Schwartz v. Lawende

[Wickerman]

Hello Dusty

To be fair there is nothing suspicious in a young couple standing in the rain. Done it myself in the days of my youth when struck by cupid's arrow. Packer, being past the joys of young love, just thought them stupid. If he took them for a courting couple there was nothing in their behaviour that would connect them with a horrific murder round the corner. Most did not see the murderer as an ordinary man.

Best wishes
C4

It's a shame the second couple seen in Berner St. that night were not asked if they had been to Packer's shop at any time. That possibility may clarify some of our problems.

[Wickerman]

However, overall, the problem for me is that there are too many inconsistencies in his story. Note, for example, how the suspects age keeps declining. He tells Grand and Batchelor that he was middle aged, around 35. In the Evening News interview he's 30-35. And he tells Scotland Yard that he was a "young man", aged between 25-30. Of course, by then he could have seen PC Smith's description of his suspect in the press, referring to the man's age as 28.

A fine example of an unreliable witness, but does this uncertainty mean the man he saw didn't exist?
Or, does it mean Packer's eyesight was not good enough to be sure what he saw?

It has been suggested that Packer only came forward with his version after reading the witness description published in the press, ie PC Smith's suspect:

The following description has been circulated by the police of a man said to have been seen with the deceased during Saturday evening: -'' Age 28. Slight. Height 5ft. 8in. Complexion dark. No whiskers. Black diagonal coat. Hard felt hat. Collar and tie. Carried newspaper parcel. Respectable appearance.''

Yet Packer first described his 'suspect' as:

The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.

And in the same article:
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.

Apart from the height, we read nothing that speaks to an attempt to make his suspect look like the same man described in the press.
It would be rather odd for a witness to invent his own suspect to, if you like "jump on the bandwagon" (like yeh, I saw him too!), yet give a description that can't be reasoned to describe the same man.

The published description of PC Smith's suspect is not much to remember, yet Packer appears to have made no attempt to make the one look like the other.
Packer was 58 years old, I wouldn't be at all surprised if his eyesight was deficient, probably near-sighted?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I think this is an improbable scenario. For instance, PC Smith said that it rained very little after 11:00pm. And, as a beat officer, he wasn't rooted to the spot throughout that time, but had been patrolling the district, so presumably it was dry throughout the neighbourhood.

Hi John.
Quite so, PC Smith said "very little" after 11 o'clock, which might suggest that 11 o'clock was the last time there was any significant rainfall on his beat.
In fact this is suggested by the exchange recorded in the Times.
Coroner: - When did it last rain before 1 o'clock?
Smith: - To the best of my recollection, it rained very little after 11 o'clock.

So it did rain somewhere across PC Smith's beat after 11 o'clock, just "very little".

So, why would Packer close his shop at 11:30, if it had stopped raining earlier at about 11:00?
John Best said that Stride & her male friend left the Bricklayers Arms "shortly after 11:00", which is also consistent with PC Smith's statement that the rain ceasing about 11:00.

So it rained heavy around 11:00 (J. Best), and eased off shortly after.

However, PC Smith, in reply to the Coroner, said it rained "very little" between 11:00 and 1:00.
So it could have drizzled on and off at various times, at 11:30 or even at 12:30?
Therefore, what I am saying is, the rain evidence is not decisive.

We can see from the above that Packer could have seen it rain, or drizzle (ie; very little) at any time between 11:00 and 1:00.

I'm not at all suggesting there are no inconsistencies, Packer is not a reliable witness, that is for sure.

What I feel is worth noting is, that if a witness changes his story, as did Packer, or even the timing of the story, it doesn't mean the story didn't happen. Packer just is not sure 'when' it happened.

This is where we can rule out the buying of the grapes at 11:00 (recorded by Sgt. White & A.C.B.), Stride was at the Bricklayers Arms at 11:00, so for whatever reason the purchasing of grapes at 11:00 is erroneous.

Which only leaves the latter claim that Stride & her man bought the grapes at 11:45.
This is why I go with the 11:45 - 12:30 timing.

[drstrange169]

Hello C4,

I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree.

Once a VERY high profile murder took place in the street, everyone and everything that happened that night became significant and important.

The street quickly filled with crowds, Packer would have seized the opportunity and sold his goods to them. I'm guessing every single customer would have been talking about and asking about the previous nights goings on.

[curious4]

>>Nothing suspicious in a couple buying grapes.<<

Certainly not by itself in ordinary circumstances but, of course these were not ordinary circumstances. There had been a woman murdered and police were asking if anybody had seen a. the victim and/or b. the victim and the killer.

Packer claimed that a couple standing in the rain, looking at the club was sufficiently weird enough to call his wife's attention to it.

If true, it's hard to understand why the story wasn't immediately recounted to an inquiring policeman either by Packer himself or his wife. Even harder to understand is the sheer amount of detail he eventually remembered about the incident if it was so unremarkable.

I could well be doing the man an injustice but, it just doesn't sit right for me.

Hello Dusty

To be fair there is nothing suspicious in a young couple standing in the rain. Done it myself in the days of my youth when struck by cupid's arrow. Packer, being past the joys of young love, just thought them stupid. If he took them for a courting couple there was nothing in their behaviour that would connect them with a horrific murder round the corner. Most did not see the murderer as an ordinary man.

Best wishes
C4

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

The Evening News, 31 October 1888, carries a report of an interview with Packer, with reference to rumours that he'd seen the suspect again. In the interview he refers to seeing the man who bought the grapes, the sighting taking place the previous Saturday between seven and eight o'clock. He looks at Packer with "a vicious look on his face", and the fruit seller sends someone to fetch a policeman, however, the suspect, "seeing there was something up" escaped by jumping on a tram.

Packer gives no further description of the man, simply stating, "It was the man who bought the grapes...I shall never forget his face, and should know him again amongst a thousand men."

Yes most interesting...odd that he shouldn't have given a more detail description having seen him a second time...

Of course it still doesn't make this man Strides killer

But I do think this is of interest

Many thanks for the complete quote

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Hi John

In his later claims of sighting the man he saw that night does he again change the age or stick to 25-30?

Many thanks

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The Evening News, 31 October 1888, carries a report of an interview with Packer, with reference to rumours that he'd seen the suspect again. In the interview he refers to seeing the man who bought the grapes, the sighting taking place the previous Saturday between seven and eight o'clock. He looks at Packer with "a vicious look on his face", and the fruit seller sends someone to fetch a policeman, however, the suspect, "seeing there was something up" escaped by jumping on a tram.

Packer gives no further description of the man, simply stating, "It was the man who bought the grapes...I shall never forget his face, and should know him again amongst a thousand men."

[Jeff Leahy]

However, overall, the problem for me is that there are too many inconsistencies in his story. Note, for example, how the suspects age keeps declining. He tells Grand and Batchelor that he was middle aged, around 35. In the Evening News interview he's 30-35. And he tells Scotland Yard that he was a "young man", aged between 25-30. Of course, by then he could have seen PC Smith's description of his suspect in the press, referring to the man's age as 28.

Hi John

In his later claims of sighting the man he saw that night does he again change the age or stick to 25-30?

Many thanks

Jeff

[John G]

>>Nothing suspicious in a couple buying grapes.<<

Certainly not by itself in ordinary circumstances but, of course these were not ordinary circumstances. There had been a woman murdered and police were asking if anybody had seen a. the victim and/or b. the victim and the killer.

Packer claimed that a couple standing in the rain, looking at the club was sufficiently weird enough to call his wife's attention to it.

If true, it's hard to understand why the story wasn't immediately recounted to an inquiring policeman either by Packer himself or his wife. Even harder to understand is the sheer amount of detail he eventually remembered about the incident if it was so unremarkable.

I could well be doing the man an injustice but, it just doesn't sit right for me.

I think these are very good points. As I've noted before, when Sergeant White asked him if he'd seen anyone standing about the street about the time he closed his shop, he replied, "No, I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone going up the yard."

However, he later informed Scotland Yard, "They passed by as though they were going up Commercial Road, but instead going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, and were there for about half an hour till I should say 11:30, talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters. Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music."

The two accounts are clearly irreconcilable. And it simply defies belief that he wouldn't have mentioned the couple to Sergeant White: after all, he apparently took such an interest in their activities that he observed them for half an hour, and even referred to them standing outside the club listing to music! And how could he have thought that wasn't relevant, considering that the victim was discovered in the club yard? In fact, the sighting would have been significantly more important, based upon the 12:30 time estimate gave to Sergeant White for closing the shop, than the revised 11:30 time given in his Scotland Yard statement.

[John G]

Hi John.

I know the "rain" issue seems popular, but we also know, or at least most of us are old enough to know, that it can rain on one side of the street, but not on the other.
When James Brown says "it wasn't raining", he doesn't mean anywhere, conversely, when John Best says, "it was raining", he doesn't mean everywhere.
Whether it was or wasn't raining is a precarious detail to judge the reliability of a witness by.

Packer likely saw it was raining that night, he was not out in the rain, but inside his shop looking out the window. Beads of rain on his window panes testify to that fact, but could he tell if it had stopped by looking through the same window panes still bearing beads of rain?
The point is, we can't be sure of the circumstances, nor why he thought it was still raining after midnight.
I would say the roads were still wet, the windows were still wet, and he had no more customers, he assumed it was still raining.

Given the uncertainty of where it will rain when it does rain, and in some cases heavy rain but in others only spitting, being hardly noticeable. I wouldn't pass any judgements on a witness if it looked like it was still raining from inside his house, and he was only looking out.

Hi Jon,

I think this is an improbable scenario. For instance, PC Smith said that it rained very little after 11:00pm. And, as a beat officer, he wasn't rooted to the spot throughout that time, but had been patrolling the district, so presumably it was dry throughout the neighbourhood.

I accept, however, that he may have got the times mixed up. Thus, he initially told Sergeant White that he closed at "half-past twelve, in consequence of the rain it was no good to keep open". And, of course, he had no reason to lie at this time, as he didn't refer to the couple buying the grapes in this account. But, in his modified police testimony, he informed Scotland Yard that he sold the grapes at 11:00pm, observing the couple, in the rain, for about half an hour, "till I should say 11:30." And it was at this point that he closed for the night, "I then shut up my shutters"

However, overall, the problem for me is that there are too many inconsistencies in his story. Note, for example, how the suspects age keeps declining. He tells Grand and Batchelor that he was middle aged, around 35. In the Evening News interview he's 30-35. And he tells Scotland Yard that he was a "young man", aged between 25-30. Of course, by then he could have seen PC Smith's description of his suspect in the press, referring to the man's age as 28.

[DJA]

The fact that he did not give evidence at the Inquest did contribute to my error.
That coupled with the possibility of his age being a barrier.

I again thank Wickerman for his assistance.

[Jeff Leahy]

By the way, 82 was his address, not his age. "J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street,.."

I must admit I was following this thread with a little amusement trying to picture the 82 year old man giving evidence

[DJA]

When I was a kid rather than a silly old goat......

the kitchen clock was always fast to ensure we caught our bus,tram,train,stagecoach,etc after breakfast

the living room clock was accurate,formal dining and later TV.

Some hotels still keep their bar clocks fast to facilitate customers' exit after closing.

Same ones close early for lack of clients in the Winter due to poor weather.

I remember a watch repairer in Cookson Street who had an electric clock in his window.
Usually fast.
Opposite Camberwell Railway Station.

GUT might remember Jack Little from Ch 9 TV.
He often dined at Yen's almost next door.

[DJA]

Thanks again.

[Wickerman]

This 82 year old gent stated it had been raining and the couple he saw left the pub at 11pm.

Fits my time frame.

Stride and her companion arrived..."shortly before eleven", and after some time passed, they left..."soon after eleven".

By the way, 82 was his address, not his age. "J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street,.."