Packer Again

[Doctored Whatsit]

Thanks DW for your comments. I do think the involvement of Le Grand and co is problematic and they were probably chasing a reward hence taking Packer to Scotland Yard maybe. I do think however that they themselves (The private detectives) were testing Packers recollection when they took him to view Eddowes and not Stride otherwise there seems no point to the exercise even if they took him to view the wrong body by accident surely this is pretty good evidence that he saw Stride that night (when he said the body he viewed was not the person he had seen.

I accept its a muddle but I believe he saw something relevant and knew something about what happened (in my opinion)

NW

Yes, it is a muddle with much uncertainty and conflicting evidence.

Unfortunately we don't have any evidence to back up the story that Packer did really get genuinely tested, and really did identify Stride. We rely on Packer and Le Grand, and if Le Grand was after a share of the reward, then "they would say that, wouldn't they?" Le Grand seems to have been responsible for the development of the story that Stride had grapes in her hand, the alleged finding of grape stalks, the taking of Packer to see the bodies, shielding Packer from Sgt White, and taking him to Scotland Yard. I believe that the story of the sisters Harstein and Rosenfeld finding a bloodstained grapestalk and white flower petals in the passageway at Dutfield's Yard originated from Le Grand, and I can find nothing about it in police records. Even that story has a big question mark against it, in that the flower petals were said to be white, and Packer referred to Stride wearing a red and white flower like a geranium, but the police say it was a red rose with a maidenhair fern.

Le Grand was, of course, a known confidence trickster with a criminal record, and his alleged fellow detective, J H Batchelor, was probably James Hall, who gave evidence against Le Grand at his blackmail trial in 1891, stating that he worked for Le Grand as a clerk 1888-1889.

I don't deny the faint possibility that Packer was telling the truth (though I don't believe it), but the evidence that we have is totally conflicting, and it is impossible to be sure of anything!

[New Waterloo]

Thanks DW for your comments. I do think the involvement of Le Grand and co is problematic and they were probably chasing a reward hence taking Packer to Scotland Yard maybe. I do think however that they themselves (The private detectives) were testing Packers recollection when they took him to view Eddowes and not Stride otherwise there seems no point to the exercise even if they took him to view the wrong body by accident surely this is pretty good evidence that he saw Stride that night (when he said the body he viewed was not the person he had seen.

I accept its a muddle but I believe he saw something relevant and knew something about what happened (in my opinion)

NW

[Doctored Whatsit]

A very balanced viewpoint, NW. Before a murder, people just see what they see, a couple talking is not evidence of anything sinister, and as you say, it is only after the event that the significance dawns on the witnesses. However, Packer's first statement was made after the murder.

The morning after the event, when the recollection was fresh, he clearly told White that he shut up shop at half past twelve, and had seen no one, and then in his later revised story he saw Stride and her companion from twelve to twelve thirty. Then only a short cab drive with the detectives later, it became eleven to eleven thirty! What could have happened during the relatively short cab journey to chop a whole hour from his time scale? Could it possibly be that Packer suddenly realised another major genuine error, and corrected it, or could it be that eleven till eleven thirty was thought to fit the other known facts better?

One thing we do know from the inquest evidence, is that the IWMEC were holding a discussion in the main hall till after eleven thirty, and the singing didn't start till later, perhaps eleven forty five, and it continued for some time thereafter. So Packer's couple could not have been listening to the music between eleven and eleven thirty. The issue of the rain is also bewildering. A few hundred yards away, Lawende and co said it was raining, but didn't mention at what time, and Wm Marshall said it wasn't raining between eleven and eleven thirty pm, and didn't rain until nearly three o'clock! So what time were this couple standing in the rain listening to music? No wonder that we all have different opinions!!!

[New Waterloo]

I think both viewpoints are valid but we as much later researchers are at such a great advantage. Yes many statements and evidence have disappeared but it is important to remember that the Bobby on the beat and many other officers would not have had access to what we have. Policing even back then doesn't work like that. On the morning of the murder most would have known through word of mouth at the station that a woman had been stabbed in a club in Berners Street and another in Mitre Square. They wouldn't have been given much more than that because the information was still being ascertained, the shift had to get out on their beats. Remember no radios, no phones.

Witnesses are reflecting on what they saw now knowing that a person had been killed. They are thinking I wonder if that person or that couple are anything to do with it? They may think things were odd at the time but there is no suggestion at all that any of the witnesses at the time thought that a man with a woman was going to kill her. In the case of Packer or anyone. Their evidence doesn't give any indication of danger. PC Smith our 'expert' witness gives a good account but doesn't seem to suspect anything sinister or otherwise he would have stood back and watched maybe out of side or questioned the couple and the ladies welfare. Packer later reflects that it seemed odd that the couple stood in the rain but also states they listed to music and the lady was bought grapes, hardly a sign of an impending murder.

I think DW is correct in that the police (as an investigating body and as individuals) would be bright enough to know that perhaps JTR gained the confidence of a victim by coupling up. Yes, but that night I think we have to accept that the witnesses didn't feel that a murderer was in their midst at all. They are all saying this in their statements. It is on reflection and over time that the analysis is done on what they reported.

Even Schwartz doesnt say I thought the woman was about to be murdered. He thinks its a domestic. Its a rough area, not unusual. The club had a reputation for some disorder.

Packer if he is to be believed is reflecting on what he saw and the pieces are coming together a bit and it looks like the couple element is important but there doesn't seem any evidence that witnesses are saying this in the early hours of the same day. PC Smith in fact never makes this suggestion. He never states I was concerned that the man may have been up to no good.

That's how I see it for what its worth. Hindsight is a wonderful thing as they say but I take the point about Chapman but again how many police knew all the facts relating to witnesses in that case. I suppose the papers reported a lot but evidentially nobody that night stepped in to stop a murder or even felt that way at the time as far as I can see.

NW

[DJA]

[Doctored Whatsit]

At 9:00 am Sunday morning?
I'm aware of all the witness statements, which is why I made a point of getting the time in there. The only statement the police may have had by 9:00 am was the statement by their own PC (Smith), c/w club members, but Sgt. White may not have even been aware his statement so early in the investigation.

I understand the point you are making, but I don't think the police had closed minds. It is possible that White didn't know what PC Smith saw, but Chapman almost certainly took a client to that backyard, which is far more likely than he just found her there. Men "chatting up " prostitutes, or prostitutes "chatting up" men is what happens. The police would be well aware of that, the East End bobbies on the beat would see it every night.

To get back to the point I was making in #46, Packer was directly asked if he "saw ... anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop", and he replied "No, I saw no one standing about...", nor apparently did anyone else in the household. But then he told A C Bruce that he watched the couple for about 30 minutes till he shut up his shop, even commenting that their behaviour was odd, because they were standing about in the rain. This is clearly significant, and a massive contradiction of his earlier story.

[Wickerman]

Sorry to disagree, but two witnesses who identified Stride, Wm Marshall and PC Smith, both said she was with a man, therefore the police would reasonably be looking for a couple.

At 9:00 am Sunday morning?
I'm aware of all the witness statements, which is why I made a point of getting the time in there. The only statement the police may have had by 9:00 am was the statement by their own PC (Smith), c/w club members, but Sgt. White may not have even been aware his statement so early in the investigation.

[Doctored Whatsit]

At this point in the investigation, based on precedent, the previous victims (Tabram & Nichols), had not been seen entertained, or being escorted by a man, minutes before their body was found, Chapman is a maybe (Mrs Long's sighting).
Otherwise, the police had no cause to believe the killer "chatted up" his victim, it was just as likely this killer came out of the shadows to strike them down, a man alone looking for his next victim.
I seem to recall this is how the press portrayed the monster, out looking for prey.

At 9:00 am on Sunday morning, I don't think we can assume the police were looking for a couple, more likely a solitary suspect.
The "couple" perspective only developed in the public eye (Packer's view) from the 4th Oct. the following Thursday.

Sorry to disagree, but two witnesses who identified Stride, Wm Marshall and PC Smith, both said she was with a man, therefore the police would reasonably be looking for a couple.

[Wickerman]

Not really true, I would suggest that the police were looking for a man "chatting up" a woman, and that is what Packer's man was doing. ...

At this point in the investigation, based on precedent, the previous victims (Tabram & Nichols), had not been seen entertained, or being escorted by a man, minutes before their body was found, Chapman is a maybe (Mrs Long's sighting).
Otherwise, the police had no cause to believe the killer "chatted up" his victim, it was just as likely this killer came out of the shadows to strike them down, a man alone looking for his next victim.
I seem to recall this is how the press portrayed the monster, out looking for prey.

At 9:00 am on Sunday morning, I don't think we can assume the police were looking for a couple, more likely a solitary suspect.
The "couple" perspective only developed in the public eye (Packer's view) from the 4th Oct. the following Thursday.

[DJA]

Seems like they were waiting for someone!

[Doctored Whatsit]

He did though, see one couple standing around, but he didn't see anyone acting suspicious. I doubt he would think of a regular couple as suspicious. The police are obviously looking for a single male suspect - so he didn't see a single male standing around acting suspicious.

Not really true, I would suggest that the police were looking for a man "chatting up" a woman, and that is what Packer's man was doing. Packer did say that the couple's behaviour was odd because they were standing around in the rain, and he claims to have watched them for some time. He was obviously very aware of them. So we have a man buying grapes for a woman, and then both of them hanging around the murder scene in the rain for some time, shortly before the murder. I think that was certainly worth mentioning to the police .

[Wickerman]

Your first sentence above is slightly confusing. As far as I am aware PC Smith referred to a "newspaper parcel ...about 18 inches in length and 6 or 8 inches in width." That could have been many things. Were you saying it was the grapes?

Yes, forget the size, Smith was estimating, he didn't measure it.
Packer said he wrapped the grapes, obviously it would be in newspaper, it was free wrapping.
Packer last saw the man with Stride, with the parcel of grapes at 12:30.
PC Smith saw a man carrying a parcel, with Stride, about 12:30.
On what grounds would anyone try suggest she was with two different men in the same minute, who just happened to be carrying a parcel?

I would imagine that the Coroner was aware of Packer's statement, and probably the reservations that the police had because of the changes he had made. My point was that all evidence about the grapes seems to have been excluded from the inquest, not just Packer's evidence.

It wasn't relevant to the coroner, the grapes had no bearing on the When, Where, and by what means the victim met her death.

[Wickerman]

So when we look at White’s Oct 4th statement:

“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.”

we get 2 parts. 1) had he seen a man and woman entering Dutfield’s Yard to which he replied ‘no.’ And, 2) had he seen anyone standing about or anything suspicious in the street when he was closing up his shop to which he also replied ‘no.’

So the problem is part 2. Would Packer really, at that time, have considered a man buying grapes for a woman as suspicious though? They were clearly getting on well. Was White as clear as he claimed with his questioning of an old man? Perhaps his questioning was more like… “did you see a couple enter the yard or anyone acting suspiciously in the street?” Maybe Packer had just forgotten about the perfectly normal, happy looking young couple who stood across the street chatting, laughing and eating grapes? Or maybe he just didn’t see them as ‘suspicious?’

Right, and at that time Packer had not seen the body, so didn't know the woman he saw was the victim.
It is true he saw no-one enter the yard.

He did though, see one couple standing around, but he didn't see anyone acting suspicious. I doubt he would think of a regular couple as suspicious. The police are obviously looking for a single male suspect - so he didn't see a single male standing around acting suspicious.

It was only in the afternoon Packer saw the face of the victim (at the morgue), and recognized her as his last customer.

As for the so-called conspiracy by Grand & Batchelor, they were certainly there, but the conspiracy is pure fabricated bull$itt.

[Doctored Whatsit]

-

The police had their own witness, PC Smith saw Stride with Parcel-man, at the same time & place as Packer's suspect, carrying a pkg of grapes, was with Stride.
We know Packer gave a statement to police, it just has not survived. The police hand their witness statements to the coroner's officer, the coroner reads all the statements to decide who he need to summon to the inquest.
So, even though Packer was not called, that doesn't mean the coroner was not aware of his story.
Rarely will a coroner call two witnesses who see the same person, the coroner will summon the best of the two.

Your first sentence above is slightly confusing. As far as I am aware PC Smith referred to a "newspaper parcel ...about 18 inches in length and 6 or 8 inches in width." That could have been many things. Were you saying it was the grapes?

I would imagine that the Coroner was aware of Packer's statement, and probably the reservations that the police had because of the changes he had made. My point was that all evidence about the grapes seems to have been excluded from the inquest, not just Packer's evidence.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Apologies for the late response. Whilst I certainly accept that Le Grand was dodgy I still don’t think that Packer could have benefitted from a reward although I guess it’s at least possible that the two detectives might have had some unknown agenda and they had convinced Packer that if they got a reward they’d make sure that he received a share. I’m not convinced though Doc.

I am not convinced that I know for certain what was going on with Le Grand and Batchelor, but they were up to something! They grabbed Packer, took him where they chose and shielded him from the police. They were the primary source of the alleged evidence of the grapes, and only they made the claim that Packer was not fooled by being shown the wrong body. That they were attempting to make a case for the reward is the only thing I can think of which explains their activities as far as I am concerned. I welcome any other opinion which explains their every action.

If they had been able to convince the police that Packer had seen the killer, and someone was arrested who bore a fair resemblance to the description, then I am sure a claim for the reward would have been made. Maybe it wouldn't have succeeded, but I am sure it would have been made!

As nobody was caught, and as the two doctors were quite positive that Stride did not possess grapes, the police seemed less than enthusiastic about Packer as a witness. The changes in his story didn't help either, of course. His various claims later on cast further doubts as to his reliability. But Batchelor and Legrand could not have known that the story of the grapes would apparently be dismissed so quickly that Packer's evidence wouldn't even make it to the inquest.