Veracity

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson—a desk jockey and, as such, little more than official blotting paper—absorbed whatever he was told.

It's intriguing that Alexander Carmichael Bruce [Senior Assistant Commissioner] summarized Matthew Packer's statement, dated 4th October 1888.

ACB's summary has been unhesitatingly accepted as proof that Packer was interviewed at Scotland Yard. Yet Swanson avoided mentioning this pivotal event in his 19th October 1888 report. According to Swanson, Packer's involvement with the two private investigators "acting conjointly with the Vigilance Comtee. and the press" ended with his being taken to identify Stride at the mortuary.

Which is odd, because the section of Swanson's 19th October 1888 report dealing with Matthew Packer contains unique word-for-word extracts from ACB's two-page summary.

It doesn't add up.

Regards,

Simon

[fido]

Interesting food for thought, Simon. Pity no one's followed up.
Martin F

[mpriestnall]

Packer's statement initialised by A.C.B.

Quote
Matthew Packer
Keeps a small shop in Berner Str has a few grapes in window, black & white. On Sat night about 11 p.m. a young man from 25-30 - about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up - soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders - rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him? pound black grapes 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street) she was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside. I identify the woman at the St George’s mortuary as the one I saw that night. - They passed by as though they were going up Com[mercial]- Road, but instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about? an hour till I shd. say 11.30. talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they wait[ed] near to the Club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music. I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters.
I put the man down as a young clerk.
He had a frock coat on - no gloves.
He was about 1? inch or 2 or 3 inch - a little bit higher than she was. ACB
4.10.88
Unquote

[mpriestnall]

Relevant extract from Swanson's report dated 19th October 1888:

Quote
Arising out of head b, a, Mr. Packer a fruiterer, of Berner St. stated that at 11 p.m. 29th Sept, a young man age 25 to 30 about 5 ft. 7 in. dress long black coat, buttoned up, soft felt hat, (Kind of Yankee hat) rather broad shoulders, rough voice, rather quick speaking, with a woman wearing a geranium like flower, white outside, red inside, & he sold him 1/2 lb of grapes. The man & woman went to the other side of road & stood talking till 11.30 p.m. then they went towards the Club (Socialist) apparently listening to the music. Mr. Packer when asked by the police stated that he did not see any suspicious person about, and it was not until after the publication in the newspapers of the description of man seen by the P.C. that Mr. Packer gave the foregoing particulars to two private enquiry men acting conjointly with the Vigilance Comtee. and the press, who upon searching a drain in the yard found a grape stem which was amongst the other matter swept from the yard after its examination by the police & then calling upon Mr. Packer whom they took to the mortuary where he identified the body of Elizabeth Stride as that of the woman. Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence.
Unquote

[mpriestnall]

I tried to transcribe the above extra accurately, but I may have made some mistakes. Feel free to point out any errors.

[mpriestnall]

So it seems Swanson has composed part of his report to the Home Office based on:

1. An unsigned witness statement.
2. A witness brought to S.Y. by two private detectives, who were known criminals.
3. Doctored timings (at least according to two authors, Bruce Robinson and Colin Kendell in their respective books).

Martyn

[mpriestnall]

Oops, I made a mistake. I'm not aware of any evidence that Batchelor was a criminal, but Le Grand most certainly was, so the point 2 stands.

[mpriestnall]

Hi All,

Chief Inspector Donald Swansona desk jockey and, as such, little more than official blotting paperabsorbed whatever he was told.

It's intriguing that Alexander Carmichael Bruce [Senior Assistant Commissioner] summarized Matthew Packer's statement, dated 4th October 1888.

ACB's summary has been unhesitatingly accepted as proof that Packer was interviewed at Scotland Yard. Yet Swanson avoided mentioning this pivotal event in his 19th October 1888 report. According to Swanson, Packer's involvement with the two private investigators "acting conjointly with the Vigilance Comtee. and the press" ended with his being taken to identify Stride at the mortuary.

Which is odd, because the section of Swanson's 19th October 1888 report dealing with Matthew Packer contains unique word-for-word extracts from ACB's two-page summary.

It doesn't add up.

Regards,

Simon

Why didn't Swanson's report mention Packer's interview at Scotland Yard then?

Anyone?

[c.d.]

Why didn't Swanson's report mention Packer's interview at Scotland Yard then?

Anyone?

A few things come to mind:

1. There is a logical explanation of which we are unaware.

2. He was incompetent.

3. He simply screwed up at least on this particular occasion.

4. It was intentional and indicates a massive cover up/conspiracy by the police.

I am reading "Helter Skelter:The True Story of the Manson Murders". A really good book which I recommend. The number of major screw ups in the investigation is amazing and leaves you scratching your head and saying how in the world did they miss that and not connect it to the murders? So the same questions could be asked in that case. Incompetence or a cover up? Such things happen.

c.d.

[mpriestnall]

A few things come to mind:

1. There is a logical explanation of which we are unaware.

2. He was incompetent.

3. He simply screwed up at least on this particular occasion.

4. It was intentional and indicates a massive cover up/conspiracy by the police.

I am reading "Helter Skelter:The True Story of the Manson Murders". A really good book which I recommend. The number of major screw ups in the investigation is amazing and leaves you scratching your head and saying how in the world did they miss that and not connect it to the murders? So the same questions could be asked in that case. Incompetence or a cover up? Such things happen.

c.d.

Thanks c.d.

Either way I think Simon's observation in the O.P. was a very good one and is very intriguing, and was worthy of following up.

Better late than never!

[mpriestnall]

Further re Manson:

CD: Thanks for the book recommendation.

I know Neil Sanders wrote a book and made some videos on Manson.

His work may or may not to be everyone's taste as he does look at things from conspiracist angles sometimes and deals with topics like "mind control".

Just mentioning him in case anyone is interested in checking his work out.

Anyway back to the Swanson Report and the Packer statement...

[Michael W Richards]

"Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence.

Unquote

This snippet from Swansons report seems interesting to me. It seems to suggest that since we have statements from the PC that Liz was in the company of someone who is not as Packer described, and since that sighting is after Packers, and with the additional account that has Liz with someone who is not like PC smiths man nor Packers man, then it it would seem she met up with other men after Packers sighting. Thereby making Packers sighting "valueless".

The part I find interesting is the inferred position that Israels sighting is mentioned side by side with PC Smiths, the latter appearing at the Inquest with his statement. The former completely absent from all forms of recording for the Inquest. So is the "value" we can assign Smiths sighting equal to Schwartz's sighting? And since Smith is entered on Inquest records, if we can also believe Schwartz, then why isnt he and his new man with Liz at scene also mentioned?

In actuality the only reliable witness among this group is Smith.

[Simon Wood]

On 18th October 1896, Detective Chief Inspector Henry Moore reported his examination of a letter received by the police. It purported to be from “Jack the Ripper.” The writer stated that “he has returned from abroad, and is now ready to commence work again…”
Moore compared it favourably with the original JtR letter and postcard, finding “many similarities in the formation of letters,” but wrote, “considering the lapse of time, it would be interesting to know how the present writer was able to use the words—“The Jews are people that are blamed for nothing.”
Here there is a marginal note—
"Were not the exact words 'The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing?'"
The marginal note was initialled “DSS.”
Henry Moore finally determined “that the present writer is not the original correspondent…”
The report was signed by a senior officer—
“In my opinion the handwritings are not the same. I agree as at A. I beg that the letter may be put with other similar letters. Its circulation is to be regretted.”
Signed, “Donald S. Swanson, Supt.”
This 1896 report makes nonsense of the 1910 [or later] Marginalia, in which Swanson allegedly wrote that the suspect “was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards. Kosminski was the suspect.”
On 7th February 1891, Aaron Kosminski was admitted to the County Lunatic Asylum at Colney Hatch. On 19th April 1894 he was moved to the Metropolitan Asylum for Chronic Imbeciles at Leavesden. At no time did he go abroad. He died at Leavesden Asylum on 24th March 1919.
If Kosminski [no forename] really was the suspect, why did Swanson not summarily dismiss the letter, certain in the knowledge that, a few years beforehand, the Ripper suspect had been committed to an asylum?
It all reinforces a widespread belief that the Swanson marginalia was a late 20th Century fictional construct.
Moore's report is the final entry in the Ultimate JtR Companion.

[Abby Normal]

On 18th October 1896, Detective Chief Inspector Henry Moore reported his examination of a letter received by the police. It purported to be from “Jack the Ripper.” The writer stated that “he has returned from abroad, and is now ready to commence work again…”
Moore compared it favourably with the original JtR letter and postcard, finding “many similarities in the formation of letters,” but wrote, “considering the lapse of time, it would be interesting to know how the present writer was able to use the words—“The Jews are people that are blamed for nothing.”
Here there is a marginal note—
"Were not the exact words 'The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing?'"
The marginal note was initialled “DSS.”
Henry Moore finally determined “that the present writer is not the original correspondent…”
The report was signed by a senior officer—
“In my opinion the handwritings are not the same. I agree as at A. I beg that the letter may be put with other similar letters. Its circulation is to be regretted.”
Signed, “Donald S. Swanson, Supt.”
This 1896 report makes nonsense of the 1910 [or later] Marginalia, in which Swanson allegedly wrote that the suspect “was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards. Kosminski was the suspect.”
On 7th February 1891, Aaron Kosminski was admitted to the County Lunatic Asylum at Colney Hatch. On 19th April 1894 he was moved to the Metropolitan Asylum for Chronic Imbeciles at Leavesden. At no time did he go abroad. He died at Leavesden Asylum on 24th March 1919.
If Kosminski [no forename] really was the suspect, why did Swanson not summarily dismiss the letter, certain in the knowledge that, a few years beforehand, the Ripper suspect had been committed to an asylum?
It all reinforces a widespread belief that the Swanson marginalia was a late 20th Century fictional construct.
Moore's report is the final entry in the Ultimate JtR Companion.

its actually the final entry in the wc police files. and all it reinforces is that anderson was a blow hard who in 1896 had no clue who the ripper was (and neither did swanson)but over the passing years came to beleive he "caught" jack the ripper and solved the mystery. and swanson his faithful lacky till he end, backed him up in 1910.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

It sounds like we are in agreement that the Swanson Marginalia is a load of old horsefeathers.

Simon