Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Packer Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Packer Again

    My apologies for the lengthy post and for taking up most of it to tell you what you already know but a thought that I’d refresh a few memories (including my own) I once promised myself to give the Packer story again wide berth because it’s so frustrating but here I am again. Was Packer simply a fantasist? Did he begin honestly and then get carried away? Was he under the malign influence of Grand and Batchelor? Who knows?

    A recap of the Packer story (cribbed largely from Sugden)

    Matthew Packer sold fruit and veg from his shop at number 44 and also from a barrow which he’d take to wherever he felt that he could sell his goods. He and his wife were described as elderly, respectable, hard-working people. He was also described as quiet and intelligent. Sergeant White was one of two officers tasked by Abberline to question the locals. White’s notebook has long gone so all that we have is his report from October 4th:

    “About 9 a.m. [30 September] I called at 44 Berner Street, and saw Matthew Packer, fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied ‘Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open’. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield’s Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied ‘No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise. And knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.

    I also saw Mrs. Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter.”


    However, on October 2nd he told private detectives Grand and Batchelor (hired by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee) that at about 11.45 on the night of the murder he’d sold half a pound of black grapes to a man who was with a woman (I won’t bother with descriptions). Following this the two detectives spoke to two sisters called Harstein and Rosenfield who lived at number 14 and they told him that on the morning after the murder they’d seen a bloodied grape stalk in Dutfield’s Yard. Suspecting that the police would have washed this away the two detectives sprung into action and searched the sink where, amongst the rubbish, they found a grape stalk.

    When the Evening News heard about this they went and spoke to Packer on the 3rd who related the story about selling the grapes at some point between 11.30 and 12.00. For a minute or two the couple stood near the gateway before moving across the road where they stood for more than 30 minutes. He recalled mentioning to his wife about them standing out their eating grapes in the rain when they could have found shelter. The couple were still there after the Packer’s had gone to bed but he couldn’t state the time but it was after the pubs were ‘shut up.’ Packer then shocked the reporter by telling him, in response to being asked, that no police officer had been to speak to him. He added that a plain clothes officer had been to speak to him the day after the murder and had asked to see his backyard.

    When the story came out on the 4th Inspect Moore sent Sergeant White out to talk to Packer again and take him to see the corpse at the mortuary. When White arrived at Packer’s house his wife told him that two detectives had already taken him to the mortuary. When White was part way to the mortuary he met Packer returning with one of the detectives. Packer told White that he’d identified the woman as Stride and that he’d sold her grapes at around 12.00. The second detective then joined them. White asked them for ID and was shown a card but they would let White touch it. They then persuaded Packer to go with them.

    Later that same day whilst White was with Packer at his shop the two detectives returned and said that they were taking him (Packer) to see Sir Charles Warren. Although this sounds unlikely these two private detectives did take him to Scotland Yard because we have his statement, dated October 4th, written by Alexander Carmichael Bruce, the Assistant Commissioner (in his own hand):

    On Sat. night [29 September] about 11 p.m., a young man from 25–30, about 5 [feet] 7 [inches], with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him ½ pound black grapes, 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street). She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket, a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside. I identify the woman at the St. George’s Mortuary as the one I saw that night. They passed by as though they were going up [to] Commercial Road, but instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about ½ an hour till I should say 11.30, talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music. I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters. I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves. He was about 1½ inches or 2 or 3 inches – a little bit higher than she was.

    On October 6th The Daily Telegraph produced a new account written by J. Hall Richardson. This was more detailed than previous reports but it also added a drawing, approved by Packer from a batch of drawings as the one most like the man that he’d sold the grapes too. By this time the police had their doubts about Packer and, fearing that the sketches might mislead, issued a disclaimer in the Police Gazette. At the same time they mentioned the descriptions by Smith, Schwartz and Lawende (without mentioning those witnesses names)

    Although there are some discrepancies in all of the descriptions given the witnesses seeing a man with a woman taken to have been Stride Packer’s descriptions don’t stand out as impossible if we assume that the Parcelman wasn’t the same man as BSMan and the man seen by Marshall in Berner Street.


    One possible problem though are the various times given by Packer as to what time he saw the couple:

    He sold the grapes at 11.45 according to Grand and Batchelor

    Between 11.30 and 12.00 by the Evening News

    About 12.00 from Sergeant White

    About 11.30 by Richardson in the Telegraph

    About 11.00 by Bruce


    Packer then said that the couple were still there when he closed up and went to bed:

    12.30 according to White

    12.10 to 12.15 according to Grand and Batchelor

    A little past midnight to the Evening News (estimated by the pubs being closed)


    Sugden then questions the age of the man as given by Packer:

    Grand and Batchelor - middle aged, perhaps 35

    Evening News - 30-35

    To the police - a young man 25 to 30

    Richardson/Telegraph - not more than 30


    Sugden quotes the following, from the Evening News, to illustrate Packer being willing to adapt his story:

    Did you observe anything peculiar about his voice or manner, as he spoke to you?’ ‘He spoke like an educated man, but he had a loud, sharp sort of voice, and a quick commanding way with him.’ ‘But did he speak like an Englishman or more in this style?’ I asked, imitating as well as I could the Yankee twang. ‘Yes, now that you mention it, there was a sound of that sort about it,’ was the instantaneous reply.”


    Sugden also quotes two other instances which he sees as Packer incorporating details from the newspaper which turned out to have been untrue.

    First, Packer said that the flower that was worn by Stride was red and white. This was what Spooner said at the inquest whereas two days later PC. Smith said that it was just red. Reid, who prepared an inventory of her possessions said that it was a red rose with a Maidenhair fir.

    Second, we have of course the question of the grapes. The October 1st edition of the Daily News all contain statements with Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer claiming that the victim was found with a packet of sweetmeats in one hand and a bunch of grapes in the other. The doctors were emphatic that no grapes were found and that Stride hadn’t swallowed the skin or seed of a grape within hours of her death. Diemschitz, in the DN, said that Stride’s hands were clenched and that when the Doctor opened them he saw that she had been holding sweetmeats in the one hand and grapes in the other. However, when asked at the inquest Diemschitz said that he hadn’t noticed the position of her hands.

    On October 27th Packer claimed to have seen the man again on the corner of Greenfield Street and Commercial Road where he gave Packer “a most vicious look” before leaping on a tram. He followed this with the tale of a man who came to his shop to buy rabbits and who told him that he suspected that his cousin was the murderer.

    Sugden’s conclusion is that Packer either lied in pursuit of his fifteen minutes of fame or that he had the scent of reward money.


    Tom Wescott sums up his section of Ripper Confidential called The Grapes Of Myth by saying:

    “In any case, I would submit, based on the foregoing, that: a) no grapes or grape stalks were found on Stride’s person; b) Diemshitz did not lie about seeing grapes but was merely mistaken; c) The blood on Stride’s hands was a result of transference during Edward Johnston’s examination, and c) the police in this instance at least should be absolved of any attempted cover-up.”


    So that’s the Packer story. Is it a pack of lies or might there be at least some truth there?


    In his Casebook dissertation ‘Matthew Packer - Final Thoughts’ Dave Yost looks to the weather reports to show that Packer was mistaken about what time he got back and what time he shut up shop for the night.

    The unofficial weather records for Whitechapel tell us there was approximately a quarter inch of rain for 29 September. The official weather records for the London area corroborate this amount, but more importantly they add, 'Sudden heavy R.[rain] at 9.5p.m.[sic] lasting till after midnight'. This is an hour and a half before Elizabeth and her man left Settles Street. Since Packer headed for home 'as the night came on wet', we can readily accept that he would have been home by no later than eleven o'clock.”

    (The underlining is mine)

    I have to say that I disagree with this because again we find ourselves prisoner to a turn of phrase. Did Packer head for home at almost the first sign of rain or did he give it time? We can surely understand someone in his position being somewhat reluctant to give up and go home when he might have been missing out on possible sales. Times were tough. England is known for its changeable weather so why wouldn’t Packer have been prepared to wait to see if the rain stopped? I don’t think that we know where he was working that day or how long it would have taken him to reach home so I don’t think that we should be too certain as to what time he actually arrived home.

    Despite the official weather report saying that there was some rain occurring until after midnight Dave Yost believes that because of the witnesses’s accounts, which mention no rain during this period, that there couldn’t have been rain in that vicinity at that time? But do they? Is he ignoring (unintentionally) the issue of showers. Stop/start showers familiar to any Brit.

    Dr. Blackwell said that Stride’s clothes weren’t wet with rain at 1.16 (if Stride had, at least in part, avoided the rain by finding shelter she may have only spent a short time, in a light shower which allowed her clothes to gave dried by 1.16)

    William Marshall said that while he was on his doorstep from 11.30-12.00 there was no rain. (But there could have been a shower after he’d gone indoors)

    James Brown said that it wasn’t raining at around 12.45 when he went to get and returned from getting his supper. (Maybe it stopped raining just before he went out?)

    PC. Smith said that it rained very little after 11.00. (But it did rain. Showers might have occurred until after 12.00)


    Packer supposedly told Sergeant White at 9am that:

    Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open.”

    This doesn’t necessarily mean that Packer meant that it was raining at 12.30 though. Sporadic showers, lessening perhaps as the night went on could have been seen by Packer as the reason for trade being quiet as he’d said. Seeing little prospect of improvement, and being so late, his decision to shut up shop can’t gave been surprising but again it wouldn’t actually have had to have been raining when he made the decision.

    Dave Yost makes the point that Packer didn’t see any of the members leave the club at around 11.30 but he suggests that he might have heard them and assumed that they were punters from a local pub going home at closing time which is why he was under the impression that he’d closed up at around 12.30) It’s a good suggestion which could be the case but it could also have been true that Packer arrived home after the club member had gone home.

    So, to sum up Dave Yost’s position, he believes that Packer was mistaken about when he closed up his shop because he believes that the evidence shows that there was no rain at that time of night. I don’t believe that the evidence proves this. Whatever our opinion of Packer’s evidence in general, I don’t think that we can say that he couldn’t have closed up his shop at around 12.30. It would certainly fit with PC. Smith’s sighting of Parcelman (possibly carry a package of grapes) standing across from the club talking to a woman (possibly/probably Stride)



    So the question remains. Was Packer lying from start to finish? Or was there at least some truth in his claims?

    Over the years I’ve tended to doubt Packer (and I still have major reservations) but it has to be at least a possibility that he did indeed sell grapes to a man who was with a woman (possibly Stride) Human beings can get carried away when they enter the spotlight from a position of obscurity. Suggestions made to them can become incorporated into an overall story whether knowingly or not. So many questions can be asked. I’ll post a few….


    Why would Packer have lied about White not questioning him? Could this be explained in terms of a mix up or not? White said that he’d also seen Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas during his call which appears to add weight to his claim.

    Did Packer invent the man buying grapes for his fifteen minutes of fame? Surely he couldn’t have anticipated receiving a reward, or part of one, on the strength of a fictional character who could never be arrested?

    How did Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer come by the story of the grapes as the evidence is so strong that they never existed?

    As the Doctor said that Strides hadn’t eaten the seed or skin of a grape might she have simply spat out the skin and seeds (people have far stranger eating habits)?

    Tom Wescott suggests that the blood on Stride’s right hand might have been mistaken for grapes but could there actually have been a grape stalk there and the three witnesses put two and two together?

    Why, after speaking to Packer for supposedly the second time, was there no mention from the police as to the reason for Packer saying that there was no 1st interview? Wouldn’t the police have wanted to stress that White had interviewed him when he claimed to have done?

    When Packer approved one of the drawings in the Telegraph why did the police only issue a disclaimer in the Police Gazette?



    I suspect that my initial post might end up being longer than the thread. This one really is a mystery imo.




    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

  • #2
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    My apologies for the lengthy post and for taking up most of it to tell you what you already know but a thought that I’d refresh a few memories (including my own) I once promised myself to give the Packer story again wide berth because it’s so frustrating but here I am again. Was Packer simply a fantasist? Did he begin honestly and then get carried away? Was he under the malign influence of Grand and Batchelor? Who knows?

    A recap of the Packer story (cribbed largely from Sugden)

    Matthew Packer sold fruit and veg from his shop at number 44 and also from a barrow which he’d take to wherever he felt that he could sell his goods. He and his wife were described as elderly, respectable, hard-working people. He was also described as quiet and intelligent. Sergeant White was one of two officers tasked by Abberline to question the locals. White’s notebook has long gone so all that we have is his report from October 4th:

    “About 9 a.m. [30 September] I called at 44 Berner Street, and saw Matthew Packer, fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied ‘Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open’. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield’s Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied ‘No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise. And knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.

    I also saw Mrs. Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter.”


    However, on October 2nd he told private detectives Grand and Batchelor (hired by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee) that at about 11.45 on the night of the murder he’d sold half a pound of black grapes to a man who was with a woman (I won’t bother with descriptions). Following this the two detectives spoke to two sisters called Harstein and Rosenfield who lived at number 14 and they told him that on the morning after the murder they’d seen a bloodied grape stalk in Dutfield’s Yard. Suspecting that the police would have washed this away the two detectives sprung into action and searched the sink where, amongst the rubbish, they found a grape stalk.

    When the Evening News heard about this they went and spoke to Packer on the 3rd who related the story about selling the grapes at some point between 11.30 and 12.00. For a minute or two the couple stood near the gateway before moving across the road where they stood for more than 30 minutes. He recalled mentioning to his wife about them standing out their eating grapes in the rain when they could have found shelter. The couple were still there after the Packer’s had gone to bed but he couldn’t state the time but it was after the pubs were ‘shut up.’ Packer then shocked the reporter by telling him, in response to being asked, that no police officer had been to speak to him. He added that a plain clothes officer had been to speak to him the day after the murder and had asked to see his backyard.

    When the story came out on the 4th Inspect Moore sent Sergeant White out to talk to Packer again and take him to see the corpse at the mortuary. When White arrived at Packer’s house his wife told him that two detectives had already taken him to the mortuary. When White was part way to the mortuary he met Packer returning with one of the detectives. Packer told White that he’d identified the woman as Stride and that he’d sold her grapes at around 12.00. The second detective then joined them. White asked them for ID and was shown a card but they would let White touch it. They then persuaded Packer to go with them.

    Later that same day whilst White was with Packer at his shop the two detectives returned and said that they were taking him (Packer) to see Sir Charles Warren. Although this sounds unlikely these two private detectives did take him to Scotland Yard because we have his statement, dated October 4th, written by Alexander Carmichael Bruce, the Assistant Commissioner (in his own hand):

    On Sat. night [29 September] about 11 p.m., a young man from 25–30, about 5 [feet] 7 [inches], with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him ½ pound black grapes, 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street). She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket, a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside. I identify the woman at the St. George’s Mortuary as the one I saw that night. They passed by as though they were going up [to] Commercial Road, but instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about ½ an hour till I should say 11.30, talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music. I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters. I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves. He was about 1½ inches or 2 or 3 inches – a little bit higher than she was.

    On October 6th The Daily Telegraph produced a new account written by J. Hall Richardson. This was more detailed than previous reports but it also added a drawing, approved by Packer from a batch of drawings as the one most like the man that he’d sold the grapes too. By this time the police had their doubts about Packer and, fearing that the sketches might mislead, issued a disclaimer in the Police Gazette. At the same time they mentioned the descriptions by Smith, Schwartz and Lawende (without mentioning those witnesses names)

    Although there are some discrepancies in all of the descriptions given the witnesses seeing a man with a woman taken to have been Stride Packer’s descriptions don’t stand out as impossible if we assume that the Parcelman wasn’t the same man as BSMan and the man seen by Marshall in Berner Street.


    One possible problem though are the various times given by Packer as to what time he saw the couple:

    He sold the grapes at 11.45 according to Grand and Batchelor

    Between 11.30 and 12.00 by the Evening News

    About 12.00 from Sergeant White

    About 11.30 by Richardson in the Telegraph

    About 11.00 by Bruce


    Packer then said that the couple were still there when he closed up and went to bed:

    12.30 according to White

    12.10 to 12.15 according to Grand and Batchelor

    A little past midnight to the Evening News (estimated by the pubs being closed)


    Sugden then questions the age of the man as given by Packer:

    Grand and Batchelor - middle aged, perhaps 35

    Evening News - 30-35

    To the police - a young man 25 to 30

    Richardson/Telegraph - not more than 30


    Sugden quotes the following, from the Evening News, to illustrate Packer being willing to adapt his story:

    Did you observe anything peculiar about his voice or manner, as he spoke to you?’ ‘He spoke like an educated man, but he had a loud, sharp sort of voice, and a quick commanding way with him.’ ‘But did he speak like an Englishman or more in this style?’ I asked, imitating as well as I could the Yankee twang. ‘Yes, now that you mention it, there was a sound of that sort about it,’ was the instantaneous reply.”


    Sugden also quotes two other instances which he sees as Packer incorporating details from the newspaper which turned out to have been untrue.

    First, Packer said that the flower that was worn by Stride was red and white. This was what Spooner said at the inquest whereas two days later PC. Smith said that it was just red. Reid, who prepared an inventory of her possessions said that it was a red rose with a Maidenhair fir.

    Second, we have of course the question of the grapes. The October 1st edition of the Daily News all contain statements with Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer claiming that the victim was found with a packet of sweetmeats in one hand and a bunch of grapes in the other. The doctors were emphatic that no grapes were found and that Stride hadn’t swallowed the skin or seed of a grape within hours of her death. Diemschitz, in the DN, said that Stride’s hands were clenched and that when the Doctor opened them he saw that she had been holding sweetmeats in the one hand and grapes in the other. However, when asked at the inquest Diemschitz said that he hadn’t noticed the position of her hands.

    On October 27th Packer claimed to have seen the man again on the corner of Greenfield Street and Commercial Road where he gave Packer “a most vicious look” before leaping on a tram. He followed this with the tale of a man who came to his shop to buy rabbits and who told him that he suspected that his cousin was the murderer.

    Sugden’s conclusion is that Packer either lied in pursuit of his fifteen minutes of fame or that he had the scent of reward money.


    Tom Wescott sums up his section of Ripper Confidential called The Grapes Of Myth by saying:

    “In any case, I would submit, based on the foregoing, that: a) no grapes or grape stalks were found on Stride’s person; b) Diemshitz did not lie about seeing grapes but was merely mistaken; c) The blood on Stride’s hands was a result of transference during Edward Johnston’s examination, and c) the police in this instance at least should be absolved of any attempted cover-up.”


    So that’s the Packer story. Is it a pack of lies or might there be at least some truth there?


    In his Casebook dissertation ‘Matthew Packer - Final Thoughts’ Dave Yost looks to the weather reports to show that Packer was mistaken about what time he got back and what time he shut up shop for the night.

    The unofficial weather records for Whitechapel tell us there was approximately a quarter inch of rain for 29 September. The official weather records for the London area corroborate this amount, but more importantly they add, 'Sudden heavy R.[rain] at 9.5p.m.[sic] lasting till after midnight'. This is an hour and a half before Elizabeth and her man left Settles Street. Since Packer headed for home 'as the night came on wet', we can readily accept that he would have been home by no later than eleven o'clock.”

    (The underlining is mine)

    I have to say that I disagree with this because again we find ourselves prisoner to a turn of phrase. Did Packer head for home at almost the first sign of rain or did he give it time? We can surely understand someone in his position being somewhat reluctant to give up and go home when he might have been missing out on possible sales. Times were tough. England is known for its changeable weather so why wouldn’t Packer have been prepared to wait to see if the rain stopped? I don’t think that we know where he was working that day or how long it would have taken him to reach home so I don’t think that we should be too certain as to what time he actually arrived home.

    Despite the official weather report saying that there was some rain occurring until after midnight Dave Yost believes that because of the witnesses’s accounts, which mention no rain during this period, that there couldn’t have been rain in that vicinity at that time? But do they? Is he ignoring (unintentionally) the issue of showers. Stop/start showers familiar to any Brit.

    Dr. Blackwell said that Stride’s clothes weren’t wet with rain at 1.16 (if Stride had, at least in part, avoided the rain by finding shelter she may have only spent a short time, in a light shower which allowed her clothes to gave dried by 1.16)

    William Marshall said that while he was on his doorstep from 11.30-12.00 there was no rain. (But there could have been a shower after he’d gone indoors)

    James Brown said that it wasn’t raining at around 12.45 when he went to get and returned from getting his supper. (Maybe it stopped raining just before he went out?)

    PC. Smith said that it rained very little after 11.00. (But it did rain. Showers might have occurred until after 12.00)


    Packer supposedly told Sergeant White at 9am that:

    Half past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open.”

    This doesn’t necessarily mean that Packer meant that it was raining at 12.30 though. Sporadic showers, lessening perhaps as the night went on could have been seen by Packer as the reason for trade being quiet as he’d said. Seeing little prospect of improvement, and being so late, his decision to shut up shop can’t gave been surprising but again it wouldn’t actually have had to have been raining when he made the decision.

    Dave Yost makes the point that Packer didn’t see any of the members leave the club at around 11.30 but he suggests that he might have heard them and assumed that they were punters from a local pub going home at closing time which is why he was under the impression that he’d closed up at around 12.30) It’s a good suggestion which could be the case but it could also have been true that Packer arrived home after the club member had gone home.

    So, to sum up Dave Yost’s position, he believes that Packer was mistaken about when he closed up his shop because he believes that the evidence shows that there was no rain at that time of night. I don’t believe that the evidence proves this. Whatever our opinion of Packer’s evidence in general, I don’t think that we can say that he couldn’t have closed up his shop at around 12.30. It would certainly fit with PC. Smith’s sighting of Parcelman (possibly carry a package of grapes) standing across from the club talking to a woman (possibly/probably Stride)



    So the question remains. Was Packer lying from start to finish? Or was there at least some truth in his claims?

    Over the years I’ve tended to doubt Packer (and I still have major reservations) but it has to be at least a possibility that he did indeed sell grapes to a man who was with a woman (possibly Stride) Human beings can get carried away when they enter the spotlight from a position of obscurity. Suggestions made to them can become incorporated into an overall story whether knowingly or not. So many questions can be asked. I’ll post a few….


    Why would Packer have lied about White not questioning him? Could this be explained in terms of a mix up or not? White said that he’d also seen Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas during his call which appears to add weight to his claim.

    Did Packer invent the man buying grapes for his fifteen minutes of fame? Surely he couldn’t have anticipated receiving a reward, or part of one, on the strength of a fictional character who could never be arrested?

    How did Diemschitz, Kozebrodski and Mortimer come by the story of the grapes as the evidence is so strong that they never existed?

    As the Doctor said that Strides hadn’t eaten the seed or skin of a grape might she have simply spat out the skin and seeds (people have far stranger eating habits)?

    Tom Wescott suggests that the blood on Stride’s right hand might have been mistaken for grapes but could there actually have been a grape stalk there and the three witnesses put two and two together?

    Why, after speaking to Packer for supposedly the second time, was there no mention from the police as to the reason for Packer saying that there was no 1st interview? Wouldn’t the police have wanted to stress that White had interviewed him when he claimed to have done?

    When Packer approved one of the drawings in the Telegraph why did the police only issue a disclaimer in the Police Gazette?



    I suspect that my initial post might end up being longer than the thread. This one really is a mystery imo.




    no sign of grapes were found in her or around her. his story changed with the winds. the police didnt beleive him either. he was a liar and attention seeker.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      no sign of grapes were found in her or around her. his story changed with the winds. the police didnt beleive him either. he was a liar and attention seeker.
      Yet he had the closest look at BS Man,if believed.
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • #4
        I’ve just had a pm on JtRForums from Jose Oranto with an interesting story about Packer which doesn’t show him in a good light. Packer claimed that he’d been attacked over the ripper case and had spent 3 weeks in hospital:


        A SIGNIFICANT CIRCUMSTANCE
        That more than one person knew of the crime is considered probable from a significant circumstance, thought little of at the time, in connection with Mr Packer, whose declaration that he could identify the author of the Berner Street murder excited some amount of interest.

        Shortly after the commission of the murder, preceding the Pinchin Street discovery, Packer again expressed an opinion that the criminal did not live “very far from Batty Street,” which is within three minutes walk of the railway arch.

        Not long after that, Packer averred that, while he was standing near his doorstep, two men rushed up on him and knocked him down with the remark, “know where Jack the Ripper lives, do you?”

        ADMITTED TO THE LONDON HOSPITAL
        The unfortunate man was, as a result, admitted to the London Hospital, where he was detained for three weeks.

        An Echo reporter has since seen Packer.

        He declares that this story is quite true and that he was seriously injured by the attack; “but I don’t wish to say any more,” said he, ” I’ve had quite enough of this Whitechapel business already – too much for me.”​

        It turned out though that he’d spent 17 days in hospital for Brights Disease. On the day that he was admitted Dave’s suspect, Dr. Henry Gawen Sutton was on duty although Packer wasn’t treated by him.

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Mike, bare in mind we have no formal statement from Packer to police. I see you have not included his statement to the press, as published by the London Evening News, for one example.

          Alterations were made to Sgt. White's report, by whom we have no idea, but they appear to be wrong.

          The memo signed by A.C.B. appears to be just hi-lites, it is not a formal statement, and Carmichael-Bruce is not the person to conduct an interview, so his notes are only just that - personal notes.

          Packer does say he shut up shop after the pubs close, on a Saturday night they closed at midnight.
          So, anything recorded that suggests he shut up shop about 11:30 is simply wrong.

          As we know Stride was at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00 am, so the police would have known Stride was not buying grapes from Packer at that time, which leaves approx. 11:45 as the alternate time.

          Although the only complete account we have is from the press, aside from a few dramatic embellishments, it reads as the most accurate version of Packer's story.




          Quote from the London Evening News, 4 Oct. 1888.

          THE MURDERER AT THE WINDOW.


          "Some time between half past eleven and twelve a man and woman came up Berner street from the direction of Ellen street, and stopped outside my window looking at the fruit. The man was about thirty to thirty five years of age, medium height, and with rather a dark complexion. He wore a black coat and a black, soft felt hat. He looked to me like a clerk or something of that sort. I am certain he wasn't what I should call a working man or anything like us folks that live around here."

          WHAT THE WOMAN WAS LIKE.


          "Did you notice the woman so that you would know her again?"

          "Yes. I saw that she was dressed in dark clothes, looked a middle aged woman, and carried a white flower in her hand. I saw that as plain as anything could be, and I am sure I should know the woman again. I was taken today to the see the dead body of a woman lying in Golden land mortuary, but I can swear that wasn't the woman that stood at my shop window on Saturday night."

          THE SOUND OF THE ASSASSIN'S VOICE.


          "Well, they hadn't stood there more than a minute when the man stepped a bit forward, and said, 'I say, old man, how do you sell your grapes.'"

          "I answered, 'Sixpence a pound the black 'uns, sir, and fourpence a pound the white 'uns.'" Then he turned to the woman and said, 'Which will you have, my dear, black or white? You shall have whichever you like best.'"

          "The woman said, 'Oh, then I'll have the black 'uns, 'cos they look the nicest.'"

          "'Give us half a pound of the black ones, then,' said the man. I put the grapes in a paper bag and handed them to him."

          "Did you observe anything peculiar about his voice or manner, as he spoke to you?"

          "He spoke like an educated man, but he had a loud, sharp sort of voice, and a quick commanding way with him."

          "But did he speak like an Englishman or more in this style?" I asked, imitating as well as I could the Yankee twang.

          "Yes, now you mention it, there was a sound of that sort about it," was the instantaneous reply.

          THE MURDERER LAYING HIS PLANS.


          "And what became of them after that?"

          "First of all, they stood near the gateway leading into the club for a minute or two, and then they crossed the road and stood right opposite."

          "For how long?"

          "More than half an hour, I should say; so long that I said to my missus, 'Why, them people must be a couple o' fools to stand out there in the rain eating grapes they bought here, when they might just as well have had shelter! In fact, sir, me and my missus left 'em standing there when we went to bed."

          "And what time was that?"

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

          "And that was positively the last you saw of them?"

          "Yes. Standing opposite the yard where the murdered woman was found."

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Herlock,

            This isn't Kerry Packer, is it.

            Best regards,
            OneRound

            Comment


            • #7
              The Bricklayers Arms was indeed not very far from Batty Street.

              BS Man was not JtR,however just what was he doing in Stride's company!
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                Hi Herlock,

                This isn't Kerry Packer, is it.

                Best regards,
                OneRound
                Just being frank?
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  It turned out though that he’d spent 17 days in hospital for Brights Disease. On the day that he was admitted Dave’s suspect, Dr. Henry Gawen Sutton was on duty although Packer wasn’t treated by him.
                  Makes a lot of sense,if you think about it.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Just being frank?
                    Only old aussies will get that one Dave.
                    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

                    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Only old aussies will get that one Dave.
                      Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	TheAustralianWomensWeeklyJanua127202425222.jpg
Views:	172
Size:	60.2 KB
ID:	843338 Available monthly
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just a small observation but I think we can say with some certainty that it is highly likely that there would be grape stalks in and around Dutfields yard if anybody bothered to look. Packer sold grapes. As far as I am aware there were no dustbins (trash cans) in the street. Grapes were purchased. People discard the stalks, they get on peoples shoes, horses hooves. I would find it more unlikely that there were no grapes stalks in and around Packers window at least. In conclusion. It means nothing if a grape stalk was found in Dutfields yard. I think if any grapes were purchased half a mile away well it might mean something. If you see what I mean

                          NW

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't think Packer can entirely be dismissed. To me is is a sort of character who is prone to exaggeration. We all know people like this. I don't need to give examples. There are a couple in my own family. Also he may add some things he has heard mentioned by somebody else. But I think what he has to say has the ring of truth about it.

                            There may be a simple explanation to why he says he wasn't interviewed to by Sgt White when White says he was and Packer stated he didn't see or hear anything.

                            Imagine the scene in the morning. The area around the yard would have been extremely busy. Onlookers, club members, residents, on the street talking (remember no tv or radio) if you want to know what's going on then go outside speak and mingle. Add to this scene police officers talking with the public, asking questions, chatting. Along come sgt White. speaks to Packer and the occupants of number 44 Berner Street.

                            Now remember it isnt White just turning up and being the only person in the street its very very busy. Asked about whether Packer sees anything and of course he says no, didn't hear anything didn't see anything. Why? because he didnt. He hasn't really put two and two together. There is a time being spoken of in the street by the people there talking to each other and that time is 1.00am when Diemschutz come home with his cart.

                            The couple buying the grapes did so some time before, maybe 30-45 minutes before. Packer hasnt really thought about it. Nobody has mentioned a couple up to this point in time. All we have at this point in time is a single woman murdered and found in the yard. I dont even suppose Sgt White at this moment in time knows anything about couples being relevant (not sure if I am right there but when do we first hear of any couples milling around). In fact I think most people if they thought of JTR is a murderer stalking and murdering unaccompanied women. In other words in peoples eyes couples are irrelevant maybe. They would be considered witnesses not JTR with his girlfriend/victim for the night. The couples only appear after the investigation has gathered pace some hours and days later.

                            So later when questioned everybody starts to think (as does Packer) and the relevance of the couple Packer sold grapes to becomes apparent. People begin to think well maybe the victim is with the murderer and the enquiry progresses. From then on Packer talks of what he knows about the couple he sold grapes to and what they did. So both Packers statements can be true. He didn't see or hear anything related to the murder but he did see some things earlier which may or may not be relevant.

                            NW



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Best and Gardner were not called to the inquest for whatever reason.

                              There's a chance that both men were being untruthful in their accounts and that Stride was never in Settles Street in the first place.

                              If we were to omit Best and Gardner as witnesses, where would be the first sighting of Stride and from which direction could she have come from?

                              Packer and Schwartz are often scrutinised for various reasons, but why not Best and Gardner?

                              "Great minds, don't think alike"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X