Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Wickerman]

In #653, you quote Sgt White stating that Packer closed shop due to the rain.

Yes, at 12:30, due to the rain.

This is from Swanson's report:

Yes, but let me draw your attention to the bold text.

Arising out of head b, a, [enquires] Mr. Packer a fruiterer, of Berner St. stated that at 11 p.m. 29th Sept. a young man age 25 to 30 about 5 ft. 7 in. dress long black coat, buttoned up, soft felt hat, (Kind of Yankee hat) rather broad shoulders, rough voice, rather quick speaking, with a woman wearing a geranium like flower, white outside, red inside, & he sold him 1/2 lb of grapes. The man & woman went to the other side of road & stood talking till 11.30 p.m. then they went towards the Club (Socialist) apparently listening to the music. Mr. Packer when asked by the police stated that he did not see any suspicious person about, and it was not until after the publication in the newspapers of the description of man seen by the P.C. that Mr. Packer gave the foregoing particulars to two private enquiry men acting conjointly with the Vigilance Comtee. and the press, who upon searching a drain in the yard found a grape stem which was amongst the other matter swept from the yard after its examination by the police & then calling upon Mr. Packer whom they took to the mortuary where he identified the body of Elizabeth Stride as that of the woman. 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.

So, according to the police, Packer stated that the time of the grape's sale was 11pm. I don't think it can be determined from the above that the police thought Packer and Smith saw the same man. Perhaps you're referring to another source?

But, Swanson is saying it was not official because it came to police via two private detectives - Grand & Batchelor.
Swanson has not quoted from an official police statement from Packer.

In fact, if we look at the summary signed by A.C. Bruce (below), just compare it detail for detail, with what you quoted from Swanson. It begins almost word-for-word when describing the suspect.

4^th October, 1888.
Matthew Packer
keeps a shop in Berner St. has a few grapes in window, black & white.

On Sat night about 11 pm a young man from 25-30 about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat rather broad shoulders – rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him ½ pound black grapes 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street) She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside. I identify the woman at the St. George's mortuary as the one I saw that night -
They passed by as though they were going up Com- Road, but – instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about ½ an hour till I shd. Say 11.30, talking to one another.
I then shut up my shutters.
Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they wait 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.
I put the man down as a young clerk.
He had a frock coat on – no gloves.
He was about 1 ½ inch or 2 or 3 inches – a little higher than she was.

A.C.B.
4.10.88.

It seems like Grand & Batchelor are the one's who told police it was 11:00 not 12:00, and 11:30 not 12:30.

Every time Packer gave his statement he says 12:00 not 11:00, and 12:30 not 11:30.

Read Packer's account in the Evening News, the same report used by police to start their investigation.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881004.html

to continue....

[Wickerman]

...

So, according to the police, Packer stated that the time of the grape's sale was 11pm. I don't think it can be determined from the above that the police thought Packer and Smith saw the same man. Perhaps you're referring to another source?

Yes, but you will notice Swanson promotes PC Smith, which is only right. The police will always trust one of their own.
Though the item I previously mentioned was from a newspaper.
In this case it was the East London Advertise, 6 Oct.

Mathew Packer after two or three interviews made and signed a statement in writing. On Saturday night about 11:45 a man and woman came, he says, to his shop window, and asked for some fruit.

Packer's story remained consistent, it was the statement handed to police from Grand & Batchelor where we see this reference to 11:00 in stead of 12:00, or 11:30 as opposed to 12:30.

The other part where I said the police believe Packer & Smith saw the same man, it was with reference to a sketch. In fact three witnesses all picked the same face like an I.D., the third witness was not named, but the article said both Packer & Smith.

Packer was shewn a considerable collection of photographs, and from these, after careful inspection, he picked out one which corresponded in all important respects to the sketch. It was noticed that Packer, as also another important witness, presently to be mentioned, at once rejected the faces of men of purely sensuous type, and that they thus threw aside the portraits of several noted American criminals. Both witnesses inclined to the belief that the man's age was not more than 30, in which estimate they were supported by the police-constable, who guessed him to be 28.
East London Advertiser, 13 Oct.

Yes, but this is a problem for anyone who supposes that Stride and companion were at the Bricklayer's Arms. Had the pair intended to steal from Dutfield's Yard, they may have decided to go a longer route to Packer's shop, to avoid going past the club when it was still packed.

It's only a problem for anyone who follows the times given by Grand & Batchelor. Stride cannot be buying grapes about 10:45-11:00 from Packer and be seen at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00pm.
But we have no problem if we stay with what Packer told the press, them buying grapes about 11:45, after coming from Settles Street at 11:00 pm. That's 45 minutes to get from the Bricklayers Arms to the south end of Berner St.

So why does the marginal note in White's report say 11pm?

Someone was changing Packer's statement to reflect what Grand & Batchelor had recorded.
Their role in this mystery has always been the subject of much speculation, Tom more than anyone has tried to create a conspiracy involving those two.
Another poster suggested a similar attempt by Grand & Batchelor to distort the truth. It seems they were up to something, but exactly what is the question, and why, of course. And ultimately, were they successful?

Commissioner Bruce's report quotes Packer:

They passed by as though they were going up Com- Road, but- instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about 1/2 an hour till I shd. say 11.30. talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters.

If you recall, Grand & Batchelor told Packer they were going to take him to see Comm. Warren.
Why they thought they could get an audience with Warren is a question all on it's own, these were mere private detectives, or two characters posing as detectives.
Possibly they did talk with A.C. Bruce, which resulted in that summary of his?

Whereas I think the timing is a better fit with Marshall's testimony. I don't see how Stride and companion could have stood across from Packer's shop between 12 and 12:30, without anyone remembering seeing them there except Packer.

And Smith.

[GBinOz]

Yes, but you will notice Swanson promotes PC Smith, which is only right. The police will always trust one of their own.
Though the item I previously mentioned was from a newspaper.
In this case it was the East London Advertise, 6 Oct.

Mathew Packer after two or three interviews made and signed a statement in writing. On Saturday night about 11:45 a man and woman came, he says, to his shop window, and asked for some fruit.

Packer's story remained consistent, it was the statement handed to police from Grand & Batchelor where we see this reference to 11:00 in stead of 12:00, or 11:30 as opposed to 12:30.

The other part where I said the police believe Packer & Smith saw the same man, it was with reference to a sketch. In fact three witnesses all picked the same face like an I.D., the third witness was not named, but the article said both Packer & Smith.

Packer was shewn a considerable collection of photographs, and from these, after careful inspection, he picked out one which corresponded in all important respects to the sketch. It was noticed that Packer, as also another important witness, presently to be mentioned, at once rejected the faces of men of purely sensuous type, and that they thus threw aside the portraits of several noted American criminals. Both witnesses inclined to the belief that the man's age was not more than 30, in which estimate they were supported by the police-constable, who guessed him to be 28.
East London Advertiser, 13 Oct.




It's only a problem for anyone who follows the times given by Grand & Batchelor. Stride cannot be buying grapes about 10:45-11:00 from Packer and be seen at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00pm.
But we have no problem if we stay with what Packer told the press, them buying grapes about 11:45, after coming from Settles Street at 11:00 pm. That's 45 minutes to get from the Bricklayers Arms to the south end of Berner St.




Someone was changing Packer's statement to reflect what Grand & Batchelor had recorded.
Their role in this mystery has always been the subject of much speculation, Tom more than anyone has tried to create a conspiracy involving those two.
Another poster suggested a similar attempt by Grand & Batchelor to distort the truth. It seems they were up to something, but exactly what is the question, and why, of course. And ultimately, were they successful?


[/I]

If you recall, Grand & Batchelor told Packer they were going to take him to see Comm. Warren.
Why they thought they could get an audience with Warren is a question all on it's own, these were mere private detectives, or two characters posing as detectives.
Possibly they did talk with A.C. Bruce, which resulted in that summary of his?


And Smith.

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your comprehensive comments and links regarding Packer. I have bookmarked them for future reference.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your comprehensive comments and links regarding Packer. I have bookmarked them for future reference.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

I keep individual files on all the characters, witnesses, victims, etc. in most of the murders.
All the previous post came from my file on Packer. It saves searching newspapers, and makes it easier to do a search for a word or phrase the witness may have said.
I keep everything to do with every witness in their own file, all in one place.

What I had not noticed (like, not seeing the wood for the trees), was Swanson's comment that much of the contesting details traditionally aimed at Packer, actually came from Grand & Batchelor.
It seems that every time we have a story ascribed to Packer himself, he only mentions one time - 11:45 when selling grapes, and 12:30 when shutting up shop.
All the references to selling grapes about 10:45-11:00, and/or closing the shop about 11:30, came from Grand & Batchelor.
So, Swanson attributes all the details in his report to Grand & Batchelor, and those same details were listed by A.C. Bruce in his summary. Also, it seems someone changed the times reported in Sgt. White's record of his meeting with Packer.

I don't think anyone noticed this before, I know I've never read of it anywhere.

Why have the police entertained the intrusion of these two private detectives; taking a witness to an I.D., extracting a statement from the witness, the police using it as the reliable source, and changing the record of one of their own officers reports to match the story obtained by the two private detectives?

It's long been recognised there is no actual police statement from Packer, but I wonder if they ever even took one in the first place. There is no mention of him coming in to give a statement. Yet the press story in the Evening News, dated 4th Oct. seems to be the first real account in any detail that we have, and this is what drew the attention of police to Packer. But, this is four days after the murder. Maybe they thought it's too late to take a statement from Packer at this time?
One press account does say Packer had several interviews put to writing, he then signed them, but this seems to refer to a contract between

[Abby Normal]

As you know, Schwartz claimed to follow the first man down Berner St, who stops at the gates where Stride is. How does that fit with Smith's testimony?

First man: ... had nothing in his hands.

Smith: I noticed he had a newspaper parcel in his hand. It was about 18in. in length and 6in. or 8in. in width.

Either Schwartz missed this detail, or Parcelman is conspicuous by his absence.

i think stride was out looking for a new man. recently broken up, trying to look nice, not jumping into the first alley with the first man she met, etc. i think she met the ripper, and he was trying to finagle her into a dark alley but she wasnt going easy. i think they were seen by marshal, then probably smith and finally schwartz, who saw the beginning of the fatal attack.either schwartz missed seeing the package or perhaps smith saw anotjer couple, but imho marshall and schwartz def saw stride and the ripper. you know, peaked cap man.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the police believed that Schwartz saw the murderer, then why did they ask Lawende to try to identify, in turn, two suspects?

And why did the police take special care of Lawende, but not of Schwartz?

And why would Stride have gone with the man seen by Schwartz into the darkness of the yard after being roughed up by him?

And why would the assailant have stayed in Berner Street when he knew he had been seen by Schwartz assaulting the woman and that Schwartz might report what he had seen to a policeman?

[Wickerman]

i think stride was out looking for a new man. recently broken up, trying to look nice, not jumping into the first alley with the first man she met, etc. i think she met the ripper, and he was trying to finagle her into a dark alley but she wasnt going easy. i think they were seen by marshal, then probably smith and finally schwartz, who saw the beginning of the fatal attack.either schwartz missed seeing the package or perhaps smith saw anotjer couple, but imho marshall and schwartz def saw stride and the ripper. you know, peaked cap man.

But, Smith saw the flower (it must have been Stride), Marshall saw no flower (was not Stride), and we know Stride had the flower at 11:00 at the Bricklayers Arms.
You're following the peaked cap, not the flower.

[Wickerman]

If the police believed that Schwartz saw the murderer, then why did they ask Lawende to try to identify, in turn, two suspects?

Lawende's involvement to identify Granger & Sadler was after Abberline left, Abberline had been promoted in 1890, Lawende was brought in to ID Granger in 1891, and Sadler in 1895. So, possibly these were the choices of someone else?
Swanson was still there but he was not in a decision making role, as far as I know.
Reid was still the Head of CID for H Div.

And why did the police take special care of Lawende, but not of Schwartz?

Truth - we don't know.
But, Lawende was the responsibility of the City Police, perhaps the Met. were not so concerned?
But also, I think Swanson's comment on Schwartz has been misunderstood.

And why would Stride have gone with the man seen by Schwartz into the darkness of the yard after being roughed up by him?

I don't think they were the same man.

And why would the assailant have stayed in Berner Street when he knew he had been seen by Schwartz assaulting the woman and that Schwartz might report what he had seen to a policeman?

We don't know if he did stay around.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende's involvement to identify Granger & Sadler was after Abberline left, Abberline had been promoted in 1890, Lawende was brought in to ID Granger in 1891, and Sadler in 1895. So, possibly these were the choices of someone else?

What reason is there to think that Abberline suspected that the man seen by Schwartz was the murderer?

But also, I think Swanson's comment on Schwartz has been misunderstood.

Please elaborate.

I don't think they were the same man.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

We don't know if he did stay around.

And it is unlikely that he would have?

[GBinOz]

But, Smith saw the flower (it must have been Stride), Marshall saw no flower (was not Stride), and we know Stride had the flower at 11:00 at the Bricklayers Arms.
You're following the peaked cap, not the flower.

Hi Jon,

Marshall said he saw no flower, but he also said "I did not take much notice whether she was carrying anything in her hands".

Packer said:
She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside.

I suppose that there is a possibility that Stride took the flower off before Marshall saw her, and replaced after she left Packer's shop.

The major difference that I see is the man's hat. Best said he "wore a black billycock hat, rather tall", Marshall said "A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear", Packer said a "soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat". There are, as is usual, different reports of Smith's description of the hat - Daily News said "hard felt hat", Evening News said "dark deerstalker hat", Morning Advertiser said "hard felt dark hat", The Times said "hard felt deerstalker hat of dark colour" and The Daily Telegraph "dark felt deerstalker's hat".

So Marshall (and Brown IMO) is out of step with the hat as well as the flower.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Marshall said he saw no flower, but he also said "I did not take much notice whether she was carrying anything in her hands".

Packer said:
She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket a black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside.

I suppose that there is a possibility that Stride took the flower off before Marshall saw her, and replaced after she left Packer's shop.

Hi George.

There are possibilities for a lot of things, it's just that when we propose something for which we have no apparent reason to believe, it doesn't sound so convincing. Academic's call that Special Pleading, especially when there are other points against Marshall too.

The major difference that I see is the man's hat. Best said he "wore a black billycock hat, rather tall", Marshall said "A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear", Packer said a "soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat". There are, as is usual, different reports of Smith's description of the hat - Daily News said "hard felt hat", Evening News said "dark deerstalker hat", Morning Advertiser said "hard felt dark hat", The Times said "hard felt deerstalker hat of dark colour" and The Daily Telegraph "dark felt deerstalker's hat".

So Marshall (and Brown IMO) is out of step with the hat as well as the flower.

Marshall is a strange choice, apart from the discrepancies you mention, this witness was standing at his door from 11:30-12:00, and he lives on Berner Street south of Fairclough, but the couple did not walk away northward towards the club. They walked southward at 12:00 towards Ellen Street, away from the club.
Why would anyone use Marshall?, it must be the peaked cap, but that was common headgear, most men wore one.

[Wickerman]

What reason is there to think that Abberline suspected that the man seen by Schwartz was the murderer?

Probably none, but when he retired he favored Klosowski, another well-dressed Jew, as the killer. He also believed Hutchinson who told him Kelly walked off with a well-dressed Jew.
All three men may have been somewhat similar.

Please elaborate.

I think the problem lies in sentence structure. What Swanson wrote has been interpreted as the police believed Schwartz. I don't think that is correct, he simply employed one "if" were we might expect him to have used two "if's".

Swanson wrote down Schwartz's story, and his description of the suspect.
Beneath this, Swanson wrote:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it".

Whereas, I think he meant:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it".

The first example suggests the police believe Schwartz, the second example suggests the police are waiting for the police report, they must be investigating his story. So, if the subsequent police report confirms his story then....... "it follows, if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer..."

Even the marginal note begins with, "This is rather confused....." which it is.

I just don't think Schwartz's story checked out, so the police did not proceed with him as a witness.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Probably none, but when he retired he favored Klosowski, another well-dressed Jew, as the killer. He also believed Hutchinson who told him Kelly walked off with a well-dressed Jew.
All three men may have been somewhat similar.

Two hours ago, I challenged an allegation made by a poster on another thread that the anarchists who committed the Houndsditch Murders were a Jewish gang.

You are not the first poster to describe Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski, alias George Chapman, as a Jew.

He was not.

He was a Polish Gentile.

As you may recall, I have stated several times that there is no record of a Jewish serial killer in British criminal history, nor of a Polish Jewish serial murderer anywhere in the world.

I do not know what makes you think that Schwartz's suspect, Hutchinson's, and Kłosowski may have been somewhat similar.

Neither Schwartz nor Hutchinson mentioned a foreign accent nor gave any reason to suspect that the men they saw were foreign.

[Wickerman]

Two hours ago, I challenged an allegation made by a poster on another thread that the anarchists who committed the Houndsditch Murders were a Jewish gang.

You are not the first poster to describe Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski, alias George Chapman, as a Jew.

Yes, I agree he wasn't, I misread your post.
I meant he looked 'theatrical', like Schwartz & like Astrachan, the Hutchinson suspect. I was pointing out the descriptions as similar.
I missed the fact you meant Schwartz suspect, not Schwartz himself.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, at 12:30, due to the rain.

The Evening News report said "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." Who, other than Packer, remembered there being consistent rain between 11:45 and 12:30?

But, Swanson is saying it was not official because it came to police via two private detectives - Grand & Batchelor.
Swanson has not quoted from an official police statement from Packer.

Swanson says "... that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman ... any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence." That sounds official to me.

Every time Packer gave his statement he says 12:00 not 11:00, and 12:30 not 11:30.

He appears to have told the private detectives, something else. Whatever the case, it is a matter of faith that Packer was recalling the correct night, let alone the correct time.

It's only a problem for anyone who follows the times given by Grand & Batchelor. Stride cannot be buying grapes about 10:45-11:00 from Packer and be seen at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00pm.
But we have no problem if we stay with what Packer told the press, them buying grapes about 11:45, after coming from Settles Street at 11:00 pm. That's 45 minutes to get from the Bricklayers Arms to the south end of Berner St.

45 minutes is, of course, a lot more than required. Do you suppose the extra time was spent in a pub, or on the street?