Schwartz v. Lawende

[Hamrammr]

Hi Dean,

It might have been that way:

The first report (or information) made by Hales (on 13 November 1888) stated, wrongly, that Packer suspected his own cousin.

This information, after clarification (19 November 1888), turned out as a statement made by a man to Packer that this man was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds.

I am a "Kosminski man" and I have a theory that Packer had seen Aaron Kozminski on the night of the Double Event in Berner Street. Packer stated that he had seen this man later in October 1888. Packer said that the man lived "in the next street". The cousin of Aaron Kozminski was Morris Lubnowski, a bootlaster, and he lived in Greenfield Street, a street "next" to Berner Street. The shop of Packer was between Greenfield Street (the cousin Morris) and Providence Street (Aaron´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived there). Packer said that he saw this suspect again at the end of Greenfield Street (end of October 1888).

Perhaps, Morris Lubnowski talked to Packer (for whatever reasons) around the time of the first statement (Hales). But this is pure speculation.

All of this happened following the Kelly murder. In my theory no one (family and police) did know where Aaron Kozminski was staying between 9 and 22 November 1888. In such a case, via press, the police could have played down the "substantial clue"... maybe it was a strategy of the police to say "little importance"...

Many greetings from Germany,

Karsten.

Hi Karsten,

Yes, it does sound like a mix-up in the reporting. Makes a lot more sense that the customer's cousin was the one suspected and not Packer's. Thanks!

Dean

[S.Brett]

Hi Karsten,

Yes, this is what is confusing me. It's not clear which of these is being reported in the Manchester Guardian. Either:

1. Hales told Packer that he believed his (Hales') cousin was the murderer, or:
2. Hales told Packer that he believed Packer's cousin was the murder.

The two accounts make it unclear.

Also, what was the 'substantial clue?' Was it merely the report made by Hales?

Many thanks,
Dean

Hi Dean,

It might have been that way:

The first report (or information) made by Hales (on 13 November 1888) stated, wrongly, that Packer suspected his own cousin.

This information, after clarification (19 November 1888), turned out as a statement made by a man to Packer that this man was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds.

I am a "Kosminski man" and I have a theory that Packer had seen Aaron Kozminski on the night of the Double Event in Berner Street. Packer stated that he had seen this man later in October 1888. Packer said that the man lived "in the next street". The cousin of Aaron Kozminski was Morris Lubnowski, a bootlaster, and he lived in Greenfield Street, a street "next" to Berner Street. The shop of Packer was between Greenfield Street (the cousin Morris) and Providence Street (Aaron´s brother Woolf Abrahams lived there). Packer said that he saw this suspect again at the end of Greenfield Street (end of October 1888).

Perhaps, Morris Lubnowski talked to Packer (for whatever reasons) around the time of the first statement (Hales). But this is pure speculation.

All of this happened following the Kelly murder. In my theory no one (family and police) did know where Aaron Kozminski was staying between 9 and 22 November 1888. In such a case, via press, the police could have played down the "substantial clue"... maybe it was a strategy of the police to say "little importance"...

Many greetings from Germany,

Karsten.

[Hamrammr]

Hi Hamrammr!

Thanks, very interesting.

Swanson´s report dated 19 October 1888 to the Home Office does mean that this report is the first entry in the HO 144/221/A49301C ? Correctly? Further entries and notes were made later.

13 Nov. 1888 Mr. H. Hales (?)

states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin

Commr. of Police

14. Nov. 1888 (date stamp)

Manchester Guardian 19 November 1888:

The statement made by a man to Packer, the fruit seller of Berner-street, that he was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds, is still being investigated by the detectives, who are inclined to doubt the veracity of the greater portion of the details. They, however, believe they have found the cousin referred to, and attach little importance to what was at first supposed to be a substantial clue.

Is it Mr. H. Hales who states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin?

Who is Mr. H. Hales?

I found a Mr. Matthew H. Hale, solicitor:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-mary-ann-austin.html

This "Packer-entry" what is next to it?

Regards, Karsten.

Hi Karsten,

Yes, this is what is confusing me. It's not clear which of these is being reported in the Manchester Guardian. Either:

1. Hales told Packer that he believed his (Hales') cousin was the murderer, or:
2. Hales told Packer that he believed Packer's cousin was the murder.

The two accounts make it unclear.

Also, what was the 'substantial clue?' Was it merely the report made by Hales?

Many thanks,
Dean

[S.Brett]

Hi Hamrammr!

Thanks, very interesting.

Swanson´s report dated 19 October 1888 to the Home Office does mean that this report is the first entry in the HO 144/221/A49301C ? Correctly? Further entries and notes were made later.

13 Nov. 1888 Mr. H. Hales (?)

states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin

Commr. of Police

14. Nov. 1888 (date stamp)

Manchester Guardian 19 November 1888:

The statement made by a man to Packer, the fruit seller of Berner-street, that he was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds, is still being investigated by the detectives, who are inclined to doubt the veracity of the greater portion of the details. They, however, believe they have found the cousin referred to, and attach little importance to what was at first supposed to be a substantial clue.

Is it Mr. H. Hales who states that Mr. Packer believes the murder to be his own cousin?

Who is Mr. H. Hales?

I found a Mr. Matthew H. Hale, solicitor:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-mary-ann-austin.html

This "Packer-entry" what is next to it?

Regards, Karsten.

[Hamrammr]

Hi all,

I was going to post this as a seperate thread, but as Packer is already under discussion I thought I would jump in if that's ok. So, I'm confused . . . On the one hand the Machester News states that a customer told Packer that his (the customer's) cousin was the ripper:

'The statement made by a man to Packer, the fruit seller of Berner-street, that he was of opinion that his cousin had committed the foul deeds, is still being investigated by the detectives, who are inclined to doubt the veracity of the greater portion of the details. They, however, believe they have found the cousin referred to, and attach little importance to what was at first supposed to be a substantial clue.'
-- Manchester Guardian - 19 November 1888

On the other hand, this police statement is written in such a way as to suggest it is Packer's cousin that was suggested to be the ripper:

Or are they both referring to Packer's cousin . . . Thoughts?

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if his eyesight was deficient, probably near-sighted?"

With an old chap, far sighted like as not.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

In this particular case, I was speaking from experience.

[John G]

Hello John G

"Subsequently" - that's the key word in this to me. After reading the newspaper, talked to neighbours (perhaps) and hearing the murdered woman's description, he realised that the couple he'd seen might have been of importance. As to his nervousness, perhaps he was the recipient of the "threatening" letter. Or if not, getting slightly paranoid. I don't believe he deliberately made anything up. The "cousin" incident could have been journalists hoping to get more out of him, perhaps. As for the money he hoped for, at his age a little extra money would have meant a little more security - nothing is more worrying than facing a poverty-stricken old age.

Useless as a witness yes, but not a liar, poor old Packer.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Well, perhaps "attention seeker" is a more apt description for Packer than "liar"! And I doubt the old romancer needed much encouragement from the press as he continued to regale them with stories-in fact, I suspect it was the press who became tired of him!

[John G]

And I think John, that there is your first clue that the summary written by Sgt. White is not his report of the incident.
Reports will be written at the end of the day (the 30th), or at the end of his shift. Not four days later.

Sgt. White would, I think, make his report to his immediate superior, Insp. Abberline, but as Abberline is mentioned within this report then Sgt. White was writing to someone superior to Abberline, Swanson perhaps?

Whoever the recipient was, White had to explain what the notebook was used for, which he wouldn't have had to do if he was writing to another police official.
Possibly then, White had been asked to summarize the sequence of events to someone at the Home Office?

Why he makes reference to an extract from the Star (no date given) is odd as there is nothing about Packer in their publication from the 1st, and nothing at all from the 2nd or 3rd, but only this from the 4th:

The police most emphatically deny the truth of the story that has been published as to the discovery of a shopkeeper who had talked with the murderer and his Berner-street victim, had sold them grapes, and had seen them at the entrance to the fatal alley ten minutes before the deed was done. The fact is, that the alleged informant contradicts himself, and there is no evidence that there were any grapes in the possession of the woman.
Star, 4th Oct. 1888.

Is Sgt. White trying to allay any fears that this Packer incident is nothing more than a storm in a teacup?

Hi Jon,

Yes, I don't think Sergeant White wrote up a report on the 30th. What is interesting is the various report references, which follow sequentially, suggesting they were compiled at around the same time:

Report of Sergeant Stephen White, 4 October 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff. 212-3

Report of Inspector Henry Moore, 4 October and report of Sergeant White, same date, MEPO, 3/140, ff.211 and 213-4 respectively.

Statement of Matthew Packer, 4 October 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff. 215-6.

The middle report refers to Grand and Batchelor's involvement.

It therefore think it likely that the interview with Packer on the 30th didn't initially warrant an official report, i.e. because he had nothing significant to say. However,when he gives a revised version of his evidence to Scotland Yard, Sergeant White is then asked to draft a report, referring to his notebook for guidance.

In fact, I suspect Sergeant White would have had set questions with which to put to the various potential witnesses he interviewed, and I'm sure he wouldn't have simply asked whether they'd seen anything suspicious otherwise, if that was all that was being asked by the police, both Marshall and Brown would have answered in the negative.

And, of course, the lie Packer told to a journalist on 3 October, about not having previously been spoken to by a police officer, speaks volumes, i.e. he realised he'd contradicted himself and was attempting to cover up the fact.

[Wickerman]

I do, however, acknowledge that it is a little odd that Sergeant White's report is dated several days after the interview but, considering the number of interviews that must have been carried out, perhaps it was common for their to be a significant delay before reports were probably typed up.

And I think John, that there is your first clue that the summary written by Sgt. White is not his report of the incident.
Reports will be written at the end of the day (the 30th), or at the end of his shift. Not four days later.

Sgt. White would, I think, make his report to his immediate superior, Insp. Abberline, but as Abberline is mentioned within this report then Sgt. White was writing to someone superior to Abberline, Swanson perhaps?

Whoever the recipient was, White had to explain what the notebook was used for, which he wouldn't have had to do if he was writing to another police official.
Possibly then, White had been asked to summarize the sequence of events to someone at the Home Office?

Why he makes reference to an extract from the Star (no date given) is odd as there is nothing about Packer in their publication from the 1st, and nothing at all from the 2nd or 3rd, but only this from the 4th:

The police most emphatically deny the truth of the story that has been published as to the discovery of a shopkeeper who had talked with the murderer and his Berner-street victim, had sold them grapes, and had seen them at the entrance to the fatal alley ten minutes before the deed was done. The fact is, that the alleged informant contradicts himself, and there is no evidence that there were any grapes in the possession of the woman.
Star, 4th Oct. 1888.

Is Sgt. White trying to allay any fears that this Packer incident is nothing more than a storm in a teacup?

[curious4]

Hi C4,

Regarding the notebook, I would be surprised if many of the police notebooks of the period survived, unlike the official reports, of course.

I doubt if anything Swanson had to say was meant to be a criticism of Segeant White, who as far as I know had an unblemished record. Clearly, in his report to the Home Office, he was merely summarizing Packer's statement, and at no point does he suggest his police officer lied or embellished his report.

In fact, to the contrary, his reference to Packer being an "elderly man" might be taken to imply that he thought the witness was confused, as patronizing as that might seem to a modern observer!

And I still cannot understand why Packer didn't mention to Sergeant White the couple he'd observed for over half an hour, particularly as he subsequently considered the information to be significant. In fact it seems to me that, unless Sergeant White wrote a false report, the only logical conclusion is that he [Packer] must have lied, i.e. either in respect of his revised evidence, or when he denied that there was anyone standing about at the time he closed his shop. And his assertion that no police officer had spoken to him was certainly untrue.

Packer's subsequent conduct also invites suspicion. Thus, his claim to have seen the suspect again, before he escaped on a tram, appears to be somewhat fantastical, likewise his claim to have conversed with the Ripper's cousin! In fact, the detailed, and graphic, account of the conversation he had with the man reads, to me, like a total fantasy!

I do, however, acknowledge that it is a little odd that Sergeant White's report is dated several days after the interview but, considering the number of interviews that must have been carried out, perhaps it was common for their to be a significant delay before reports were probably typed up.

Hello John G

"Subsequently" - that's the key word in this to me. After reading the newspaper, talked to neighbours (perhaps) and hearing the murdered woman's description, he realised that the couple he'd seen might have been of importance. As to his nervousness, perhaps he was the recipient of the "threatening" letter. Or if not, getting slightly paranoid. I don't believe he deliberately made anything up. The "cousin" incident could have been journalists hoping to get more out of him, perhaps. As for the money he hoped for, at his age a little extra money would have meant a little more security - nothing is more worrying than facing a poverty-stricken old age.

Useless as a witness yes, but not a liar, poor old Packer.

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Hello John G

I wonder what happened to his notebook? Writing a fresh report some days later, I wonder if White succumbed to the temptation to embellish a little? Nevertheless, to the question whether or not he saw anything suspicious is still no, likewise to the question whether he saw a man and a woman enter Dutfield's Yard. Whether he saw anyone standing about could be understood to mean in a strange or suspicious manner, to which the reply would also be no.


At this stage in the murders I would choose to believe Swanson over White, but it is a question of interpretation. Swanson chose to believe Packer but acknowledged that he would make a poor witness.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Regarding the notebook, I would be surprised if many of the police notebooks of the period survived, unlike the official reports, of course.

I doubt if anything Swanson had to say was meant to be a criticism of Segeant White, who as far as I know had an unblemished record. Clearly, in his report to the Home Office, he was merely summarizing Packer's statement, and at no point does he suggest his police officer lied or embellished his report.

In fact, to the contrary, his reference to Packer being an "elderly man" might be taken to imply that he thought the witness was confused, as patronizing as that might seem to a modern observer!

And I still cannot understand why Packer didn't mention to Sergeant White the couple he'd observed for over half an hour, particularly as he subsequently considered the information to be significant. In fact it seems to me that, unless Sergeant White wrote a false report, the only logical conclusion is that he [Packer] must have lied, i.e. either in respect of his revised evidence, or when he denied that there was anyone standing about at the time he closed his shop. And his assertion that no police officer had spoken to him was certainly untrue.

Packer's subsequent conduct also invites suspicion. Thus, his claim to have seen the suspect again, before he escaped on a tram, appears to be somewhat fantastical, likewise his claim to have conversed with the Ripper's cousin! In fact, the detailed, and graphic, account of the conversation he had with the man reads, to me, like a total fantasy!

I do, however, acknowledge that it is a little odd that Sergeant White's report is dated several days after the interview but, considering the number of interviews that must have been carried out, perhaps it was common for their to be a significant delay before reports were probably typed up.

[lynn cates]

far sighted

Hello Jon.

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if his eyesight was deficient, probably near-sighted?"

With an old chap, far sighted like as not.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hi C4,

Yes, the quotation is from Philip Sugden's book, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, 2002 edition, pp219-220. He cites Report of Segeant Stephen White, 4 October, 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff.212-3.

Apparently he was supplied with a special notebook to record his findings, but this has disappeared. However, his written report of the interview has survived:

"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.'"

"I also saw Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter."

Hello John G

I wonder what happened to his notebook? Writing a fresh report some days later, I wonder if White succumbed to the temptation to embellish a little? Nevertheless, to the question whether or not he saw anything suspicious is still no, likewise to the question whether he saw a man and a woman enter Dutfield's Yard. Whether he saw anyone standing about could be understood to mean in a strange or suspicious manner, to which the reply would also be no.


At this stage in the murders I would choose to believe Swanson over White, but it is a question of interpretation. Swanson chose to believe Packer but acknowledged that he would make a poor witness.

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Hello John G

Do you have a source for what White actually asked Packer?

Was he quoting from his notebook?

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Yes, the quotation is from Philip Sugden's book, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, 2002 edition, pp219-220. He cites Report of Segeant Stephen White, 4 October, 1888, MEPO 3/140, ff.212-3.

Apparently he was supplied with a special notebook to record his findings, but this has disappeared. However, his written report of the interview has survived:

"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.'"

"I also saw Mrs Packer, Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas residing in the same house but none of them could give the slightest information respecting the matter."

[curious4]

Hello John G

Do you have a source for what White actually asked Packer?

Was he quoting from his notebook?

Best wishes
C4