Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Sunny Delight]

There isn't anything that is indisputable, but then again, I'm obviously not a serious student of the case.

Apologies for that, it should have said other serious students of the case. I did not mean to be derogatory as I know you have spent many years trying to piece things together.

I just think you are badly misguided when it comes to Packer and I think the Police had it right from the beginning with him.

[The Rookie Detective]

The couple seen by Marshall walked down Berner St. - "They went away down the street, towards Ellen-street."
This sighting was between 11:30 - 12:00, but Stride was at the Bricklayers Arms in Settles St. about 11:00 pm.

Jon, did the couple seen by Marshall take the same route that Schwartz ran when he fled from the scene of the assault?

Am I correct when I say.that Schwartz stated 22 Ellen Street as an address?

[Wickerman]

Apologies for that, it should have said other serious students of the case. I did not mean to be derogatory as I know you have spent many years trying to piece things together.

I just think you are badly misguided when it comes to Packer and I think the Police had it right from the beginning with him.

Oh heck no, I was only teasing, no need to apologize.
I often take a contrary view if I think we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think this is one of those cases, certainly Packer was confused but we know his 11:00-11:30 was wrong, Stride was seen elsewhere at 11:00 pm, which means the 11:45-12:30 window must have been the correct version, which matches up with P.C. Smith's statement.

It can't be dismissed that Packer handing a package to a man who was with Stride, who stood in the street about 12:30, is confirmed by P.C. Smith who also saw a man accompanying Stride, carrying a package, about 12:30.
Which means something of what Packer say's is true.

The description Packer gave of Parcel-man is different enough to what P.C. Smith said to show he was not trying to copy Smith's statement. If that is all it was then obviously Packer would have repeated Smith's published description, which he didn't.
I think Packer was trying to be honest.

I feel there's too many theories in this case that involve 'plotting' or conspiracy. Packer was just a poor witness who tried to resist getting involved at first. Nothing what he told Sgt. White was untrue, he really did not see anyone go up the yard, and he had not seen anything suspicious. All he saw were various people moving around the street, there's nothing suspicious about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What are the chances that when White went around doing a door to door the Packers weren’t home? He intended to go back but maybe he forgot? Maybe they weren’t in a second time? Packer did say that the police hadn’t spoken to him. Maybe he was telling the truth on that point at least?

[Wickerman]

Are you able to add a dot to where Packer said he saw the couple who bought grapes standing for over half an hour?

I had used all the colours in the edit program, so I would have to use the red dot to show where Packer served Stride, who then crossed over to stand a while, before crossing back to stand by the yard, or the club, as he said.

[Wickerman]

What are the chances that when White went around doing a door to door the Packers weren’t home? He intended to go back but maybe he forgot? Maybe they weren’t in a second time? Packer did say that the police hadn’t spoken to him. Maybe he was telling the truth on that point at least?

There will have been journalists and detectives going door to door early that morning. I can see Packer being confused over who he spoke to, possibly thought the Det. was another journalist?

If we look at the timing, it appears Sgt. White called early that morning (30th), as he described, but then a journalist from the Evening News interviewed Packer on the 4th. The police cut the story from the evening edition and clipped it to the internal report, they returned to clarify things with Packer on the evening of the 4th.
Sgt. White's report must have been written later that day.
There are three police memo's all dated the 4th Oct.

Sgt. White asked Packer if he saw anyone standing about in the street, if Packer was thinking he meant the killer, then no, he didn't see anyone standing around. Even though there were people about, none of them looked suspicious to him, none of them looked like they were loitering around with intentions of killing someone.

Rather than accuse Packer of lying, I prefer to try understand the interaction and the possible miscommunication which can often happen with witnesses.

[Wickerman]

Jon, did the couple seen by Marshall take the same route that Schwartz ran when he fled from the scene of the assault?

Am I correct when I say.that Schwartz stated 22 Ellen Street as an address?

The direction Schwartz ran is open to debate, no-one is really sure, but it was Swanson who gave 22 Ellen St. as Schwartz's address. Whether that was his old address or the new one is another question.
The couple seen by Marshall walked south towards Ellen St.

[DJA]

Prolly his new address.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There will have been journalists and detectives going door to door early that morning. I can see Packer being confused over who he spoke to, possibly thought the Det. was another journalist?

If we look at the timing, it appears Sgt. White called early that morning (30th), as he described, but then a journalist from the Evening News interviewed Packer on the 4th. The police cut the story from the evening edition and clipped it to the internal report, they returned to clarify things with Packer on the evening of the 4th.
Sgt. White's report must have been written later that day.
There are three police memo's all dated the 4th Oct.

Sgt. White asked Packer if he saw anyone standing about in the street, if Packer was thinking he meant the killer, then no, he didn't see anyone standing around. Even though there were people about, none of them looked suspicious to him, none of them looked like they were loitering around with intentions of killing someone.

Rather than accuse Packer of lying, I prefer to try understand the interaction and the possible miscommunication which can often happen with witnesses.

I think it’s time I had a Packer re-read over the weekend. It’s been a while.

[c.d.]

I think it’s time I had a Packer re-read over the weekend. It’s been a while.

The Grapes of Wrath?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

A second question would be - if Packer stated that he closed his shop because the rain was deterring customers, and it didn’t rain after 11.30, why did he close his shop after just serving a customer? The rain hadn’t deterred that customer so why would he have expected it to have disturbed others?

Maybe a third? If the woman (Stride) had stood out in the rain from whenever it began to when it stopped (around 11.30) and then stayed out in the cold, late September night then how come according to Blackwell: “The clothes were not wet with rain.”

[Sunny Delight]

Oh heck no, I was only teasing, no need to apologize.
I often take a contrary view if I think we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think this is one of those cases, certainly Packer was confused but we know his 11:00-11:30 was wrong, Stride was seen elsewhere at 11:00 pm, which means the 11:45-12:30 window must have been the correct version, which matches up with P.C. Smith's statement.

It can't be dismissed that Packer handing a package to a man who was with Stride, who stood in the street about 12:30, is confirmed by P.C. Smith who also saw a man accompanying Stride, carrying a package, about 12:30.
Which means something of what Packer say's is true.

The description Packer gave of Parcel-man is different enough to what P.C. Smith said to show he was not trying to copy Smith's statement. If that is all it was then obviously Packer would have repeated Smith's published description, which he didn't.
I think Packer was trying to be honest.

I feel there's too many theories in this case that involve 'plotting' or conspiracy. Packer was just a poor witness who tried to resist getting involved at first. Nothing what he told Sgt. White was untrue, he really did not see anyone go up the yard, and he had not seen anything suspicious. All he saw were various people moving around the street, there's nothing suspicious about that.

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

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.

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, in the context of information in the papers and a reward of £500 from the Corporation of London, in regards information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer.

Packer later told the Press he had seen the murderer again on 27th October but just as he approached a Policeman the man jumped on a tram.

He then went to the Press again and told them on 13th November that a man had come to his shop to buy rabbits and informed him that he believed his own cousin was the murderer.

Packer was to my mind someone we just can't believe in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it’s time I had a Packer re-read over the weekend. It’s been a while.

The Grapes of Wrath?

c.d.

More like the Grapes of Madness c.d. I’ve given myself a few headaches over the years on the Packer story and I’m sure that I’m not alone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Might there have been two Packers?

The ordinary ageing shopkeeper scratching a meagre living who sold some grapes to a guy with a woman (Stride?) And the guy who Le Grand and Batchelor got their claws into. Might he just have been someone who saw a few quid to be made by going along with whatever script the two ‘detectives’ came up with? If (a big ‘if’ certainly) true then his initial sighting could have been true or it might have had an element of truth.

Im just putting that ‘out there’ btw. It’s not something that I’m pushing.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.