wasn't raining is a precarious detail to judge the reliability of a witness by.

Packer likely saw it was raining that night, he was not out in the rain, but inside his shop looking out the window. Beads of rain on his window panes testify to that fact, but could he tell if it had stopped by looking through the same window panes still bearing beads of rain?
The point is, we can't be sure of the circumstances, nor why he thought it was still raining after midnight.
I would say the roads were still wet, the windows were still wet, and he had no more customers, he assumed it was still raining.

Given the uncertainty of where it will rain when it does rain, and in some cases heavy rain but in others only spitting, being hardly noticeable. I wouldn't pass any judgements on a witness if it looked like it was still raining from inside his house, and he was only looking out.

Hi Jon,

I think this is an improbable scenario. For instance, PC Smith said that it rained very little after 11:00pm. And, as a beat officer, he wasn't rooted to the spot throughout that time, but had been patrolling the district, so presumably it was dry throughout the neighbourhood.

I accept, however, that he may have got the times mixed up. Thus, he initially told Sergeant White that he closed at "half-past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good to keep open". And, of course, he had no reason to lie at this time, as he didn't refer to the couple buying the grapes in this account. But, in his modified police testimony, he informed Scotland Yard that he sold the grapes at 11:00pm, observing the couple, in the rain, for about half an hour, "till I should say 11:30." And it was at this point that he closed for the night, "I then shut up my shutters"

However, overall, the problem for me is that there are too many inconsistencies in his story. Note, for example, how the suspects age keeps declining. He tells Grand and Batchelor that he was middle aged, around 35. In the Evening News interview he's 30-35. And he tells Scotland Yard that he was a "young man", aged between 25-30. Of course, by then he could have seen PC Smith's description of his suspect in the press, referring to the man's age as 28.

[John G]

>>Nothing suspicious in a couple buying grapes.<<

Certainly not by itself in ordinary circumstances but, of course these were not ordinary circumstances. There had been a woman murdered and police were asking if anybody had seen a. the victim and/or b. the victim and the killer.

Packer claimed that a couple standing in the rain, looking at the club was sufficiently weird enough to call his wife's attention to it.

If true, it's hard to understand why the story wasn't immediately recounted to an inquiring policeman either by Packer himself or his wife. Even harder to understand is the sheer amount of detail he eventually remembered about the incident if it was so unremarkable.

I could well be doing the man an injustice but, it just doesn't sit right for me.

I think these are very good points. As I've noted before, when Sergeant White asked him if he'd seen anyone standing about the street about the time he closed his shop, he replied, "No, I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone going up the yard."

However, he later informed Scotland Yard, "They passed by as though they were going up Commercial Road, but instead going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, and were there for about half an hour till I should say 11:30, talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music."

The two accounts are clearly irreconcilable. And it simply defies belief that he wouldn't have mentioned the couple to Sergeant White: after all, he apparently took such an interest in their activities that he observed them for half an hour, and even referred to them standing outside the club listing to music! And how could he have thought that wasn't relevant, considering that the victim was discovered in the club yard? In fact, the sighting would have been significantly more important, based upon the 12:30 time estimate gave to Sergeant White for closing the shop, than the revised 11:30 time given in his Scotland Yard statement.

[Jeff Leahy]

However, overall, the problem for me is that there are too many inconsistencies in his story. Note, for example, how the suspects age keeps declining. He tells Grand and Batchelor that he was middle aged, around 35. In the Evening News interview he's 30-35. And he tells Scotland Yard that he was a "young man", aged between 25-30. Of course, by then he could have seen PC Smith's description of his suspect in the press, referring to the man's age as 28.

Hi John

In his later claims of sighting the man he saw that night does he again change the age or stick to 25-30?

Many thanks

Jeff

[John G]

Hi John

In his later claims of sighting the man he saw that night does he again change the age or stick to 25-30?

Many thanks

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The Evening News, 31 October 1888, carries a report of an interview with Packer, with reference to rumours that he'd seen the suspect again. In the interview he refers to seeing the man who bought the grapes, the sighting taking place the previous Saturday between seven and eight o'clock. He looks at Packer with "a vicious look on his face", and the fruit seller sends someone to fetch a policeman, however, the suspect, "seeing there was something up" escaped by jumping on a tram.

Packer gives no further description of the man, simply stating, "It was the man who bought the grapes...I shall never forget his face, and should know him again amongst a thousand men."

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

The Evening News, 31 October 1888, carries a report of an interview with Packer, with reference to rumours that he'd seen the suspect again. In the interview he refers to seeing the man who bought the grapes, the sighting taking place the previous Saturday between seven and eight o'clock. He looks at Packer with "a vicious look on his face", and the fruit seller sends someone to fetch a policeman, however, the suspect, "seeing there was something up" escaped by jumping on a tram.

Packer gives no further description of the man, simply stating, "It was the man who bought the grapes...I shall never forget his face, and should know him again amongst a thousand men."

Yes most interesting...odd that he shouldn't have given a more detail description having seen him a second time...

Of course it still doesn't make this man Strides killer

But I do think this is of interest

Many thanks for the complete quote

Yours Jeff

[curious4]

>>Nothing suspicious in a couple buying grapes.<<

Certainly not by itself in ordinary circumstances but, of course these were not ordinary circumstances. There had been a woman murdered and police were asking if anybody had seen a. the victim and/or b. the victim and the killer.

Packer claimed that a couple standing in the rain, looking at the club was sufficiently weird enough to call his wife's attention to it.

If true, it's hard to understand why the story wasn't immediately recounted to an inquiring policeman either by Packer himself or his wife. Even harder to understand is the sheer amount of detail he eventually remembered about the incident if it was so unremarkable.

I could well be doing the man an injustice but, it just doesn't sit right for me.

Hello Dusty

To be fair there is nothing suspicious in a young couple standing in the rain. Done it myself in the days of my youth when struck by cupid's arrow. Packer, being past the joys of young love, just thought them stupid. If he took them for a courting couple there was nothing in their behaviour that would connect them with a horrific murder round the corner. Most did not see the murderer as an ordinary man.

Best wishes
C4