Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Has Matthew Packer not be completely discredited by almost every historian that has studied the case?

In #619, I said ...

While I'm dubious about the Evening News story, I think those who dismiss Packer should have something to say about Diemschitz and Kozebrodski's reference to grapes in her hand, and Phillips reference to the fruit-stained handkerchief.

What do the historians have to say on these points?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So, whether it was half an hour, or just more or less, is not clear. It also could have been 11:45-12:15 or 12:00-12:30, or something in between.
It doesn't need to be precise.

As Marshall tells us it was not raining when he went in at midnight, it would seem the period must have commenced after that point. In the 12:00-12:30 period we have the 'walking couple' on Berner St, and we have Wess going home with his brother, who leave the club with another man and they walk east on Fairclough St. Had Stride and Parcelman been across from Packer's shop at the time, the three men would have walked right passed them. Morning Advertiser:

Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?-I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.

Did you see no one nearer?-No, sir.

Wess doesn't seem to have mentioned there being any rain at this time. Only Best and Gardner mention strong rainfall, at around 11pm.

[Sunny Delight]

Has Matthew Packer not be completely discredited by almost every historian that has studied the case?

[Wickerman]

James Brown said there was no rain when he returned from the shop. The Evening News report suggests the couple were standing in the rain, opposite Packer's shop, for at least half an hour. What approximate half-hour period do you suppose this was?

Well, if we look at the various quotes and statements attributed to Packer, we see the police summary, signed by Sgt. White is where the first contention is found.
When asked when did he shut up his shop, Packer said "At half-past twelve, in consequence of the rain" (half-past twelve struck out, replaced with half-past eleven).
Which would seem to suggest it rained from 12:00-12:30, roughly.

In the Evening News he told the reporter the couple stood opposite his shop for half an hour, in the rain, until 12:15. Although, he does say elsewhere that he shut up shop at 12:30, and left the couple standing in the rain.

So, whether it was half an hour, or just more or less, is not clear. It also could have been 11:45-12:15 or 12:00-12:30, or something in between.
It doesn't need to be precise.

[GBinOz]

William Smith, 452 H Division:
It rained very little after eleven o'clock.

William Marshall:
While I was standing at my door, from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, I'm aware of what Blackwell said, but it is worded as if he thought her clothes were wet from some other reason than rain.

Diemschutz &/or Kozebrodski were attributed as pointing out...
"It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain".

PC Smith does not say it did not rain.

Yet that is what some theorists would prefer to believe.


Packer's wife also commented on the same couple standing in the rain.

James Brown said there was no rain when he returned from the shop. The Evening News report suggests the couple were standing in the rain, opposite Packer's shop, for at least half an hour. What approximate half-hour period do you suppose this was?

[Wickerman]

Yes Scott, in all cases (diagrams) Gavin has PC Smith walk south past Mortimer's house to Fairclough, then cross the street and walk north up the Board School side of Berner St. Yet police beats are not known to cover both sides of the same street.
Which made me wonder where he got the idea the constable had to patrol both sides of the same street, once was enough.

[Scott Nelson]

It's been a while since I read Bromley's analysis, so I forget the details. Though according to your explanation Gavin's analysis was based on his own estimates?
Do you see the problem there?
I notice the article is in Dissertations
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...iths-beat.html

That's what I've concluded Jon. Bromley's analysis is based on his timing reconstructions. Berner Street apparently wasn't a normal part of Smith's beat. The location is based solely on Smith's inquest testimony of seeing Stride and the man. The location could be a problem, but Bromley is pretty meticulous.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Scott,

Bromley posited that Smith walked south on the western side of Berner, past Mortimer's door, and then north on the eastern side, past Stride and Parcelman. Are you aware of any indication given by Mortimer as to which direction the measured footfalls that she heard were were headed. I can't find anything in that regard. If the footfalls were headed south it would remove the possibility that she was hearing the escape of the killer.

Cheers, George

Hi George, I've found nothing on the direction of audible footfalls, but I should think that Mortimer would still be able to discern their direction if she was at her door when the killer fled.

[Wickerman]

Smith: It rained very little after eleven o'clock.

Blackwell: The clothes were not wet with rain.

Yes, I'm aware of what Blackwell said, but it is worded as if he thought her clothes were wet from some other reason than rain.

Diemschutz &/or Kozebrodski were attributed as pointing out...
"It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain".

PC Smith does not say it did not rain.

Yet that is what some theorists would prefer to believe.

Perhaps what he saw was so normal that he was confused about which night he saw it.

Packer's wife also commented on the same couple standing in the rain.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That is absolutely spot on.
What is so unusual about a customer buying grapes, or walking past the club, or standing opposite and listening to the singing?
Should we expect he told police he had two suspicious customers last night, they bought grapes - black one's. Then walked up to the club, then crossed the road and stood in the rain.
What are we to expect the police to do about that?

Smith: It rained very little after eleven o'clock.

Blackwell: The clothes were not wet with rain.

No, what he saw was perfectly normal. The problem the police had was Packer thought the time was 10:45 when this couple came to his shop window, then he said 11:45.
He told the police he shut up his shop about 11:30, but changed it to 12:30.
The story he gave to the press seems to be more like reality, but the police do not appear to have received an official statement from Packer to revise his first statement.
The police knew the correct story, but unless the correction came from Packer they cannot use him.

Perhaps what he saw was so normal that he was confused about which night he saw it.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon.

I agree entirely with these principles. We are each acting as time-removed jurors and we need to assess the evidence and resolve conflicts by considering the preponderance of evidence in an impartial manner. The opinions of others are entirely their own concern, as opinions are not facts, and while a degree of speculation is inevitable, each juror must make up their own mind. Whatever conclusions may be drawn, no-one is to be convicted, and there will be no consequences for anyone.

Thankyou George, to each their own, as they say.

IMO Packer made some time errors, but when he initially said he saw nothing, he meant he saw nothing unusual. Selling grapes to a customer was entirely usual to him. He also passed the test of being shown a false body for identification.

That is absolutely spot on.
What is so unusual about a customer buying grapes, or walking past the club, or standing opposite and listening to the singing?
Should we expect he told police he had two suspicious customers last night, they bought grapes - black one's. Then walked up to the club, then crossed the road and stood in the rain.
What are we to expect the police to do about that?

No, what he saw was perfectly normal. The problem the police had was Packer thought the time was 10:45 when this couple came to his shop window, then he said 11:45.
He told the police he shut up his shop about 11:30, but changed it to 12:30.
The story he gave to the press seems to be more like reality, but the police do not appear to have received an official statement from Packer to revise his first statement.
The police knew the correct story, but unless the correction came from Packer they cannot use him.

While we seem to agree on Packer, we seem to bifurcate on our assessment methods on Maxwell. To me, she is the most solid, unwavering witness in the whole case. She is somewhat corroborated by Maurice Lewis, and had not the coroner closed the inquest early, might have received additional corroboration from other witnesses. Maxwell actually knew MJK and conducted a conversation with her. I find her testimony to be far more reliable than Long, Richardson, Cadosch, Lawende, Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox. But that is JMO.

Perhaps, when we find ourselves on a thread debating Maxwell we may review what we think?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't think he did, his story was that he found the body, then left the yard running to find a policeman. When he got back the police arrived within minutes, then the doctors. He says he lost interest at that moment.
The statement he gave to the press (1st Oct.) does say he saw grapes in her hand, but I don't see where he says the doctor unclenched the hand?
I can't find where you say he watched the doctor unclench the hands.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/search.html?cx=000723952817035431763%3Aucomtzxdr00 &q=Diemschutz+unclenched&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A 11

This does seem to be questionable, her holding something in both hands.

Don't you suppose she had grapes in one hand, until she dropped them? Cachous was in the other hand. So, she may have had stuff in both hands. Obviously, that means she was soliciting.

Diemschutz does say her clothes were wet, so it must have been raining at some point.

At some point?

EN: It will be remembered that the night was very wet, and Packer naturally noticed the peculiarity of the couple's standing so long in the rain. He observed to his wife, "What fools those people are to be standing in the rain like that."

Why do I believe Packer sold her grapes?

I would suggest it all depends on how you approach the case. If you treat it like a video game, then you can make any witness into a liar to win the game.
If you look at the case from the point of view of the police, then all witness statements are given & taken in good faith.
It's not that people don't lie, it's just too easy for some theorists to avoid a troublesome witness, or failing theory, by branding the witness a liar.
Problem solved.
I take all witness statements as given in good faith, this is the evidence we have to work with.
You have to discipline yourself to stick with the evidence and not give in to dismissing something that causes you problems.

If you choose to think Packer just lied about it, that doesn't affect me in any way.
But I think if we accept his story then we find confirmation from another witness - PC Smith, his story confirms packer. That should be something to celebrate.
The pieces of the puzzle can be seen to fit without introducing the 'lying witness' factor, for which we have no justification.

Packer's statement is evidence, the suggestion he lied is speculation.

I think confusion about the time is the issue, not lying.

[GBinOz]

Smith was on the Board School side of the street when he passed Stride and "parcel" man on the same side.

Hi Scott,

Bromley posited that Smith walked south on the western side of Berner, past Mortimer's door, and then north on the eastern side, past Stride and Parcelman. Are you aware of any indication given by Mortimer as to which direction the measured footfalls that she heard were were headed. I can't find anything in that regard. If the footfalls were headed south it would remove the possibility that she was hearing the escape of the killer.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I take all witness statements as given in good faith, this is the evidence we have to work with.
You have to discipline yourself to stick with the evidence and not give in to dismissing something that causes you problems.

If you choose to think Packer just lied about it, that doesn't affect me in any way.
But I think if we accept his story then we find confirmation from another witness - PC Smith, his story confirms packer. That should be something to celebrate.
The pieces of the puzzle can be seen to fit without introducing the 'lying witness' factor, for which we have no justification.

Packer's statement is evidence, the suggestion he lied is speculation.

Hi Jon.

I agree entirely with these principles. We are each acting as time-removed jurors and we need to assess the evidence and resolve conflicts by considering the preponderance of evidence in an impartial manner. The opinions of others are entirely their own concern, as opinions are not facts, and while a degree of speculation is inevitable, each juror must make up their own mind. Whatever conclusions may be drawn, no-one is to be convicted, and there will be no consequences for anyone.

IMO Packer made some time errors, but when he initially said he saw nothing, he meant he saw nothing unusual. Selling grapes to a customer was entirely usual to him. He also passed the test of being shown a false body for identification.

While we seem to agree on Packer, we seem to bifurcate on our assessment methods on Maxwell. To me, she is the most solid, unwavering witness in the whole case. She is somewhat corroborated by Maurice Lewis, and had not the coroner closed the inquest early, might have received additional corroboration from other witnesses. Maxwell actually knew MJK and conducted a conversation with her. I find her testimony to be far more reliable than Long, Richardson, Cadosch, Lawende, Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox. But that is JMO.

Cheers, George