Those coins and those grapes!

[spyglass]

Hi all,
I'm guessing by now that a few on here have now read or are reading " We All Love Jack - Busting the Ripper ". by Bruce Robinson.
I am intrested in people's views on the return to the ripper story of the coins with Chapman and the grapes with Stride.
He argues, quite convincingly in my view that they are part of the Ripper narrative, yet for some reason, later day historians want to discard them as myth.

Regards.

[Wickerman]

Well, Inspector Reid does refer to the farthings found in the Chapman case, and that grape stalk in Dutfields Yard must have carried grapes at some point.

Two points to consider, whether or not Packer sold grapes to the killer changes nothing in the Stride case. And, the autopsy conducted on Stride took place some 30+ hours after the murder. Any grape 'flesh', or whatever you prefer to call it, would long since have disappeared due to digestive acids in the stomach.
Assuming she spat out the pips & skins, which I think is quite normal.

That said, I have not read the book so I'm not sure in what context the author uses those details.

[packers stem]

Hi all,
I'm guessing by now that a few on here have now read or are reading " We All Love Jack - Busting the Ripper ". by Bruce Robinson.
I am intrested in people's views on the return to the ripper story of the coins with Chapman and the grapes with Stride.
He argues, quite convincingly in my view that they are part of the Ripper narrative, yet for some reason, later day historians want to discard them as myth.

Regards.

Hi spyglass
The coins were almost certainly there. Probably info that was kept back at the time.Inspector Reid mentioned it at the mckenzie inquest.Although Reid was on leave at the time of Chapmans murder, he would almost certainly have read the reports on his return.No reason to doubt his inquest testimony I don't think. The brass rings were missing...
As for the grapes, this is where Packer comes in and the desperate attempt in my view to discredit his testimony
....without packer there are no grapes other than the woman who spotted the stalk in the yard

[spyglass]

Hi Wickerman,

Robinson is adamant that the grapes did exist ( five on site witnesses ) thus furthering his argument that Packer was a relyable witness that should have been called as a witness.
( something being discussed on another thread I know )

As for the coins, he argues as strongly for them being at the feet of Chapman, but lays into author Phillip Sugdon for dismissing them in his book, a huge error on his part that seems now to be excepted as fact.

Regards

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Robinson is adamant that the grapes did exist ( five on site witnesses ) thus furthering his argument that Packer was a relyable witness that should have been called as a witness.

Hi Spyglass.
Ah thanks, but the issue of the grapes had no bearing on Packer being labelled "unreliable", that was due to him changing his story, and presumably the times also.
The grapes are one of those sideline issues that have no bearing on the case.
Packer either saw his 'couple' between 11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30, that's the issue.
Being branded as "unreliable" is only from a legal perspective. He can't be used in a court of law, not successfully anyway. But that doesn't mean one of those time-windows was not correct.
In fact a time of 12:00-12:30 finds some corroboration in the testimony of PC Smith, who also saw a couple standing opposite Dutfields Yard at 12:30.
If we make some allowances in both suspect descriptions given by Packer & Smith, they might be talking about Stride standing in the same place, at the same time, with the same person

[Ginger]

I think Packer probably did sell grapes to Stride and a companion, who may or may not have been the Ripper. The man changed his story so many times, though, and was such an obvious attention-seeker, that his evidence is worth little to nothing.

[Rosella]

Why would the fact that farthings were supposedly found near the body be not mentioned at Annie's inquest at all but only at Alice McKenzie's a year later? Inspector Reid's mention of these farthings is dismissed by Sugden, who points out that he was on leave during the Chapman inquiry. Jack robbed all the victims of anything remotely valuable, probably any pennies they had on them, Annie's brass rings, why leave farthings there?

[packers stem]

Why would the fact that farthings were supposedly found near the body be not mentioned at Annie's inquest at all but only at Alice McKenzie's a year later? Inspector Reid's mention of these farthings is dismissed by Sugden, who points out that he was on leave during the Chapman inquiry. Jack robbed all the victims of anything remotely valuable, probably any pennies they had on them, Annie's brass rings, why leave farthings there?

He was on leave but he must have read all the reports on his return.Have to say chances are Sugden was wrong about this.

[Rosella]

Inspector Chandler saw the body in the back yard within hours on the day of the murder. He wrote a confidential report to his superiors that same day. No mention of coins. He and Dr Phillips gave very detailed depositions at Annie's inquest. Neither mentions coins of any description, though they do give the pathetic contents of Annie's pockets laid out on the ground, (muslin and bits of two combs.) Abberline does not mention coins in his report, only rings. Reid was wrong.

[John G]

Packer is probably the most unreliable witness in the whole investigation. Thus, he initially told Sergeant White that he saw nothing. However, when interviewed by two dubious private investigators, Grand and Batchelor (Grand had a lengthy criminal record), he changed his evidence, and claimed to have sold grapes to Stride and a suspect.

He then continued to vary his account. Thus, he informed the private detectives that he sold the grapes at 11:45. But he then told Inspector Moore that he sold them at midnight. And when he was spoken to by Sergeant White again, whilst on the way to the mortuary to view the body, he said it was 11:00! Finally, he was interviewed by Charles Warren, and he told him that he sold grapes to the man at 11:00.

Packer continued to give information to the press. At the end of October he claimed to have seen the suspect again. Finally, in November, he stated that he'd served the Ripper's cousin with grapes!

As a consequence of his varying testimony, and the poor reputation of Grand, Chief Inspector Swanson reported that, "any statement he [Packer] made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."

[packers stem]

Packer is probably the most unreliable witness in the whole investigation. Thus, he initially told Sergeant White that he saw nothing. However, when interviewed by two dubious private investigators, Grand and Batchelor (Grand had a lengthy criminal record), he changed his evidence, and claimed to have sold grapes to Stride and a suspect.

He then continued to vary his account. Thus, he informed the private detectives that he sold the grapes at 11:45. But he then told Inspector Moore that he sold them at midnight. And when he was spoken to by Sergeant White again, whilst on the way to the mortuary to view the body, he said it was 11:00! Finally, he was interviewed by Charles Warren, and he told him that he sold grapes to the man at 11:00.

Packer continued to give information to the press. At the end of October he claimed to have seen the suspect again. Finally, in November, he stated that he'd served the Ripper's cousin with grapes!

As a consequence of his varying testimony, and the poor reputation of Grand, Chief Inspector Swanson reported that, "any statement he [Packer] made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."

Hi John
Why white's initial report is still referred to is a mystery.
It should be forgotten about.When he first interviewed Packer it would have been 'did you see anything suspicious?' such as an attack.Clearly Packer had not,nor his wife and they were both being truthful.
No one knew anything about a grape stalk at this time...therefore someone buying fruit from a fruiterer is hardly suspicious. It was only after questioning later by the detectives about the grapes that he realised that he may have seen something important.
He was asked to identify Eddowes and he was adamant he had never seen her.When they showed him stride he confirmed the sighting.
Inconsistency only arrives on the scene when our favourite 'wall washer' gets hold of him.
Why would Packer want to change the time by an hour....did he have anything to gain personally from it?

[Debra A]

As supporting evidence that Packer sold grapes to Stride and a companion Robinson tells us the fact that Grande was a criminal shouldn't stop us accepting that he did find a grape-stalk in the drain at Dutfield's Yard. Robinson also claims that Grande was working for Anderson (if i have understood correctly in my first read through) and that Grande disappears from the 'investigations' and reporting into the murders after the grape-stalk incident.

One thing Robinson missed though is the fact that Grande didn't disappear from the story at all; there was another news story about him on 10th October 1888 where he is reported as taking charge of investigations after finding a clue in the form of a bloody shirt left with a 'Mrs Kali' in Batty St on 9th Oct.
The story of a lodger and bloody shirt would break fully around the 15th Oct, without mention of Grande. Grande's version was the earliest ever reported story of the bloody shirt left at Batty St.

So, was he either an exceptional detective or someone who lied and inserted himself into investigations by finding 'clues'?

[richardh]

Why were the 'skins' of the grapes not eaten? Pips are spat but I'v never know anyone not eat the skin of a grape. It would take ages to peel a grape!

[kookingpot]

Why were the 'skins' of the grapes not eaten? Pips are spat but I'v never know anyone not eat the skin of a grape. It would take ages to peel a grape!

Maybe because someone really wanted to emulate living as a Pharaoh in Egypt or something? You know, peeled grapes hand fed by a dusky, scantily clothed maiden?

[John G]

As supporting evidence that Packer sold grapes to Stride and a companion Robinson tells us the fact that Grande was a criminal shouldn't stop us accepting that he did find a grape-stalk in the drain at Dutfield's Yard. Robinson also claims that Grande was working for Anderson (if i have understood correctly in my first read through) and that Grande disappears from the 'investigations' and reporting into the murders after the grape-stalk incident.

One thing Robinson missed though is the fact that Grande didn't disappear from the story at all; there was another news story about him on 10th October 1888 where he is reported as taking charge of investigations after finding a clue in the form of a bloody shirt left with a 'Mrs Kali' in Batty St on 9th Oct.
The story of a lodger and bloody shirt would break fully around the 15th Oct, without mention of Grande. Grande's version was the earliest ever reported story of the bloody shirt left at Batty St.

So, was he either an exceptional detective or someone who lied and inserted himself into investigations by finding 'clues'?

Another excellent find, Debra. Maybe Bruce should have employed you as a researcher rather than Keith Skinner!