The Complete History of Jack the Ripper

[Stephen Thomas]

I think Sugden is far too dismissive of Matthew Packer.

(says me knowing that no-one will support me on this)

[EricCarter]

I think Sugden is far too dismissive of Matthew Packer.

(says me knowing that no-one will support me on this)

Packer's story changed daily if not more depending on who he talked to. Due to this it is easy to dismiss him. Sugden gave him more than I would have, had it been me I would have given the statements he made followed by a "what ever" and gone on. But that's me.

The real question is why do you think he's too dismissive of him? I got every little out of his statements and as a whole with the way it changed so much little credence should be given to him.


Eric

[Stephen Thomas]

The real question is why do you think he's too dismissive of him?

Hi Eric

I don't know.

Because Packer's story, to my mind, cannot be dismissed so lightly. Sure it changed a bit but the kernel, that he sold grapes to Stride's under-discussed, well dressed, young companion, also described by other witnesses (not the sort to get his hands dirty ho ho and did Packer say broad-shouldered?), rings true to me. Sugden's book is an awesome piece of scholarship but as far as I'm concerned his opinions on Packer are wrong. One shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, as the hoary old saying goes, and that's what I believe Sugden is doing as regards to Packer.

But as I said, I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

[EricCarter]

Hi Eric

I don't know.

Because Packer's story, to my mind, cannot be dismissed so lightly. Sure it changed a bit but the kernel, that he sold grapes to Stride's under-discussed, well dressed, young companion, also described by other witnesses (not the sort to get his hands dirty ho ho and did Packer say broad-shouldered?), rings true to me. Sugden's book is an awesome piece of scholarship but as far as I'm concerned his opinions on Packer are wrong. One shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, as the hoary old saying goes, and that's what I believe Sugden is doing as regards to Packer.

But as I said, I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

The problem that I have with him is that in his own words on the first to the police was that he saw or heard nothing out of the ordinary the night before. Then when the phantom grape stem was found (by 2 private detectives that used his as their witness and not found by the police or the medical personnel) he suddenly remembers selling grapes to a woman fitting Stride description in the company of a shady man (days later). Then, as more statements were made of a man possibly seen with Stride, his description of the man changes to fit it.

It seems to me that Sugden had it right, Packer wanted his 15 minutes and got it and his livelihood took a turn for the better the more he told the story. It's the numerous changes in the story that Sugden and even I have to question.

As a counter point George Hutchinson's story never really changed from the first time he told it. The details were more or less the same, any small detail that may have been added after the first telling stayed and were unchanged, which is common as you look back on things you remember more details in the telling.

But, stories don't change in the fashion of Packer, which is the reason that most people have and will continue to discount his story, because really that's all it seems to be a story.

Eric

[Stephen Thomas]

The problem that I have with him is that in his own words on the first to the police was that he saw or heard nothing out of the ordinary the night before.

Which he didn't. Nothing out of the ordinary happened.

He sold some grapes to a man with a lady friend. So what?

The lady later turned out to have been murdered and he remembered and identified her as the woman with the man who bought the grapes.

[EricCarter]

Which he didn't. Nothing out of the ordinary happened.

He sold some grapes to a man with a lady friend. So what?

The lady later turned out to have been murdered and he remembered and identified her as the woman with the man who bought the grapes.

But which he didn't remember untill days later and after which an alleged grape stem was found at the murder site. And as stated his story change every time some one new came forward with a bit of detail, like the flower he sudenly remembered it as well.

Eric

[Stephen Thomas]

But which he didn't remember until days later and after which an alleged grape stem was found at the murder site. And as stated his story changed every time someone new came forward with a bit of detail, like the flower he sudenly remembered it as well.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

[EricCarter]

Yeah, sure, whatever.

If you don't want to take Sugden's word go back and read Skinner and Evans which just have the reports offical and press which give no opinions or insight just the fact as reported. Taking these facts Packer didn't really know much if anything and was just making it up as he went.

Packer's first report to the police was he saw or knew of nothing unusal the night of the murder (which was the very next day). Then after the private detectives got involed and state to have found the grape stem he remember the shady man with a woman that may have been the victim. And again his story changed as more witness statments came out.

Eric

[perrymason]

Hi again,

To address a point you addressed to me Eric, I think its fair to say that anger and violence would be found in wounds that were committed rapidly and without intentions of accurately hitting a specific target or killing with a single wound....beyond hitting the intended victim itself of course.

Speed, sloppiness, vicious cuts like Kates nose, or frenzied stabbing as seen with Martha suggest some rage fueling the murder itself. I dont believe that the Ripper showed any emotions based on wound types in the deaths attributed to him save the facial wounds on Kate, and the atrocity in room 13. If anything he was as clinical as possible. That is seen clearly in the death strokes, the throat cuts....so firm and deliberate he almost decapitates a few women.

On Packer, when really poor people get a fairly large sum of money waved in front of their face its no wonder why some might want to have a story to tell to claim it. I talked to Sam once about the relative value of the 20L offered to a Teaching Hospital for a uterus sample the year before,....(before anyone says its not proven true...Ill only say that one of the 2 Hospitals denied the story)....and Sam gave me a current approximate value of 1200L Sterling.

Within a week after the DE, Packer could have made as much as 500L for information leading to the arrest, that would have a value today of approximately 30,000L Sterling today.

Think someone in the poorest part of your town might be persuaded to try and take a shot at getting some of that money with a story? I'll bet someone in the poorest parts of Toronto would.

Best regards all.

[EricCarter]

My point was just that there is violence and anger in the fact that he or they killed at all. He had to be miffed about something; in ever case (except Stride) there were some form of post mortem mutilations

Granted it doesn't necessarily show anger, but I guessing there were some unresolved anger issues at work. But it was definitely violent.

Which does not take away from the clinical nature of the attacks. But, he was most definitely emotional; anger, lust, there was something there.

Eric

[Aristocles]

I await the Sudgen book in the thread title, along with "The Jack The Ripper From A to Z". Should have arrived, actually. . . I am for the most part a complete novice, having relied on internet and television for my cursory 'knowledge' and only in passing (although of course I have thought about certain aspects). A dark enough glass through which to view? I did find a copy of the Cornwell book that my wife had laying around. I have been reading it but alas, it's a difficult task for me as I despise the taking of an entire page or more to describe the most puerile of things. (Only slightly hyperbolic) I think I shall always be a sort of 'Jack Webb' character when it comes to history.

Are the two selections I have mentioned above a good beginning? It's like the old Aristotelian transliteration, "well begun is half done".

[Aristocles]

Addendum:

The book was excellent.

Well written. Stylistically clear. Cogent. Coherent. Does not make Kierkegaardian Leaps, etc.

[dixon9]

just got it,couldn't put it down and finally got off to sleep at ten to four this morning,great stuff

[Howard Brown]

If either of you frown on the idea of the Graffiti on Goulston Street being legitimate...Mr. Sugden suggests otherwise.

Now,hows the book look?

[dixon9]

howard

imo Mr Sugdens book is one of the best (if not the best out there).In regards to his views that it was a big mistake by Sir CharlesWarren to order the washing down of the wall before the message was photograped,is also backed up many years later by Major Smith.
I though do not think it would have helped them find 'jack' as i do not believe the message was left by the murderer,but my opinions do not detract from what a good book it is.