Jack and the Grapestalk

[protohistorian]

O.K. Tom, far be it from me to conflict with democracy in the pursuit of accuracy. Perhaps we should call them automobiles. Dave

[Fisherman]

Itīs not just about what we call them - the doctors at the time spoke of clots, and there are other examples too from that time using the word clot about - for example - stains on cloth. Maybe the British language has changed somewhat over time in this case, as a Swede I cannot tell.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Sorry, proto, we prefer four letter words.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Apart from a cover-up by police and doctors at the scene, I can't really understand any other theory that involves Packer telling the truth about selling grapes to Liz if the doctors state plainly no grapes were found in her hand and she hadn't eaten any.
I think the only reason Le Grand (a criminal, conman and liar) sought out Packer to interview was because of the rumours that grapes were seen at the crime scene, what other reason would there be? Why would the first place he go to be #44 Berner Street?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Debs. Sssshhhh. Our facts stand in the way of a perfectly good police cover-up conspiracy theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Hi Debs. Sssshhhh. Our facts stand in the way of a perfectly good police cover-up conspiracy theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Which keeps jumping between two different threads!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs,

Haha! A bit of fun..

I think it is about time I made this crystal clear so that any future assumptions, on my personal thoughts at least, are not confused with others who may have different thoughts.
So here are some definitions..

1. Conspiracy:-

A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
A group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal
purpose

2. Cover up :-

An effort or strategy of concealment, especially a planned effort to
prevent something potentially scandalous from becoming public.

3 Smokescreen:-

An action intended to conceal or confuse or obscure
concealing, hiding, concealment - the activity of keeping something secret.
An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions.

(various dictionaries)


Regarding definition No.1, it revolves around the word "illegal". It is not yet provable that the police did anything illegal, however, I refer to Sir Robert Anderson, who himself said that if warrented, it was done.

Regarding definition No.2, a potential scandal covered-up by the police has never been mentioned re the WM. I have said however, that cover-ups happen, and have previouslt cited them. As far as we know things today, a prevention of something potentially scandalous from becoming public has not taken place.

Regarding definition No.3, I have said, and I do believe that some of the actions that were taken by the Metropolitan Police at the time of the WM were to conceal, confuse and obscure (Special Branch amd especially Anderson were very good at it). Yes, Special Branch have kept things secret, as has been proven already from the little we know of the ledgers (William Magrath), and I hope and believe that more will be revealed in time. Actions and statements concealing plans and intentions were all part of the Special Branch undercover work.

It doesn't need to be said but I will, for the benefit of newer readers, that the Special Branch in Whitechapel were involved in 3 ongoing things in the same small area, Anti-Anarchism, Anti-Fenianism and The Whitechapel Murder Case. Many police officers were involved in all three.

Therefore, a smokescreen is a very reasonable and logical, even factual observation of the events of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, who by their very definition and formation were doing exactly that. Undercover, secret policework.

So if anyone wishes to continue using the comment "conspiracy theory", it doesn't apply to this person, nor, at present, my thoughts. Smokescreen most certainly does.

Now back to the thread... My apologies for the interuption.


best wishes, as always

Phil

[harry]

In the statement to Sir Charles Warren,Packer is alledged to have sold the grapes at 11.00PM,and to have put up the shutters at 11.30.Shutters to the window through which he sold produce presumably.It is also stated that Packer claimed to have ceased business at 12.30.The expression'Putting up the shutters',to me has always meant ceasing business for the day,so can someone explain the one hour difference.

Perhaps it wasn't grapes but'Tiger nuts"Just an old army joke.

[caz]

Hi Harry,

Well obviously we have a small problem with the timing here.

Now if we could only get Packer selling his last bunch of grapes and putting up his shutters on the Friday night and going off to Blackpool for the weekend, we'd know he couldn't have seen a living soul on Berner Street at any time on Saturday night/Sunday morning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Debra A]

Hi Phil,
All I'm really asking is what happened to those grapes supposedly seen by three witnesses as Simon mentioned in his post.
So far Trevor Marriott (by pm) is the only person to have come up with an idea where they went.

Am I really the only person who thinks that Le Grand went straight to Packer because of the rumours that grapes were found in Liz's hand? Then Packer suddenly remembers he did sell grapes to Liz.

Le Grand's involvement in the Berner street investigation was enough for someone to even suspect him of being the Whitechapel murderer by 1891.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Debs,

I do see and admit that somewhere something isn't quite right about this. The grapes business is a conundrum for sure Debs, but what concerns me more are the suggested alterations of the timings on the policeman's report in the margin.

The question, is why? If it was ACB, what's the reason, and where did the change in the timing come from originally?

As far as Le Grand is concerned (and i admit to being really picky here), if someone suspected this man as being the WM in 1891, then surely there would be more evidence as to his whereabouts at the time of all 5 murders.. there isn't any evidential connection in Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Mitre Square nor Dorset Street. The Berner Street one is possible.

I think that the research you have both done thus far has been excellent, by the way!

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

Hi Phil,
As far as Le Grand goes, what I mean is that whatever he was up to, his involvement seemed dodgy enough for someone rightly or wrongly, to suspect him of being the Whitechapel murderer in 1891.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs,

Well, I have to say that here I am reminded of MacNaghten and his comment from 1894...

" ..many homocidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." (my italics)

With Le Grande, the terminology "homocidal maniac" is questionable, and even given that, there is indeed no shadow of proof in his case. Suggestion, perhaps.

Rightly or wrongly, as you say, he was suspected in 1891. Then again so were others, some named, some unnamed, non?

best wishes

Phil

[caz]

Am I really the only person who thinks that Le Grand went straight to Packer because of the rumours that grapes were found in Liz's hand? Then Packer suddenly remembers he did sell grapes to Liz.

No Debs, you are not. I suspect that was exactly why Le Grand decided that Packer was worth squeezing. He imagined there might be something juicy there to get his teeth stuck into.

As it happened that was never going to be the case because the police had got to Packer first and got nothing of any value out of him. Whether or not the right questions were asked is beside the point, since the old man went off the scale after seeing the two bodies and there was no going back to ascertain if he could after all have seen Liz with her killer, even with no grapes changing hands and nothing remotely suspicious to report to PC White.

What I can't reconcile with Le Grand's undoubted nose for a fruitful outcome, is the idea that he was the murderer himself, stalking Packer - an unknown quantity - and attempting to use his grapes to confuse the scent.

How - and why - was he expecting Packer to achieve this, with a pack of lies that the police were pre-programmed never to swallow?

Love,

Caz
X

[Debra A]

What I can't reconcile with Le Grand's undoubted nose for a fruitful outcome, is the idea that he was the murderer himself, stalking Packer - an unknown quantity - and attempting to use his grapes to confuse the scent.

How - and why - was he expecting Packer to achieve this, with a pack of lies that the police were pre-programmed never to swallow?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Although Tom won't like me saying this (sorry Tom) I think we also have to look at other reasons that Le Grand may have targeted Packer.

I do find it hard to write off le Grand's involvement in the Berner Street investigations as just some sort of publicity seeking stunt, particularly as he was a wanted ticket of leave man in 1888 after failing to report for his 7 year police supervision after his release from prison in 1884. With extra police draughted in from several different divisions there was a chance that someone was going to recognise Le Grand as 'Christian Nelson' so he was taking a bit of a risk if he was doing it just to court publicity, and indeed he didn't receive very much publicity either.

Maybe the kick for him was flaunting himself under the noses of the local bobbies, meddling in their investigations and making them look like a bunch of fools for not even noticing a wanted criminal was right under their noses, but personally I think there may have been more to it. At present I'm not sure what, and until more information comes to light I don't think we can dismiss Le Grand outright as having no involvement in the events at Berner Street.
His involvement was supicious enough to have aroused someone's suspicion that he was the murderer himself.