Packer Again

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

That point should have struck me straight away Wick considering the amount of time I spent in discussions including that place with Trevor on the subject of purloined organs.

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.

Sergeant White wasn’t a plain clothed officer though was he?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d like to put out a general question at this point. Doubts about Packer’s story are entirely valid of course but the suggestion is often made that he might have lied or at least been economical with the truth because of a desire for the reward money. But how? How could providing the police with an entirely fictitious suspect have led to the reward money? And even if the police had eventually found the killer and he looked vaguely like Packer’s fairly generic description they wouldn’t have given him the reward for it. And of course the guy that they arrested would have told them that he hadn’t bought grapes from anyone. If Packer did lie or deliberately change his story I’d have thought it more likely that he was doing it to keep himself as the centre of attention. I’m not saying that was the case but I just find it difficult to see how lying could help in any plan to pocket a reward?

[Doctored Whatsit]

I’d like to put out a general question at this point. Doubts about Packer’s story are entirely valid of course but the suggestion is often made that he might have lied or at least been economical with the truth because of a desire for the reward money. But how? How could providing the police with an entirely fictitious suspect have led to the reward money? And even if the police had eventually found the killer and he looked vaguely like Packer’s fairly generic description they wouldn’t have given him the reward for it. And of course the guy that they arrested would have told them that he hadn’t bought grapes from anyone. If Packer did lie or deliberately change his story I’d have thought it more likely that he was doing it to keep himself as the centre of attention. I’m not saying that was the case but I just find it difficult to see how lying could help in any plan to pocket a reward?

Hi Herlock, yours is a very sensible point,of course. If the killer, or a suspected killer were caught, then witnesses like Packer would at least attempt to claim the reward, if there were a reasonable resemblance to his evidence. The amount of money involved made it worth a try, and if there were a physical resemblance, it would be difficult to reject the claim. The suspect would claim not to have bought grapes of course, but he would have to do that wouldn't he, to discredit the evidence against him.

Le Grand was crooked, and his behaviour, with Batchelor, developing the grapes evidence, and shielding Packer from Sgt White, suggests to me that they were instigating their claim to the reward, and were perhaps bringing Packer in for a share. The fact that the two police surgeons saw no grapes with the body, and neither did any police officer, suggests strongly that the entire story simply isn't true.