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.

[Wickerman]

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....

Yes, but Packer had nothing to do with that.
Whether Stride was carrying grapes in her hand was due to Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, they claimed to have seen grapes, not Packer.

The doctor did admit Stride's handkerchief bore fruit stains, and women do not normally spit skins or pips out, they wipe their mouth with tissue or a handkerchief to remove them.

I am bound to suspect that the police had some very strong grounds for rejecting all of the grapes evidence,...

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.

[Wickerman]

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

White was a CID officer, they usually wore suits.

[Wickerman]

... If the killer, or a suspected killer were caught, then witnesses like Packer would at least attempt to claim the reward,....

I can't agree, Packer did not see the man commit a crime, so he would not qualify for a reward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

White was a CID officer, they usually wore suits.

I should have asked that question earlier Wick. I’d been assuming that White was a uniformed officer, probably because he’s never designated as Det Sgt White. I shouldn’t have assumed. So that’s one ‘mystery’ explained. White was Packer’s ‘plain clothed’ officer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't agree, Packer did not see the man commit a crime, so he would not qualify for a reward.

This is my point. Just claiming to have seen the killer isn’t anywhere near enough. It would have had to have been information leading directly to his apprehension. So unless Packer was part of a plan to ID a random Mr X and possibly send a completely innocent man to the gallows then he couldn’t have benefitted in that way. I’m more inclined to think that there were less sinister explanations for any ‘changes’ in description. NW’s suggestion that there’s nothing strange about a grape stalk being seen in that yard and Diemschitz and Koz assuming that it had been dropped by Stride sounds entirely reasonable.

[Wickerman]

This is my point. Just claiming to have seen the killer isn’t anywhere near enough. It would have had to have been information leading directly to his apprehension. So unless Packer was part of a plan to ID a random Mr X and possibly send a completely innocent man to the gallows then he couldn’t have benefitted in that way. I’m more inclined to think that there were less sinister explanations for any ‘changes’ in description. NW’s suggestion that there’s nothing strange about a grape stalk being seen in that yard and Diemschitz and Koz assuming that it had been dropped by Stride sounds entirely reasonable.

Right, this idea that Packer was only after the reward is based on a flawed understanding of the process.
Brown & Marshall could have seen Stride, Packer claims he did, but all of them only saw a man in her company who showed no sign of aggression, he could just have been an innocent client.
Only Schwartz saw Stride assaulted, his testimony could have earned him the reward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right, this idea that Packer was only after the reward is based on a flawed understanding of the process.
Brown & Marshall could have seen Stride, Packer claims he did, but all of them only saw a man in her company who showed no sign of aggression, he could just have been an innocent client.
Only Schwartz saw Stride assaulted, his testimony could have earned him the reward.

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?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.