Schwartz v. Lawende

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[DJA]

Reasonable chance it was the same couple.

Gotta use Ocker's Razor

[John G]

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?

Hi Jon,

I would agree that the issue of whether it was raining is not, in itself, fatal for Packer's evidence, at least until his drastically modified accounts. Thus, when first interviewed by Sergeant White he stated that he closed early because, "in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open."

In other words, he doesn't actually say that it was raining when he closed his shop; his statement might simply mean that earlier inclement weather conditions had deterred, and was probably still deterring, potential customers from going out, so because of poor trading throughout the evening he decided to close early.

Moreover, at this stage he wasn't claiming that he had seen Stride with a suspect or, indeed, seeing anything suspicious, so he had no reason to lie.

However, as I've argued before, his latter statements to the police and the press simply cannot be remotely reconciled with what he initially told Sergeant White. To recap: in his initial police interview he was asked, "if he saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop." And it's important to note here that he isn't similar being asked if he'd noticed anything suspicious. He replied, "No, I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone going up the yard."

But, in marked contrast, in his Scotland Yard account he says that he observed a couple talking to one another, by the Board School, for half an hour, just prior to closing his shop: "They passed through as though they going up Commercial Road, but instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, and were there for about half an hour...talking to one another. I then shut my shutters."

In fact, as I noted in my earlier post, he elaborates further by saying, " Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they went near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music. I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters."

So, how could he possibly think that seeing a couple conversing, for several minutes, outside the very premises where Stride's body would subsequently be discovered, wasn't relevant? It simply defies belief. After all, he subsequently decided that selling a man a pack of grapes-hardly an unusual event for a fruiterer- amounted to highly relevant information!

And let's not forget that three other witnesses-Marshall, Brown and PC Smith-didn't see anything suspicious that night either- like Packer, they simply witnessed an everyday occurrence of a man and woman in conversation together-but that didn't stop them from reporting what they'd observed.

And then we have Packer's interview with the Evening News, 4 October 1888. After telling the reporter that he observed a couple standing opposite the Yard for half an hour, he was asked "Well, Mr Packer, I suppose the police came at once to ask you and your wife what you knew about the affair, as soon as ever the body was discovered." He replied, "The police? No. They haven't asked me a word about it yet!"

Now this is an obvious lie because, of course, Sergeant White had by this time spoken to both Packer and his wife, when he denied seeing anyone standing about, let alone for half an hour. Nonetheless, during the newspaper interview Packer did happen to remember the less pertinent fact that a detective had visited him, asking to see the back of his yard to see if anyone had climbed over!

Is it hardly a wonder, therefore, that Swanson felt compelled to report that, "any statement he [Packer] made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence", i.e. on account of his drastically changed story and his association with the crook Charles Grand? In fact, is there another witness throughout the Ripper enquiry whose evidence was condemned in such unequivocal terms?

[curious4]

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.

Hello Dusty

We shall have to agree to differ ��. However: Packer was interviewed first by the police, by the time Le Grande had got to him (and after the grapes rumour had begun to circulate - to my mind the "grapes" were bloodclots), he may have begun to reflect on which customers had bought grapes and hey presto the couple he sold grapes to sprang to mind. Packer usually sold at the market so we can't be sure he sold to the crowds in the street, but I agree he would have heard the gossip, but AFTER he had talked to the police. I presume they would have begun their questioning with those living nearest to the crime scene.

Best wishes
C4

[Michael W Richards]

An awful lot of time and effort being spent on a witness that almost every serious Ripper student has long discarded.

[curious4]

He was believed by Swanson. He sent a report to his superiors regarding Packer. What reason would there be for not believing his account apart from the fact that he was old and shaky and would not have made a good witness and was obviously afraid that the killer would exact some revenge upon him.

And please DON'T accuse other posters who don't agree with your ideas of not being serious.

C4

[Wickerman]

In other words, he doesn't actually say that it was raining when he closed his shop; his statement might simply mean that earlier inclement weather conditions had deterred, and was probably still deterring, potential customers from going out, so because of poor trading throughout the evening he decided to close early.

Hi John.
Yes, agreed, he was making the point that the earlier heavy rain had kept the streets quiet of potential customers.
Not that it was raining at the time he shut up shop.

However, as I've argued before, his latter statements to the police and the press simply cannot be remotely reconciled with what he initially told Sergeant White.

Yes, I also agree here that Packer was lying when he first spoke to Sgt. White in denying seeing anyone about.
We know people were about, so we know he was lying, the question is, why?
I take the view that he just didn't want to get involved. Not an unusual response for the time.
This does happen today, a witness may initially claim to have seen or heard nothing because they don't want to get involved, only to change their mind a short time later and tell all they know.
It's no good treating this as highly suspicious, it's more like human nature, from time to time it happens.

The alternate conclusion might be, that Sgt. White was lying when he wrote that he'd asked Packer about the night, and Packer had replied in the negative.
Is Sgt. White just covering for himself in being remiss about not thinking to question Packer?
Not a popular conclusion to draw I imagine.

Is it hardly a wonder, therefore, that Swanson felt compelled to report that, "any statement he [Packer] made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence", i.e. on account of his drastically changed story and his association with the crook Charles Grand? In fact, is there another witness throughout the Ripper enquiry whose evidence was condemned in such unequivocal terms?

Right, but Swanson's remarks are not aimed at the Coroner's inquiry, he is thinking ahead to a potential criminal case should the killer be caught.
The Coroner makes his own mind up about who is called to appear.

After all the statements made by Packer are analyzed, we are still left with one basic question.
Because Packer did lie at some point, and appears to have also told some truths, does this mean that the man he claimed to see with Stride never existed?

My view is, it does not. Stride was with a man, around that time and at that location.
Therefore, some of what Packer claimed to see was correct.

[curious4]

From Swanson's report to the Home Office 19th October 1888, as quoted in Evans and Skinner's JTR Sourcebook.

"Mr Packer when asked by the police stated that he did not see any suspicious persons about, and it was not until after the publication in the newspapers of the description of the man seen by the P.C. that Mr Packer gave the foregoing particulars to two private enquiry men acting conjointly with the Vigilance Comtee. .....................

Packer, who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."

This actually also gives credence to Schwartz' testimony.

Packer was old and doddery (in his sixties, but people do age differently) and was considered to be a bad witness for those reasons, but Swanson believed him.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

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.

Hello Jon

Perhaps they were?

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[S.Brett]

Hi Jon!

Thinking about your words... lies and truths... police, press, Le Grand...

After all the statements made by Packer are
analyzed, we are still left with one basic question.
Because Packer did lie at some point, and appears to have also told some truths, does this mean that the man he claimed to see with Stride never existed?

... just as I am sitting... lighting one of my clay pipes...

Did Schwartz tell the truth? About the knife?

Schwartz (police report): "he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe"
Schwartz (press report) : "states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand"

In one hand holding the clay pipe and in my other hand holding the pipe tamper. I am wondering if it is possible that Schwartz did see a clay pipe and a pipe tamper and he thought that the pipe tamper is a knife?

My tamper is very small but perhaps they were not that small around 1900.

What do you think?

Karsten.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon!

Thinking about your words... lies and truths... police, press, Le Grand...



... just as I am sitting... lighting one of my clay pipes...

Did Schwartz tell the truth? About the knife?

Schwartz (police report): "he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe"
Schwartz (press report) : "states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand"

In one hand holding the clay pipe and in my other hand holding the pipe tamper. I am wondering if it is possible that Schwartz did see a clay pipe and a pipe tamper and he thought that the pipe tamper is a knife?

My tamper is very small but perhaps they were not that small around 1900.

What do you think?

Karsten.

Hi Karsten.

I hadn't thought of that, not being a pipe smoker

I used to work with a man who cleaned the bowl of his pipe with a small knife before he filled it to smoke again.
So Schwartz may have seen a man cleaning his pipe rather than lighting his pipe, or perhaps he determined the cleaning was all part of the function of lighting the pipe, which wouldn't actually be incorrect.

Schwartz: "I saw a second man standing lighting his pipe."

Reporter: " Just standing there watching?"

Schwartz: "No, actually he took out a knife to clean the bowl....."

Reporter: (interrupting) "..you saw the man had a knife?, ok, this is great stuff Mr Schwartz, carry on"

Who knows how misleading stories begin...

[John G]

Hi John.
Yes, agreed, he was making the point that the earlier heavy rain had kept the streets quiet of potential customers.
Not that it was raining at the time he shut up shop.




Yes, I also agree here that Packer was lying when he first spoke to Sgt. White in denying seeing anyone about.
We know people were about, so we know he was lying, the question is, why?
I take the view that he just didn't want to get involved. Not an unusual response for the time.
This does happen today, a witness may initially claim to have seen or heard nothing because they don't want to get involved, only to change their mind a short time later and tell all they know.
It's no good treating this as highly suspicious, it's more like human nature, from time to time it happens.

The alternate conclusion might be, that Sgt. White was lying when he wrote that he'd asked Packer about the night, and Packer had replied in the negative.
Is Sgt. White just covering for himself in being remiss about not thinking to question Packer?
Not a popular conclusion to draw I imagine.




Right, but Swanson's remarks are not aimed at the Coroner's inquiry, he is thinking ahead to a potential criminal case should the killer be caught.
The Coroner makes his own mind up about who is called to appear.

After all the statements made by Packer are analyzed, we are still left with one basic question.
Because Packer did lie at some point, and appears to have also told some truths, does this mean that the man he claimed to see with Stride never existed?

My view is, it does not. Stride was with a man, around that time and at that location.
Therefore, some of what Packer claimed to see was correct.

Hi Jon,

Well, I seriously doubt that Sergeant White lied in his report. I also doubt that Packer lied because he didn't want to get involved. In fact, I would argue the opposite, i.e. that he was an attention seeker, based upon his continued attempts to insert himself into the inquiry. Thus, as I noted previously, he subsequently claimed to have seen the suspect again, but he apparently escaped on a tram; and then claimed that he sold rabbits to a man who suspected his cousin was Jack the Ripper: in fact, he gave a very detailed account of this encounter, recounting what the man had to say in graphic detail: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

And, as I noted in my earlier post, he also lied when he said he hadn't been spoken to by the police, when Sergeant White had clearly taken a statement for him.

Regarding Packer's timings being consistent with other witnesses. Firstly, he gives different times, in different accounts, for the closing of his shop, i.e. 11:30, 12:30. Secondly, by the time he gave his second statement he would no doubt be aware, from the newspapers, of statements given by other witnesses who claimed to have seen Stride, and the timings they gave.

Of course, the fact that Packer only came forward with his second account at the behest of a convicted criminal excites suspicion, as does his subsequent complaints about not receiving expected remuneration.