Packer Again

[DJA]

William Marshall - Jack the Ripper Wiki

[Herlock Sholmes]

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."

Thanks for that Wick.

So Packer is saying here that the woman that the man bought grapes for wasn’t Stride?

I’m not as totally convinced that Packer was lying, as many are, but I certainly have serious concerns that he might have been and probably the main one is White’s claim that Packer had said that he’d seen no one when first interviewed but Packer said that he’d hadn’t been interviewed by the police. What is your take on that Wick?

[GBinOz]

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

Excellent post NW.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Good point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Another good one NW. The only point against your suggestion is that White specifically said that he’d visited Packer at number 44. But…if he had ‘interviewed’ him in the street as he and the other occupants stood around trying to find information/gossip he’d certainly have noted his address. So when he wrote up his notes he might have thought that it looked more official to say that he’d interviewed him at the house. To be honest it makes more sense that Packer just lying about no one interviewing him when they had.

[Lewis C]

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?

Hi RD,

It's fine to scrutinize Best and Gardner, but usually witnesses try to give accurate info, so unless there's a reason to think they were lying, then we should figure that they probably weren't.

It may be that Best and Gardner weren't called to the inquest for similar reasons to why we pay less attention to them than to other witnesses: they claimed to see Stride about 1 hour and 45 minutes before her death, so the witnesses that saw her closer to her death are usually considered more important.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Is it a coincidence that between Packer and his family's initial statement to White, when absolutely nothing whatever was seen by anyone, and his second interview, when so much detail was reported, a substantial reward had been offered?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it a coincidence that between Packer and his family's initial statement to White, when absolutely nothing whatever was seen by anyone, and his second interview, when so much detail was reported, a substantial reward had been offered?

It’s something that has to be considered Doc. But…

Packer was described as an intelligent man, although it’s impossible to gauge his level of intelligence, maybe he was just a bit better educated than most? But might he have been the gullible/easily suggestible type? Was he the kind that would lie to the police? We have no way of knowing but I was wondering why he might have thought that he could gain some kind of reward for an invented suspect? How could his evidence have led to an arrest?

The other alternative ‘Packer the liar’ is that he was an attention seeker. These types certainly exist. An older man who perhaps no one ever takes notice of has a chance of being ‘importantly.’ Possible.

I’m undecided but I think that he could have been telling the truth. Any later ‘changes’ were hardly major and were reported by different sources and so might have an explanation. An age estimation for example might change if a witness is asked “you said that the man was around 30 but people can look older or younger than they are. Couldn’t he have been 25 or even 35?” Then with descriptions we know that witnesses can be susceptible to suggestion “are you sure that your man didn’t have a bit of a limp?” “Well, after thinking about it he just might have.” Etc.

And let’s face it…it explains Parcelman.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for that Wick.

So Packer is saying here that the woman that the man bought grapes for wasn’t Stride?

No Mike, the Golden Lane mortuary was where Eddowes was taken. The detectives tried to fool Packer by taking him to view the wrong body, but he wasn't fooled. He said that woman was not the one who bought the grapes.

I’m not as totally convinced that Packer was lying, as many are, but I certainly have serious concerns that he might have been and probably the main one is White’s claim that Packer had said that he’d seen no one when first interviewed but Packer said that he’d hadn’t been interviewed by the police. What is your take on that Wick?

I can see Packer meaning 'no-one suspicious', he actually says "I saw no-one suspicious", not that he saw no-one at all.
He really didn't see anyone go up the yard, so that was true. It was clear he lived next to a busy club so he knew people were coming and going.

As far as being interviewed by police, there seem to have been a lot of reporters in the street, he may have mistaken a detective for a reporter. One man in a suit asking questions looks like any other man, it seems to have been a busy morning in Berner St.
I'm not concerned about Packer's answers in the beginning, even today police interview people who don't really want to get involved, to only mellow out in a few days and start cooperating.

[GBinOz]

No Mike, the Golden Lane mortuary was where Eddowes was taken. The detectives tried to fool Packer by taking him to view the wrong body, but he wasn't fooled. He said that woman was not the one who bought the grapes.

Had Packer been fabricating his testimony for a 15 minutes of fame he should have identified the first body he was shown. I view this fact as in his favour.

I can see Packer meaning 'no-one suspicious', he actually says "I saw no-one suspicious", not that he saw no-one at all.

Agreed. Packer was in the business of selling produce. He would hardly initially have conceived a customer for his business as suspicious.

He really didn't see anyone go up the yard, so that was true. It was clear he lived next to a busy club so he knew people were coming and going.

As far as being interviewed by police, there seem to have been a lot of reporters in the street, he may have mistaken a detective for a reporter. One man in a suit asking questions looks like any other man, it seems to have been a busy morning in Berner St.
I'm not concerned about Packer's answers in the beginning, even today police interview people who don't really want to get involved, to only mellow out in a few days and start cooperating.

Hi Jon,

I agree with your final paragraph. It appears to me that Packer was estimating his times based on events such as the closing of a public house, and was also a little confused in this regard. Perhaps there was no timepiece in the household, which would not be unusual for that time. I think of Packer as an under-rated witness.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

I offer my compliments on your initial post as a compendium for the Packer evidence. I have bookmarked it for further reference.

Cheers, George

[New Waterloo]

Morning all. Thanks for the positive comments about a recent couple of posts much appreciated. Can I echo GBinOz comments re Herlock on his initial post has really stimulated some thought

Thanks

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I offer my compliments on your initial post as a compendium for the Packer evidence. I have bookmarked it for further reference.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Thanks. I needed to refresh my own memory as I’d avoided Packer for a while. I read Dave Yost’s dissertation on here and his 2 part article in Ripperologist, Tom Wescott’s section on Packer in his ‘Confidential’ and Sugden of course. There’s more out there of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning all. Thanks for the positive comments about a recent couple of posts much appreciated. Can I echo GBinOz comments re Herlock on his initial post has really stimulated some thought

Thanks

NW

Cheers NW.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The detectives tried to fool Packer by taking him to view the wrong body, but he wasn't fooled. He said that woman was not the one who bought the grapes.

I have never been impressed by this story. Le Grand was a known crook, and after the announcement of the reward, not only did Packer's story change completely, and get revised several times when times etc seemed wrong, but the detectives were clearly shielding him from the police, and making themselves part of his account. We have only the word of the detectives that Packer identified the correct body after being "tested" with a wrong one. That was quite a simple matter to arrange and to create the illusion of truth. Personally, I suspect that the detectives were possibly not only in on the ruse from the start but may even have initiated it for the reward.

It is clear that the grapes story was deliberately excluded from the inquest - no account of grapestalks being seen or found, the sisters weren't called, nor were the detectives nor Packer, and none of the people who gave evidence saw grapes, despite stories in the papers previously. Evidence that Stride hadn't eaten grapes was provided. Should we perhaps be wondering what was in the actual police statements made by the people who were quoted in the papers as having seen this evidence of grapes or their stalks. The police, or possibly the Coroner, chose to ignore this story, and I wonder how strong the evidence was for this exclusion. The exclusion of Packer and the entire grapes story from the inquest is surely absolutely deliberate. What we don't know is the strength of the evidence against the Packer story. It appears to have been disbelieved strongly enough to be dumped totally. The deliberate exclusion of potentially crucial evidence, requires even stronger evidence against it. I am bound to suspect that the police had some very strong grounds for rejecting all of the grapes evidence, but we can only guess what that might have been. Having said that, neither of the two police surgeons nor any police officer saw grapes or stalks, which is a fairly strong start!