Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Wickerman]

I would ask the question...

Why did Packer change his initial account in which he claimed he saw nothing, to a story that involved a potentially significant sighting of a woman shortly before she was murdered?

This change seemed to have only occurred AFTER Le Grand and Batchelor had interviewed him.

It might be fair to say Packer only realized something after seeing the body at the morgue. Only then did he realize he had served this woman who had appeared with a man at his shop window.
Then his memory came back?

I'm not too concerned about the issue of rain, Packer was not outside like all the other witnesses.
Spots of rain on his dirty windows might have looked more intense, but for those standing outside it was merely spitting, hardly noticeable?
To me it's not a deal breaker, its more of a subjective issue.

[Wickerman]

Yes an apology was necessary I feel, I try to hold myself to a high standard when commenting...

Well, there was no hard feelings at my end, I take a lot of exchanges as light hearted banter. If you were to read some past debates I've been involved in it might make your hair curl, but there's never any real animosity. Were all friends at the end of the day, regardless what passes in a brief moment of passion?

I keep referring to Sugden but he does lay it out very very well. The one that really clinched Packer's guilt as exploiting the situation for me was the change in story over the grapes. On 1st October the Daily News carried the story by Diemschutz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer alleging Stride had been found with a bunch of grapes in her hand. Originally of course Packer had told Sgt White on 30th September he had closed early at 11am.

Well, Packer said 12:30 on Sgt. White's report (Sugden p.218), and maybe you had not noticed, but Sugden makes no mention of the two witnesses who saw Stride at the Bricklayer's Arms - Best & Gardiner.
Sugden was not aware of their evidence, which is why he (wrongly) concludes Packer must? have served Stride at 11:00 not 12:00.
As I said, even though Sugden is on top of the pile of eminent Ripper authors, he had less evidence with which to draw conclusions than we do today.
Which means we are better able to assess what might have occurred, and that is no criticism of Sugden. It's just a fact of the time when he conducted his research there were no computers at the Newspaper Archive, his search was manual.

As for Public House closing times - on a Saturday night it is midnight, which only reinforces the 12:30 time when he shut up shop, because he used the closing time in his judgement. So he must have been aware of the time the beer house next door to him closed.
Therefore, everything that happened to him took place at or after 12:00 midnight.

On 2nd October Packer then told Le Grand and Bachelor that he had indeed sold grapes to a man who accompanied a woman he identified as Elizabeth Stride. Le Grand and Bachelor-, known fraudsters then miraculously turn up a grapestalk in Dutfields Yard.

I previously mentioned Packer commenting on the rain and how heavy it was. He even ridiculed the couple for standing out in it for so long. Yet Stride's clothes according to Dr Blackwell were not wet when she was found.

I responded to that issue on Chris's post - the drizzle or spitting just looked worse to Packer as he was looking through windows.
I'm sure you've sat in a car and had to put the wipers on, but when you get out, you can hardly feel the rain it is so faint.
The rain just looked worse to Packer due to him looking through glass.

It was categorically stated by Dr Phillips at the Inquest on 2nd October that neither in the hands or body of Stride did he find any grapes or connection with them and he was convinced neither seed nor skin had been swallowed within many hours of her death. Now I know medical science has improved dramatically since 1888 but surely this statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Blackwell also stated he had seen no grapes nor had anyone mentioned grapes to him.

Yes, that point has been argued before, but are you aware Stride's post mortem was conducted some 30+ hours later?
Plenty of time for stomach acid to work on grape flesh, which is something like 90+% water anyway.
Did Stride spit out the skins & pips?
Do you?, I know my wife does, naturally we buy seedless grapes, but she hates the skins, they are bitter, so she uses a tissue to remove the skins from her mouth (not lady-like to spit).
Fruit stains were noticed on Stride's handkerchief - funny that.
So, if you apply a real-world application, the so-called evidence against the grapes just disappears.

Of course we must also view Packer's constant changing of story-- either the time he saw the couple(ranging from 11:30am- 12;30am), description of the man which changed quite a bit over different outlets and his story about the grapes,...

Yes, but we never did get an original statement from Packer. Every example we have was created by someone else, so his story came down to us through third party.
It's hardly fair to beat a witness up over what others have put on paper. Too many possibilities for errors.

At the end of the day Swanson said Packer changed his story, which is why they couldn't use him.
What we don't know is which 'stories' was Swanson talking about?
What Packer said to the press is the most complete version we have, it differs from the notes made by A.C.B., which also differs from the report made by Sgt. White.
Yet, we can better equate White's report with the press story.
Where A.C.B. got his "11:00" time from will forever remain a mystery.
All the evidence considered points to Packer serving Stride & Co. about midnight, and him closing up his shop about 12:30 am., after closing time.

[Wickerman]

I just skimmed through a few Packer-related pieces. If Packer saw the couple then it must have been at around 11.00 because according to witnesses it didn’t rain after 11.30 and he said that they stood in the rain for around an hour. I don’t think it an insurmountable problem that Packer said 12.30. He used pub closing as a way of estimating the time but it’s possible that he heard the bulk of the club members going home at 11.30 and assumed that they were pub punters at closing time but 11.00 gives us a bigger problem in the shape of Constable Smith who would have passed on his beat at around11.00, 11.30 and 12.00 but he only reported seeing the couple at around 12.30.
...

Hi Mike.

Clubs were subject to different rules, it was the beer house next door (No.46) that would have been subject to municipal regulations.
Packer was in a good position to notice that the beer house next door had closed (at midnight), which means everything that happened to Packer did so after midnight.

Packer's story.
It was then 10 or 15 minutes past 12 o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public-houses had been closed.
East London Advertiser, 6 Oct. 1888.

Police Code.
Paraphrase - (within a radius of four miles from Charring Cross)....Every person selling liquor must be licensed, but Clubs are not required to take out a license for such sale to members only, for consumption on the premises. Licensed premises must close at 12:30 every night of the week except Saturday night at which time they must close at 12:00 midnight. (p.147)

Just to confirm 'closing time'...
Spooner mentions leaving the beer house in Settles St. at closing time (midnight), he then walked down Christian St.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would ask the question...

Why did Packer change his initial account in which he claimed he saw nothing, to a story that involved a potentially significant sighting of a woman shortly before she was murdered?

This change seemed to have only occurred AFTER Le Grand and Batchelor had interviewed him.

It's fairly reasonable to say that Le Grand's methods were particularly aggressive and threatening.

Le Grand had been involved as a private investigator in the Lipski murder case the year before the Ripper murders.
He once burst into the private residence of a man who he believed had information concerning the whereabouts of another man alleged to have been involved with the murder in Batty Street (instead of Lipski)
Le Grand's forced entry into the house caused the man's daughter to have a fit on the spot. The young girl was so petrified of Le Grand that it had triggered a fit. She was taken to hospital but I can't recall her fate.

But I digress.

The point is that Le Grand interviewing Packer is likely to have been more of an interrogation than an interview.

I do wonder if this was actually the case RD? The police certainly aren’t infallible now and weren’t then and without the advantages of technology errors could have been more prevalent. What if White was a bit lazy and had decided to cover his own a**e? If White had gone on his door to door what if Packer wasn’t in and Mrs Packer had said that she had seen nothing worth mentioning? (or perhaps no one was in?) White could have intended to return but forgot (or perhaps he couldn’t be bothered?) So he fills in the gap feeling safe to do so because of what Mrs P said and perhaps the fact that the neighbours had seen nothing either. Then the Police hear of the Packer story in the Press.

A general question - do we have any record of the police calling out Packer on his claim that they hadn’t been to see him? I’m not aware of any.

[The Rookie Detective]

I do wonder if this was actually the case RD? The police certainly aren’t infallible now and weren’t then and without the advantages of technology errors could have been more prevalent. What if White was a bit lazy and had decided to cover his own a**e? If White had gone on his door to door what if Packer wasn’t in and Mrs Packer had said that she had seen nothing worth mentioning? (or perhaps no one was in?) White could have intended to return but forgot (or perhaps he couldn’t be bothered?) So he fills in the gap feeling safe to do so because of what Mrs P said and perhaps the fact that the neighbours had seen nothing either. Then the Police hear of the Packer story in the Press.

A general question - do we have any record of the police calling out Packer on his claim that they hadn’t been to see him? I’m not aware of any.

No, but we do have this article printed on the 14th December 1888 that tells us rather a lot.

According to this article, Packer not only said he knew the house in which the killer lived, he also claimed to have told Sir Charles Warren the same piece of information just before Warren left Scotland Yard.
He also states he was taken to the said address in a cab in a bid to show the police the killer's address.

IMO, this all sounds rather far-fetched.

But imagine for a moment that Packer had taken the Cab to Kosminski's address.

Broadly speaking, could the police have actually believed Packer and thought they knew the address at which the killer lived; and as a result put all their eggs into one basket.
Could that explain why the Inquest into MJK's murder was rushed through?

If the police believed they already knew the identity of the Ripper BEFORE Warren left Scotland Yard, then could the murder of MJK have upset the apple cart so to speak?

We know that Warren left Scotland Yard BEFORE MJK was murdered; but he was still serving AFTER the murder of MJK up until the start of December, and so it's hard to say whether Packer was referring to before or after the murder of MJK.

Of course, this article could simply be a load of nonsense and "fake news'
in which case, the claim that Packer had seen the killer at least 4 times since the Stride murder, could also be completely false.

Of course, if it's true, then perhaps "Packer" was the key witness to it all.

Fascinating indeed



Intriguing.

[Sunny Delight]

No, but we do have this article printed on the 14th December 1888 that tells us rather a lot.

According to this article, Packer not only said he knew the house in which the killer lived, he also claimed to have told Sir Charles Warren the same piece of information just before Warren left Scotland Yard.
He also states he was taken to the said address in a cab in a bid to show the police the killer's address.

IMO, this all sounds rather far-fetched.

But imagine for a moment that Packer had taken the Cab to Kosminski's address.

Broadly speaking, could the police have actually believed Packer and thought they knew the address at which the killer lived; and as a result put all their eggs into one basket.
Could that explain why the Inquest into MJK's murder was rushed through?

If the police believed they already knew the identity of the Ripper BEFORE Warren left Scotland Yard, then could the murder of MJK have upset the apple cart so to speak?

We know that Warren left Scotland Yard BEFORE MJK was murdered; but he was still serving AFTER the murder of MJK up until the start of December, and so it's hard to say whether Packer was referring to before or after the murder of MJK.

Of course, this article could simply be a load of nonsense and "fake news'
in which case, the claim that Packer had seen the killer at least 4 times since the Stride murder, could also be completely false.

Of course, if it's true, then perhaps "Packer" was the key witness to it all.

Fascinating indeed



Intriguing.

For a man initially unsure about getting involved he really threw himself into it once he did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, but we do have this article printed on the 14th December 1888 that tells us rather a lot.

According to this article, Packer not only said he knew the house in which the killer lived, he also claimed to have told Sir Charles Warren the same piece of information just before Warren left Scotland Yard.
He also states he was taken to the said address in a cab in a bid to show the police the killer's address.

IMO, this all sounds rather far-fetched.

But imagine for a moment that Packer had taken the Cab to Kosminski's address.

Broadly speaking, could the police have actually believed Packer and thought they knew the address at which the killer lived; and as a result put all their eggs into one basket.
Could that explain why the Inquest into MJK's murder was rushed through?

If the police believed they already knew the identity of the Ripper BEFORE Warren left Scotland Yard, then could the murder of MJK have upset the apple cart so to speak?

We know that Warren left Scotland Yard BEFORE MJK was murdered; but he was still serving AFTER the murder of MJK up until the start of December, and so it's hard to say whether Packer was referring to before or after the murder of MJK.

Of course, this article could simply be a load of nonsense and "fake news'
in which case, the claim that Packer had seen the killer at least 4 times since the Stride murder, could also be completely false.

Of course, if it's true, then perhaps "Packer" was the key witness to it all.

Fascinating indeed



Intriguing.

Cheers RD, I keep telling myself that i could do with spending some time on Packer but I’m not keen on the idea. I’ve refreshed my memory somewhat but there’s so much going on in his overall story. Without looking deeper yet I’m still wondering if he just started out giving an honest bit of evidence until he got involved with Le Grand and Batchelor (who were hardly Holmes and Watson.)

[Sunny Delight]

Say for argument sake that Packer was telling the truth? What does it add of any real value? PC Smith saw Parcelman as he passed. If Packer had sold them grapes 15 minutes previously what does it matter?

[Damaso Marte]

Just a few things I wanted to get off my chest as a Schwartz skeptic:

Dismissing Schwartz doesn't require "speculation upon speculation" - you don't need to believe that Schwartz was the Ripper or that there was a club conspiracy or whatever else to not find Schwartz credible. Packer is almost universally accepted as a false witness and Hutchinson is so obviously bogus that Ripper tours of Whitechapel label him the killer: to say that Schwartz made up his story is simply to say that something that most of us believe happened twice in the fall of 1888 happened a third time.

Schwartz told a very complex tale, introducing two additional people and a lot of noise to the crime scene. If you find more detailed eyewitness accounts less credible, that should make you a tad suspicious. Nobody corroborates Schwartz's account and while that does not by itself make it suspicious, it means that you can dispose of Schwartz without also needing to dispose of any other witness.

As far as Schwartz's motive for lying to the police - well, frankly, we don't need to provide one to find him not credible. He could have simply been seeking attention. He could be a "club conspiracy of one" - trying to point the police towards the most goyish person he could imagine (even putting an anti-Semitic slur into their mouth) out of a desire to prevent a pogrom. The police would, mere hours later, destroy a potentially important piece of evidence before it could be photographed out of similar fears, tension must have been in the air. Or he could have been a fabulist or compulsive liar. Many fairly simple explanations are available, but we don't need to pick one.

Disposing of Schwartz also doesn't require you to take a position on any other issue of contention in the case. Traditionally, Schwartz skepticism is taken up by those who see Stride as a Ripper killing and want to get rid of BS man because his MO seems so unlike the Ripper. But there have been notable Schwartz skeptics from all camps - Lynn Cates thought BS man was just that and he didn't believe that either Stride or Eddowes were Ripper killings.

I've posted before about my experience witnessing a crime in broad daylight: five minutes after witnessing the crime from just a few feet away, I was unable to describe the clothing the perpetrator was wearing, and it turned out the perpetrator was wearing unusually brightly colored clothes that should have been memorable. Since that time, I've trusted the witnesses who say things like "I saw the man briefly and could not identify him today" more than I trust the ones who tell highly specific, detailed stories. I think liars often add detail to appear more credible.

[Wickerman]

Say for argument sake that Packer was telling the truth? What does it add of any real value? PC Smith saw Parcelman as he passed. If Packer had sold them grapes 15 minutes previously what does it matter?

Back on post 458, in reply to you I made the point then..

"...It doesn't help solve the case, but it does tell us Parcel-man arrived on the scene with Stride, he did not come out of the club."

[Wickerman]

... Packer is almost universally accepted as a false witness...

Apart from what has already been mentioned, he did identify the right body when taken to the two different morgues.

..and Hutchinson is so obviously bogus ...

And that view also tells me you dismiss Sarah Lewis who tells us she witnessed a man & woman in Dorset St. walking ahead of her enter Millers Court, while a man loitering stood opposite - confirming Hutchinson's story on that point at least.

I find a lot of people who choose to 'label' and dismiss a witness, do so by ignoring some choice evidence.
It is unrealistic to expect any witness to be perfect (as you have confirmed), in the real world a perfect witness is hard to find.

[Fiver]

As far as Schwartz's motive for lying to the police - well, frankly, we don't need to provide one to find him not credible. He could have simply been seeking attention. He could be a "club conspiracy of one" - trying to point the police towards the most goyish person he could imagine (even putting an anti-Semitic slur into their mouth) out of a desire to prevent a pogrom. The police would, mere hours later, destroy a potentially important piece of evidence before it could be photographed out of similar fears, tension must have been in the air. Or he could have been a fabulist or compulsive liar. Many fairly simple explanations are available, but we don't need to pick one.

Schwartz certainly could have made the whole thing up. But his story portrays him as a man who ran away instead of helping a woman who was later found murdered. It made him look callous and cowardly. If he was going to lie, you think he'd have tried to portray himself in a better light.

[c.d.]

Schwartz told a very complex tale, introducing two additional people and a lot of noise to the crime scene.

I don't find it complex at all if you see it as a simple and common street hassle. What noise are you referring to exactly? It wasn't a crime scene (other than a throwing to the ground) when Schwartz left. That is the whole point.

Traditionally, Schwartz skepticism is taken up by those who see Stride as a Ripper killing and want to get rid of BS man because his MO seems so unlike the Ripper.

I see Stride as a Ripper victim and I agree that the B.S. man's M.O. seems so unlike the Ripper. How do we resolve this? The B.S. man wasn't her killer.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Based on Mortimer; It would seem most likely that there are 2 windows of time in which Stride could have been murdered.

12.41-12.44am

or

12.56-12.59am



Or a 3rd possibility that she was killed by Bs man - 12.44am-12.49am



In the 12.41am - 12.44am window there are a few candidates for the murderer...

Eagle
Lave
Parcel man
Marshall's man
"No, not tonight man"
Unknown man/The Ripper
Pc Smith

(Parcelman and Marshall's man possibly being the same person)


In the 12.56am - 12.59am window we have...

Diemschitz
Lave
Goldstein
"No, not tonight" man seen by Brown
Unknown man/The Ripper
Pc Smith



But added to this we have a few key questions...

1) - If Bs man assaulted Stride shortly after she was seen with Parcelman, then where did Parcelman go without being seen by Schwartz or Mortimer?

2) - If Parcelman and Marshall's man were the same person; where did he get the parcel from between being seen by Marshall and then being seen by PC Smith?

3) - If Bs Man was ahead of Schwartz as he walked south down Berner Street; where did Bs man come from if Mortimer only heard 1 man's footsteps pass her door? If Bs Man had come from the same direction as Schwartz then Mortimer should have heard 2 men pass her door within close proximity.

4) - If Mortimer did indeed hear PC Smith pass her door and she went to look outside just afterwards; why didn't she see either Eagle, Lave, Parcelman or Stride?

5) - PC Smith stated his beat took 25 to 30 minutes to complete 1 circuit. If that's the case, and he had indeed passed along Berner Street between 12.30-12.35am, then why didn't Smith arrive back in Berner Street at the same spot between 12.55am - 1.05am?
Where was Smith at the most likely kill time of 12.55am?


Lots to ponder

Hi Chris, thought I would duck in to attempt to answer some of your questions.

Regarding your proposed time windows, the latest window would seem to be incompatible with the observed extent of blood flow at the time of discovery. The murder must have occurred several minutes earlier, just prior to Mortimer coming to her doorstep, or shortly after. Thus the popular theory of another man (other than BS) coming along to commit the murder, does not have a 15-minute window within which to work, but only about 5.

Where did Parcelman go? One minute he is there, then according to Schwartz, apparently not. If Schwartz's story is to be regarded as at least partially true, the seeming disappearance of Parcelman has to be accounted for. Consider this snippet from the Star:

The Hungarian ... crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

The second man appears as Schwartz steps off the kerb and onto Fairclough St. The public house referred to is almost universally regarded as being the Nelson. There's just one problem with that - the Nelson is not a few doors off, it's a few yards across Berner St. I suggest that the real location of Pipeman has been lost in translation, and what the doorway a few doors off really refers to is the entrance to Hampshire Court, which, relative to Schwartz, is indeed a few doors off. Walking through the court to Batty St would take one right to the Red Lion public house.

Now consider what PC Smith said about the location of Stride and her male companion.

She stood on the pavement, a few yards up Berner-street, on the opposite side to where she was found. I noticed the man who was talking with her. He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand.

For all intents and purposes, the couple were seen standing at the Berner St entrance to Hampshire Court. So, to answer the question - where did Parcelman go? - with another question; Well, where did Pipeman go?

Why didn't Mortimer hear other footsteps? Eagle's footsteps, for example, may not have sounded like the characteristic plod of a bobby on a beat. She may or may not have heard Eagle returning to the club, but in any case, she only recalls hearing the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman.

Why didn't Mortimer see Eagle, Lave, Stride or Parcelman? Lave only seems to have gone as far as the gateway, so there is probably nothing to be explained for his case. Eagle presumably arrived back just after Smith had passed the club, but prior to Mortimer again observing the street from her doorstep. It is more difficult to account for Mortimer not seeing Stride. However, I cannot help but think that the following is relevant.

Eagle: I came back about twenty minutes to one, and, finding the front door closed, I went through the gateway and got into the yard, and thus through the back door into the club.

It is conceivable that Stride witnessed Eagle trying and failing to go in through the front door and resorting to enter the club by heading up the dark passageway to the side/back door. I think this is relevant to why Stride herself, ends up in the passageway. Perhaps her intention was to deliver the parcel.

Why wasn't Smith back at the same spot, close to when he said he was? This is possibly related to the handover of responsibilities from the fixed-duty officer to the beat officer. Smith probably should have been at the top of Berner St at 1am but was 'behind time'. At the inquest he bent the truth a little.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just a few things I wanted to get off my chest as a Schwartz skeptic:

Dismissing Schwartz doesn't require "speculation upon speculation" - you don't need to believe that Schwartz was the Ripper or that there was a club conspiracy or whatever else to not find Schwartz credible. Packer is almost universally accepted as a false witness and Hutchinson is so obviously bogus that Ripper tours of Whitechapel label him the killer: to say that Schwartz made up his story is simply to say that something that most of us believe happened twice in the fall of 1888 happened a third time.

Schwartz told a very complex tale, introducing two additional people and a lot of noise to the crime scene. If you find more detailed eyewitness accounts less credible, that should make you a tad suspicious. Nobody corroborates Schwartz's account and while that does not by itself make it suspicious, it means that you can dispose of Schwartz without also needing to dispose of any other witness.

As far as Schwartz's motive for lying to the police - well, frankly, we don't need to provide one to find him not credible. He could have simply been seeking attention. He could be a "club conspiracy of one" - trying to point the police towards the most goyish person he could imagine (even putting an anti-Semitic slur into their mouth) out of a desire to prevent a pogrom. The police would, mere hours later, destroy a potentially important piece of evidence before it could be photographed out of similar fears, tension must have been in the air. Or he could have been a fabulist or compulsive liar. Many fairly simple explanations are available, but we don't need to pick one.

Disposing of Schwartz also doesn't require you to take a position on any other issue of contention in the case. Traditionally, Schwartz skepticism is taken up by those who see Stride as a Ripper killing and want to get rid of BS man because his MO seems so unlike the Ripper. But there have been notable Schwartz skeptics from all camps - Lynn Cates thought BS man was just that and he didn't believe that either Stride or Eddowes were Ripper killings.

I've posted before about my experience witnessing a crime in broad daylight: five minutes after witnessing the crime from just a few feet away, I was unable to describe the clothing the perpetrator was wearing, and it turned out the perpetrator was wearing unusually brightly colored clothes that should have been memorable. Since that time, I've trusted the witnesses who say things like "I saw the man briefly and could not identify him today" more than I trust the ones who tell highly specific, detailed stories. I think liars often add detail to appear more credible.

Quite literally one of the best posts I have ever read on this site.

You've managed to thoroughly and successfully explain and encompass everything I've been trying to say with regards to Schwartz's validity and authenticity as a so-called "witness."

Well said, and I agree entirely with your views on this.