Those coins and those grapes!

[packers stem]

Exactly, the flesh of the grape will disappear in no time, and the body laid for about 38 hours before the autopsy was conducted.

We have a handful of witnesses seeing the grapes, a grape stalk, fruit stains, and Packers claim.
Conversely, we have no grapes found in the yard, no sign of grapes; no pips, no skins, in the stomach.
So was there or wasn't there any grapes?
Does it really matter?
It doesn't impact the case in any significant way regardless which you choose to believe.

The most important contribution by Packer, for me, is his claim to see Stride with a man directly opposite the yard at 12:30, just like PC Smith.
Their statements confirm each other, so regardless of the fact Packers stated time's changed, one of his claims (12:00-12:30) finds corroboration in PC Smith, so the other time (11:00-11:30) attributed to Packer, can be dismissed.

Morning Wickerman
I agree about the grapes lack of importance
What is of concern though is the clear efforts to discredit Packer and distance his sighting in the timeline
It's obvious that packer himself would have absolutely nothing to gain from adjusting the time. So we can reasonably assume that someone else wanted the time adjustment

[John G]

The inconsistency with the timings allows us to question his veracity, as does the involvement of the criminal Le Grand, and Packer's subsequent claim to have sold grapes to the Ripper's cousin.

Collectively, this infers that he was an attention seeker, or someone hoping to make money from the press, or a share in a reward, I.e if the Ripper was caught

Unfortunately, the Whitechapel investigations attracted this type of "witness", just as the much later Yorkshire Ripper enquiry attracted Weirside Jack. Although, as an attention seeker, be was probably a little more convincing than Packer, I.e. because the police initially accepted the authenticity of his communications.

[packers stem]

The inconsistency with the timings allows us to question his veracity, as does the involvement of the criminal Le Grand, and Packer's subsequent claim to have sold grapes to the Ripper's cousin.

Collectively, this infers that he was an attention seeker, or someone hoping to make money from the press, or a share in a reward, I.e if the Ripper was caught

Unfortunately, the Whitechapel investigations attracted this type of "witness", just as the much later Yorkshire Ripper enquiry attracted Weirside Jack. Although, as an attention seeker, be was probably a little more convincing than Packer, I.e. because the police initially accepted the authenticity of his communications.

Morning John
Being an attention seeker doesn't explain his identification of Stride and confirmation that Eddowes was not who he saw.
Also doesn't tie in with the initial 'did you see anything' questioning by white before the grapes were known about.
I suspect if he was an attention seeker and was inclined to fabricate he would have said something then surely.
Being interviewed by the commissioner and assistant commissioner I find more than a little odd.Just can't imagine it happening today. Assistant commissioner personally writing the report!! the only inconsistency comes from their report

[Wickerman]

WICKERMAN. Were Elizabeth Strides clothes soaked? I dont know your worth in the Advertiser papers, but one ran a report stating Packer saw the couple standing in the rain for 30 minutes, and commented on the inanity to his wife. JBest says they ran off into the rain after roasting the clerkish man.

Dr Blackwell is credited as saying, "..The clothes were not wet with rain."

Which I have always found an odd turn of phrase.
Is the doctor suggesting they were wet with something else, or that the clothes were damp, but not WET with rain.
In other words she had been in the rain earlier but her clothes had soaked it up and were not wet to the touch?

One author suggests the doctor meant her clothes were dry, which I seriously doubt in my opinion.
If they were dry he would have said that, in actual fact I think he was saying they were not dry, but not very wet either.
It's just an odd turn of phrase that is passed over without further explanation.

[Wickerman]

It's obvious that packer himself would have absolutely nothing to gain from adjusting the time. So we can reasonably assume that someone else wanted the time adjustment

Hi Packers.
Which, I think, is an angle pursued by Tom Wescott, that the Private Detectives persuaded him to change his story.

Given the relationship between the people and the police it is not at all surprising to me that Packer's first response was that he saw nothing and heard nothing, now leave me alone copper, etc. etc.
I think Packer just didn't want the police nosying around asking their questions, he didn't want to be involved.

So when the police returned and insisted, then he told them the 12:00-12:30 timeline, which was the true version, in my opinion.
Where and why the story changed to 11:00-11:30 is hard to reconstruct, unless that was due to Grand & Bachelor?

I put the differences down in his description of the appearance of the man with Stride to his eyesight (when compared to PC Smith), he was 58 I believe, so quite possibly near-sighted.
Anyway, that timeline change scuttled his candidacy as a reliable witness, but I don't discount him totally.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Packers.
Which, I think, is an angle pursued by Tom Wescott, that the Private Detectives persuaded him to change his story.

Given the relationship between the people and the police it is not at all surprising to me that Packer's first response was that he saw nothing and heard nothing, now leave me alone copper, etc. etc.
I think Packer just didn't want the police nosying around asking their questions, he didn't want to be involved.

So when the police returned and insisted, then he told them the 12:00-12:30 timeline, which was the true version, in my opinion.
Where and why the story changed to 11:00-11:30 is hard to reconstruct, unless that was due to Grand & Bachelor?

I put the differences down in his description of the appearance of the man with Stride to his eyesight (when compared to PC Smith), he was 58 I believe, so quite possibly near-sighted.
Anyway, that timeline change scuttled his candidacy as a reliable witness, but I don't discount him totally.

Interesting theory. Could grand & bachelor be connected to BS & pipe man?

[Rosella]

Packer at first told White that he had seen nothing. Two days later he told Grand and Batchelor that he had sold grapes to a man and woman. Why the change of story and why were the two private detectives so eager to get information?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the £500 reward (among other new rewards) offered by the Corporation of London would it, publicised straight after Stride and Eddowes murders for information received leading to the killer's arrest and conviction?

Before the double event little reward for coming forward. After it, immediately after it in fact, a lot of money on offer.

[packers stem]

Packer at first told White that he had seen nothing. Two days later he told Grand and Batchelor that he had sold grapes to a man and woman. Why the change of story and why were the two private detectives so eager to get information?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the £500 reward (among other new rewards) offered by the Corporation of London would it, publicised straight after Stride and Eddowes murders for information received leading to the killer's arrest and conviction?

Before the double event little reward for coming forward. After it, immediately after it in fact, a lot of money on offer.

Morning Rosella
PC White initially interviewed Packer and his wife before there was any knowledge of grapes. Obviously at that point Packer had not seen anything out of the ordinary as sale of fruit for a fruiterer is not suspicious.
It's only after discovery of a stalk that he is reinterviewed

[Rosella]

And the White flower that he said he saw in Stride's hand ?

And changed his story to reporters a dozen times including giving an American accent to the male he sold the grapes to.

[packers stem]

And the White flower that he said he saw in Stride's hand ?

And changed his story to reporters a dozen times including giving an American accent to the male he sold the grapes to.

I suspect most could be put down to second hand press reports as we see time and again through the case

[Rosella]

I don't think Chief Inspector Swanson would write that 'he (Packer) had unfortunately made different statements so that...any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence' if the police regarded him as a reliable and honest witness.

What's more his increasingly embroidered accounts, and the great pains that Grand and Batchelor made to insert themselves into this case and remain relevant were AFTER the news of the City reward was made public.

[curious4]

I always think Packer has been hardly done by. He was asked at an early stage if he had seen anything suspicious. He hadn't. He had sold grapes to a couple but that wasn't suspicious. He sold fruit. That was what he did. When Le Grand and Batchelor came along and asked the right question, that is " did you see this couple?" he remembered the two he had sold grapes to. He was vague about times, not unusual, and when badgered by the police, became even more confused. We all know that Le Grand was a bad'n, but how about Batchelor? Was he also a criminal? He might have been completely on the level and just "setting a thief to catch a thief". In my book he should have been listened to, but police anger towards private detectives discredited him.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

I always think Packer has been hardly done by. He was asked at an early stage if he had seen anything suspicious. He hadn't. He had sold grapes to a couple but that wasn't suspicious. He sold fruit. That was what he did. When Le Grand and Batchelor came along and asked the right question, that is " did you see this couple?" he remembered the two he had sold grapes to. He was vague about times, not unusual, and when badgered by the police, became even more confused. We all know that Le Grand was a bad'n, but how about Batchelor? Was he also a criminal? He might have been completely on the level and just "setting a thief to catch a thief". In my book he should have been listened to, but police anger towards private detectives discredited him.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4
I agree. Not sure if that's a first for us

[curious4]

Hi C4
I agree. Not sure if that's a first for us

Could well be :-). But I think we did agree on something else. Can't remember what though. Nice to be on the same page for once!

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

I always think Packer has been hardly done by. He was asked at an early stage if he had seen anything suspicious. He hadn't. He had sold grapes to a couple but that wasn't suspicious. He sold fruit. That was what he did. When Le Grand and Batchelor came along and asked the right question, that is " did you see this couple?" he remembered the two he had sold grapes to. He was vague about times, not unusual, and when badgered by the police, became even more confused. We all know that Le Grand was a bad'n, but how about Batchelor? Was he also a criminal? He might have been completely on the level and just "setting a thief to catch a thief". In my book he should have been listened to, but police anger towards private detectives discredited him.

Best wishes
C4

Hi Gwyneth.
I remember Tom theorizing a dubious, somewhat devious role for Grand & Bachelor, I'm not sure about their motives though.

When we look at the existing reports & accounts concerning Packer, there is a degree of consistency, in the beginning.
Accepting his initial denial to have not seen anything or anyone on the 30th Sept., at least he told Sgt. White that he closed his shop at 12:30.

Then we read nothing until the Evening paper on the 4th Oct. where he described seeing a man & woman come to his window about 11:45. That they crossed the road and stood opposite for more than a half-hour.
They then cross back, to stand in front of the club, he estimates this was about 12:10-12:15 due to the public houses being closed.
(Closing time was 12:30 for public houses)

Initially Packer told White that he closed his shop at 12:30.
His suggestion of 12:10-12:15 therefore was either his error, or a press error.
Interestingly, later in the same article the interview with Packer is played out in dialogue, where it appears Packer was under the impression that the pubs closed at midnight.

"I couldn't say exactly, but it must have been past midnight a little bit, for the public houses was shut up."

Which may clarify where the 12:10-12:15 time came from, he was estimating 10-15 minutes past closing time. Which therefore in reality indicates 12:40-12:45, being 10-15 minutes after the correct closing time of 12:30.

Up to this point there is no real concern about Packers statement, until we read the official summary, often attributed to Warren but in actual fact signed by A.C.B.
(Alexander Carmichael-Bruce, Assistant Commissioner)

This is where the times are all changed, but interestingly, those changes did not come from the Evening News press account, so they must have come from Packer himself, which suggests Packer was brought in to be interviewed sometime on the 4th.

This about face of Packer on being interviewed may be the cause of the Star article of the same date, the 4th, where they report the police "emphatically deny the truth of the story", and that the "alleged informer contradicts himself".

Packer's story, up until the writing of the summary by A.C.B. was consistent with evidence given by P.C. Smith in placing Stride with a man opposite the yard about 12:30.

The cause of the changed times on the summary by A.C.B. is the real mystery.