Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In some cases maps were called for, but we often have some reference to one by a witness if a map is provided.


This summary is written in the third-person, it begins with - "The Coroner said", the last line reads - "He left it to the jury to say . .".

A previous member, I think it was Joshua, discovered the Coroner did have his summary typed up and sent out to newspapers, or perhaps to an agency? Which would arrive several days after the inquest ended.
This inquest ended on 23rd Oct. 1888, and the summary was published the next day 'today' (as I write this - 24th Oct.), 137 years ago.
It had to have been taken down by a journalist present at the Inquest.

Okay, then Fanny cannot have come to her door immediately on hearing Smith pass, so we can dismiss that report as unreliable. So, what about by 12:45? Had she made it to her doorstep by then?

[Doctored Whatsit]

I'm not expecting you to repeat yourself.
You have not explained how changing the times from 11:45/12:00 to 11:00 for selling his grapes, and from 12:15/12:30 to 11:30 for shutting up his shop window, could possibly help in pursuing the reward.
The murder still took place moments before 1:00 am.
What it does do, is quite the opposite - it means Packer could not have seen Stride & her killer.

Changing the times blows the 'seeking a reward' angle completely out of the water.


Then there is the issue of the changing suspect description.

The police suspect was already published in the Monday morning papers - it was the man seen by PC Smith.
Age 28; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; carried a newspaper parcel; was of respectable appearance

Packer suspect, 1st desc. from the Evening News:
Middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.

Packer suspect, 2nd desc. from the summary by A.C.B.:
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 put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves.

Neither description attributed to Packer can be said to be an attempt at duplicating the established suspect description in the papers.

I hope you can see this 'seeking a reward' hypothesis is total nonsense.

Hi Jon,

I don't know why Packer totally and mysteriously changed his timescale after a journey in the cab with Le Grand, if the events really happened. He had set everything out clearly earlier. And I have explained several times how he and his family could not possibly have forgotten the event by the next morning.

As for the changing age of his suspect, we have no way of knowing what fresh information he found, and how and when he found it. But he changed the age of his suspect to nearer fit PC Smith's description.

I have no wish to continue this debate because I don't have a theory to defend. I just look at the evidence and say Packer's story is dubious for the reasons I have outlined several times. If, as you insist, he wasn't after the reward, maybe he was seeking publicity for his little shop. We cannot know.

[GBinOz]

I have explained several times how he and his family could not possibly have forgotten the event by the next morning.

Hi Doc,

If I may be permitted a comment on this, in Packer's mind there was no event. Having worked in a retail outlet I can say that there are seldom "events"....it is mostly boring customers that are served and forgotten. Nothing distinguishes one from another until there is a murder and grapes are mentioned in the news media. I suspect that Packer's thoughts initially revolved around not suffering the inconvenience of getting involved, until the grape story was publicised and Grand and Batchelor turned up to indulge his desperate need to escape the quiet desperation of his daily life (to quote Thoreau).

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

If I may be permitted a comment on this, in Packer's mind there was no event. Having worked in a retail outlet I can say that there are seldom "events"....it is mostly boring customers that are served and forgotten. Nothing distinguishes one from another until there is a murder and grapes are mentioned in the news media. I suspect that Packer's thoughts initially revolved around not suffering the inconvenience of getting involved, until the grape story was publicised and Grand and Batchelor turned up to indulge his desperate need to escape the quiet desperation of his daily life (to quote Thoreau).

Cheers, George

But how could he forget, George? If he had been busy, I would understand it. But Packer was quite clear in his earlier statement that there was little business because of the rain, but he served grapes to a man and a woman just before he closed his shop, and therefore just a few minutest before a man killed a woman only a few yards away from his shop. He watched them as they hung around for half an hour or more in the rain. He told the others in his house that the couple were fools. But the next morning neither Packer nor a single one of the residents of the shop had seen anyone standing about! That is quite ridiculous! How could the entire household forget the obvious link between a man and a woman hanging around the street for half an hour in the rain, and then a woman being murdered so close to the shop just minutes after he had been watching the two of them and had been talking about them? They had to be the only likely parties involved. Not realising this, or forgetting it a few hours later, is beyond belief!

I don't know how Le Grande and Packer got together, I suspect it was Le Grande who made the contact. I don't know whether Packer was hoping for a share of the reward, or whether he wanted a bit of publicity for himself or his shop, or both. But it was clear that Le Grande took charge of Packer, took him to see the body, and then to Scotland Yard, keeping him from the police as much as possible. Why, what was Le Grande planning? A share of the reward is all I can think of. The story about Packer identifying Stride after being shown the wrong corpse first, would have been very helpful to Packer's reliability, but as Le Grande was in control, the matter becomes irrelevant, because we know Le Grande was a fraudster.

Packer's later alleged sighting again of his suspect, and then the story of later visitors to his shop believing that the killer was a relative of theirs does suggest that whether or not it had been the reward he was seeking, he rather enjoyed the personal publicity, and wanted a bit more, as you hinted. We cannot know.

I don't think that any of us are going to change our minds, and I have been repeating the same stuff far too often. Every reader knows what I think about Packer and Le Grande. I must let other people say what they think. I'm done with it unless someone finds some new evidence!

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Doc,

If I may be permitted a comment on this, in Packer's mind there was no event. Having worked in a retail outlet I can say that there are seldom "events"....it is mostly boring customers that are served and forgotten. Nothing distinguishes one from another until there is a murder and grapes are mentioned in the news media. I suspect that Packer's thoughts initially revolved around not suffering the inconvenience of getting involved, until the grape story was publicised and Grand and Batchelor turned up to indulge his desperate need to escape the quiet desperation of his daily life (to quote Thoreau).

Cheers, George

I began my working life in a retail shop. I can certainly agree that the monotony of serving customer after customer is well- monotonous. Forgettable. However I cant say I ever served anyone near where a murder is then committed. Forgettable then it would not be.

Packer and the rest of the family were asked explicitly- did they see anyone standing about OR anyone suspicious. They all agreed they had seen neither. Then enter Le Grande, a convicted fraudster and trickster and well things take an interesting turn. I wonder why.

[Sunny Delight]

But how could he forget, George? If he had been busy, I would understand it. But Packer was quite clear in his earlier statement that there was little business because of the rain, but he served grapes to a man and a woman just before he closed his shop, and therefore just a few minutest before a man killed a woman only a few yards away from his shop. He watched them as they hung around for half an hour or more in the rain. He told the others in his house that the couple were fools. But the next morning neither Packer nor a single one of the residents of the shop had seen anyone standing about! That is quite ridiculous! How could the entire household forget the obvious link between a man and a woman hanging around the street for half an hour in the rain, and then a woman being murdered so close to the shop just minutes after he had been watching the two of them and had been talking about them? They had to be the only likely parties involved. Not realising this, or forgetting it a few hours later, is beyond belief!

I don't know how Le Grande and Packer got together, I suspect it was Le Grande who made the contact. I don't know whether Packer was hoping for a share of the reward, or whether he wanted a bit of publicity for himself or his shop, or both. But it was clear that Le Grande took charge of Packer, took him to see the body, and then to Scotland Yard, keeping him from the police as much as possible. Why, what was Le Grande planning? A share of the reward is all I can think of. The story about Packer identifying Stride after being shown the wrong corpse first, would have been very helpful to Packer's reliability, but as Le Grande was in control, the matter becomes irrelevant, because we know Le Grande was a fraudster.

Packer's later alleged sighting again of his suspect, and then the story of later visitors to his shop believing that the killer was a relative of theirs does suggest that whether or not it had been the reward he was seeking, he rather enjoyed the personal publicity, and wanted a bit more, as you hinted. We cannot know.

I don't think that any of us are going to change our minds, and I have been repeating the same stuff far too often. Every reader knows what I think about Packer and Le Grande. I must let other people say what they think. I'm done with it unless someone finds some new evidence!

And drop mic!!!! Packer is the paper every other week with a new story. He got his 15 minutes of fame and then some as here we are 137 years later still talking about him.

[GBinOz]

But how could he forget, George? If he had been busy, I would understand it. But Packer was quite clear in his earlier statement that there was little business because of the rain, but he served grapes to a man and a woman just before he closed his shop, and therefore just a few minutest before a man killed a woman only a few yards away from his shop. He watched them as they hung around for half an hour or more in the rain. He told the others in his house that the couple were fools. But the next morning neither Packer nor a single one of the residents of the shop had seen anyone standing about! That is quite ridiculous! How could the entire household forget the obvious link between a man and a woman hanging around the street for half an hour in the rain, and then a woman being murdered so close to the shop just minutes after he had been watching the two of them and had been talking about them? They had to be the only likely parties involved. Not realising this, or forgetting it a few hours later, is beyond belief!

I don't think that any of us are going to change our minds, and I have been repeating the same stuff far too often. Every reader knows what I think about Packer and Le Grande. I must let other people say what they think. I'm done with it unless someone finds some new evidence!

Hi Doc,

It was not a matter of how could he forget. He didn't know that there was something to be observed, and rather than "watching" them it would have been something that he casually noticed. You may recall that Eagle testified that there were probably people in the street when he returned but he didn't remember. Of course there were other couples reported in the street that night, so they were not the only likely parties present. It was not as though the household gathered around to note the unusual occurrence of a customer at their window. To them it was just a part of the eternal boredom that constituted their lives.

That said, I appreciate that you have a different point of view and respect our differences.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I began my working life in a retail shop. I can certainly agree that the monotony of serving customer after customer is well- monotonous. Forgettable. However I cant say I ever served anyone near where a murder is then committed. Forgettable then it would not be.

Packer and the rest of the family were asked explicitly- did they see anyone standing about OR anyone suspicious. They all agreed they had seen neither. Then enter Le Grande, a convicted fraudster and trickster and well things take an interesting turn. I wonder why.

Hi Sunny,

Serving someone near where a murder is then committed would indeed not be forgettable...if you had foreknowledge of what was about to happen. Packer was asked if he saw anyone standing about OR anyone suspicious. What he was being asked was did he see anyone lurking about in a suspicious manner. One couple among many in the street that night could not have aroused his suspicions. He was not seeing anything unusual, anything that he hadn't seen on countless previous occasions.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Not sure how you can claim to know that she was strangled; let alone in what position she was in at the time.

You think he asked her to quietly lay down?

Diemschitz: The gutter of the yard is paved with large stones, and the centre with smaller irregular stones.

A fist full of stones?

He means irregular shaped paving stones, not pebbles.
There is a photo of the cobbles and the flat paving stones, it is on the cover of The Jack the Ripper Location Photographs, by Phil Hutchinson. You can see the entry is tightly set rectangular cobblestones with irregular flat paving slabs acting as a rain channel.

[Wickerman]

. . . Having worked in a retail outlet I can say that there are seldom "events"....it is mostly boring customers that are served and forgotten. Nothing distinguishes one from another until there is a murder and grapes are mentioned in the news media.

Hi George.
My first three years out of school was as a butchers apprentice, but in the afternoons I served behind the counter. So I know what you mean by customers becoming indistinguishable.
Packer said he closed his shop at 12:30 am.

Packer was questioned by Sgt. White on Sunday morning, before anyone had contacted him. And, he was first asked if he saw a man OR woman go into the yard.
Packer was then asked if he saw anyone standing around, well its clear from the first question that Sgt. White was meaning "man OR woman" standing around.

A single person standing around might be deemed suspicious - some posters assert Hutchinson was acting suspicious because he was standing around in Dorset St.
Couples are normally not deemed suspicious, in fact quite the opposite, couples are viewed as innocent, and become just part of the background.
So Packer was correct in what he said, there were no single men or women entering the yard, or standing around. And, even if he saw any couples standing around, couples are not regarded as suspicious.

At 12:30 he shut up his shop, this was before everything began to happen, so of course he saw nothing of consequence.

It is the intervention of Grand & Batchelor where things began to change, and we just do not know sufficient details of how they come to approached Packer in the first place.

Recently it has been suggested we should accept Sugden's opinion about Packer, but if I recall, Tom W. has unearthed a great deal concerning the reputation of Grand & Batchelor, their dishonesty and tendency for manipulation.
If this research is sound, then Packer was manipulated - so why are posters still dismissing him, he is a victim of manipulation.
Yet, Sugden described Grand & Batchelor as "well intended" private detectives, only trying to help.
Thereby, erroneously selecting Packer as the villain.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Recently it has been suggested we should accept Sugden's opinion about Packer, but if I recall, Tom W. has unearthed a great deal concerning the reputation of Grand & Batchelor, their dishonesty and tendency for manipulation.
If this research is sound, then Packer was manipulated - so why are posters still dismissing him, he is a victim of manipulation.
Yet, Sugden described Grand & Batchelor as "well intended" private detectives, only trying to help.
Thereby, erroneously selecting Packer as the villain.

Hi Jon,

You make some very valid points here. Sugden did list Packer's alleged dubious statements and then suggested that Le Grand seemed to be well-intentioned by taking Packer to Scotland Yard, and thus seemed to be unaware of, or ignoring Le Grand's known reputation as a fraudster. We don't know how Packer and Le Grand got together, but it surely must have been Le Grand who approached Packer.

Le Grand's shepherding of Packer thereafter does demonstate some sort of control, and therefore the strong probability of some manipulation. For example, it was immediately after the short cab drive to Scotland Yard with Le Grand that Packer's timescale totally changed from the one he had previously adhered to, and I have always assumed that this was down to Le Grand. I don't know why the change was made however, because the new timescale was impossible!

So, yes, I believe that Packer was manipulated by Le Grand. However, that doesn't make Packer reliable, and if anything this alone suggests we need to be careful about accepting his story.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You think he asked her to quietly lay down?

I think if there were evidence for strangulation, one of the doctors would have mentioned it.

Coroner: Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out?
Blackwell: I could not say that.

So, not necessarily tight enough to prevent her from calling out, let alone prevent breathing. I presume you suppose she was strangled 'through' the scarf, and the tightness of the scarf was unrelated to her death.

I agree this was a quiet murder. Nothing to do with Schwartz's first man. Where that leaves timelines (or 'sequence lines') is one of the big unanswered questions of this thread.

He means irregular shaped paving stones, not pebbles.

That's why I referred to stones, not pebbles.

There is a photo of the cobbles and the flat paving stones, it is on the cover of The Jack the Ripper Location Photographs, by Phil Hutchinson. You can see the entry is tightly set rectangular cobblestones with irregular flat paving slabs acting as a rain channel.

We have to account for Diemschitz' grapes in hand delusion, somehow. I've suggested she grasped loose material on the ground. If that notion is rejected, then it seems to me that the best answer is that she did indeed hold grapes, in death. Others can pick up the story from there ...

[Wickerman]

. . .

So, yes, I believe that Packer was manipulated by Le Grand. However, that doesn't make Packer reliable, and if anything this alone suggests we need to be careful about accepting his story.

Yes Doc. thanks.
Though I've never claimed he is reliable, the only point that we should trust is what he told Sgt. White on Sunday morning, that he closed up at 12:30 am. This before Grand & Batchelor got involved.
The rest, as laid out in the Evening News we have to take on faith.

Ever since Tom wrote his expose on Grand & Batchelor, I've wondered what their plan was. I don't see it being the reward, for reasons already given, it had to be something else.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It is clear that the police accepted Packer's initial story, that he and his household saw nothing, and rejected his later story, for whatever reason.

If Packer's revised story is correct, of course, with the first timescale, then he saw Stride who had been in company with the same man for over thirty minutes, a few yards from the murder scene and a few minutes before the murder. It would have been odds on therefore that he saw JtR, and close up too. However, the police say either nobody ever saw the Ripper, or the only person who saw him was a Jew who refused to identify him because he too was a Jew. So clearly the police totally rejected Packer's revised story, and we have to wonder whether they had some additional information.

[Wickerman]

It is clear that the police accepted Packer's initial story, that he and his household saw nothing, and rejected his later story, for whatever reason.

If Packer's revised story is correct, of course, with the first timescale, then he saw Stride who had been in company with the same man for over thirty minutes, a few yards from the murder scene and a few minutes before the murder. It would have been odds on therefore that he saw JtR, and close up too. However, the police say either nobody ever saw the Ripper, or the only person who saw him was a Jew who refused to identify him because he too was a Jew. So clearly the police totally rejected Packer's revised story, and we have to wonder whether they had some additional information.

To be honest Doc, I doubt there ever was an official police opinion. The 'no-one ever saw the Ripper' is just the opinion of one official, and the rest of that quote refers to 'except the PC in Mitre Sq.', which is more likely an erroneous reference to the PC in Berner St. (PC Smith), because that official did confuse details of the Mitre Sq. murder with Berner Street.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the memo by Insp. Moore is not at all clear, and unfortunately I don't have a copy of the original, this is the modern typed version below.

Metropolitan Police.
CID Scotland Yard.
4^th October 1888.

Referring to attached Extract from 2^nd Edition “Evening News”, of this date.

I beg to report that as soon as above came under my notice I at once (in the absence of Inspr. Abberline at C.O.) directed P.S. White, “H”, to see Mr. Packer, the shopkeeper referred to, and take him to the mortuary with a view to the identification of the woman Elizabeth Stride; who it is stated was with a man who purchased grapes at his shop on night of 29^th Ins.
The P.S. returned at noon and acquainted me as in report attached; in consequence of which Telegram No. 1 was forwarded to Chief Inspr Swanson and the P.S. Sent to C.O. to fully explain the facts.

Telegram No. 2. was received at 12.55pm from Assistant Commissioner re same subject; in reply to which Telegram No. 3 was forwarded.

Henry Moore, Inspector.

What is unclear about this is the date of the memo is 4th Oct., but reference is then made to the 2nd edition of the Evening News, of the same date.

The Evening News is, as stated, an evening publication. In general evening publications hit the presses between 3:00-5:00 pm. A 2nd edition would follow about 5:00-6:00 pm, I don't have specific times for the Evening news but if Insp. Moore read, or was given the article then it must have been in the evening of the 4th.
So, if he directed Sgt. White to go see Packer that must have been the same evening.
But, the second paragraph tells us that the P.S. (Sgt. White) returned at noon, but it is already evening when Moore first became aware of the story.

Then, on Sg.t White's report he says "on the 4th" he was directed to go find Packer, and that about 4:00 pm he found Packer at his shop (house), so how could he have returned "at noon"?
And yet, it seems inconceivable that Moore would let this wait until the morning of the 5th, in such a high profile case.

All these activities cannot have happened on the same day, if they are both reacting to the Evening News story of the 4th Oct.

I have to wonder if Scotland Yard had not received a story about Packer before the 4th, perhaps on the 3rd. Insp. Moore only realized Abberline had not taken up the investigation due to him being 'absent', so the police were late in responding. The task was assigned to Sgt. White on the morning of the 4th.
So, why do both memos (1st by Moore, 2nd by White) refer to the Evening News dated 4th Oct.?
Which is why I would like to see the original, if those lines of reference appear to have been added later in a different hand as a means of explaining what these memos are with reference to.

If this is the case, then what was the original source that brought Packer's story to the attention of police?