Packer Again

[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 .

[DJA]

Seems like they were waiting for someone!

[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.

[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]

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 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.

[DJA]

[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

[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]

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]

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!

[DJA]

What reward?