Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[mariab]

Simon Wood wrote:
And why was Stephen White's report of his 30th September interview with Packer, stating that the fruiterer had seen and heard nothing, not on file until after the publication of the Evening News story? Something's not right with this picture.

Dear Mr Wood,
many-many apologies for a very marginally informed newbie like me to “take the stand“, but my very simple interpretation of the facts is that since PC Stephen White's report from his 30th September interview with Packer contained JUST the info that the fruiterer had seen and heard “nothing out of the ordinary“, there was NO reason whatsoever, at least as far as PC White was concerned, to consider Packer as a “key witness“, so there was NO necessity whatsoever of a report from Sept 30 being on file. Not until when the Evening News went public with Packer's story no. 2 (of having sold grapes to a couple and the woman ressembled Stride), suggesting grave negligence for the police (of having missed an important witness), did Scottland Yard express interest in Packer. Stewart Evans' and Don Souden's interpretation of the reports situation leaves no ambiguity for me (while I'm looking forward to reading the Examiner 2 and Ripper Notes #25 essays, and to compare them with whatever primary sources are available in The ultimate or posted here on casebook).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

If Packer wasn't still considered a key witness [he was, after all, the only person to have possibly spoken to the murderer in the company of his victim], why was he being taken to Scotland Yard? All White had to do was tell the "private detectives" that four days earlier Packer had given a statement to the effect that he had seen and heard nothing. And White had his book "supplied to me for that purpose" [interviewing Berner Street residents] to prove it. Job done.

At Scotland Yard in the late afternoon of 4th October Packer's story was taken down in some detail by Senior Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce, an incident curiously omitted from Swanson's 19th October report. Why would ACB have entertained Packer when Sergeant White had reported back to Scotland Yard earlier the same day to "fully explain the facts" [Inspector Henry Moore's report, 4th October]?

And why was Stephen White's report of his 30th September interview with Packer, stating that the fruiterer had seen and heard nothing, not on file until after the publication of the Evening News story?

Something's not right with this picture.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

A Key Witness?

Hi Stewart,
There's something wrong with this picture.
Apples and oranges aside, when you were a police sergeant would you have meekly allowed two "private detectives" whose only authority was a letter addressed to themselves to spirit away a key witness in the murder case of the century?
Regards,
Simon

'A key witness in a murder case'???

Stephen White had already interviewed Packer at about 9.00 am on Sunday 30 September, the day of the murder. As far as White was concerned Packer had already stated he had closed at half past twelve, and "No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise and know nothing about the murder until I heard of it in the morning." So, as far as White was concerned, Packer was far from being 'a key witness'.

White returned to Berner Street on the 4th, on Inspector Moore's instructions, to ask Packer about his contrary press statement about seeing a suspect with Stride, and if necessary take him to the mortuary. He saw Packer who stated that he had seen Stride's body at the mortuary and believed he had seen her with a man on the night of the murder about midnight when she bought some grapes.

White had no power to do anything with regard to these three private citizens and the 'detectives' said they were taking Packer to see Warren anyway.

[Tom_Wescott]

Spare what? I'm the one making sense here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Spare me.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

His authority over what? Keeping people from going to the police station to speak with his superiors? He had no authority to assert in this case. And Le Grand had the cab. Also, there's the fact that Le Grand was big and scary and intimidating to consider.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Assert his authority.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

And what was he supposed to do, Simon? Pull out the gun that he's not allowed to carry and threaten them with it? Chase their hansom cab down with his super-speed? And I must say it would be the first time that I heard of a Policeman keeping three innocent citizens from going to the police station to help them solve a mystery. What would have been White's cause?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

There's something wrong with this picture.

Apples and oranges aside, when you were a police sergeant would you have meekly allowed two "private detectives" whose only authority was a letter addressed to themselves to spirit away a key witness in the murder case of the century?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks. I was thinking Bruce not Brise, you're of course correct. I still feel it was Abberline who interviewed Packer. He handled all potentially important witness interviews in the Stride case and I think features of the written report harken back to Abberline.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Accuracy

It is important to try and maintain accuracy in analysing these reports.

Packer was not 'whisked off for a meeting with the top echelons of Scotland Yard' and it is news to me that 'some think it was Ruggles-Brise' as he was private secretary to the Home Secretary at the Home Office. I guess the phrase 'whisked off' imbues it with some sort of imagined urgency. But it was not even police officers who took him to Scotland Yard.

Packer was taken to Scotland Yard on Thursday 4 October 1888 just after 4.00 pm by the two men claiming to be detectives (Le Grand & Co.). They said they were taking Packer to Scotland Yard to see Warren.

There is no evidence to suggest that they ever saw Warren, they were probably seen by a detective inspector who took a statement from Packer as he claimed to have seen a suspect. Prima facie the report of Packer's evidence in the paper suggested police negligence as they had missed an important witness.

The notes of Packer's statement [MEPO 3/140 ff. 215-216] dated the same day, 4.10.88, were incorrectly identified, for many years, as written in Warren's hand until I examined the original and identified it as the handwriting and initials of Alexander Carmichael Bruce, the senior Assistant Commissioner. It is highly unlikely that even such a senior officer as Bruce would have seen Packer and the two private detectives. However, as neglect of duty by police was, in effect, being alleged, Bruce no doubt investigated it thus making notes from Packer's statement.

[Supe]

Simon,

why was he whisked off for a meeting with the top echelons of Scotland Yard when a simple reading of Sergeant White's notebook would have told them that he was telling porkies

Even a professional contraire like yourself knows the answer to your question prior to posing it. A highly publicised newspaper report is at almost total variance with the report of a sergeant and thus Packer was telling lies OR Sergeant White was guilty of nonfeasance. Of course the Yard wanted to find out that answer and whisked Packer of for a meeting with the top echelons.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

If Packer's story was the pile of old horse-feathers you would have us believe, why was he whisked off for a meeting with the top echelons of Scotland Yard when a simple reading of Sergeant White's notebook would have told them that he was telling porkies [porky pies=lies]?

Because he never was. He was taken to Scotland Yard where he was interviewed by (likely) Abberline. Some think it was Ruggles-Brise. He never met Warren. That's merely what Le Grand told White.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

It's an extremely brave or foolhardy man who, after being cautioned by the Evening News, publicly condemns the Metropolitan Police for what can only be described as a dereliction of duty.

If Packer's story was the pile of old horse-feathers you would have us believe, why was he whisked off for a meeting with the top echelons of Scotland Yard when a simple reading of Sergeant White's notebook would have told them that he was telling porkies [porky pies=lies]?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

I am not saying you are wrong Tom...you could well be right.. but in my personal view there is much too much confusion because of unreliability of statements to form a definitive conclusion as to what is the truth and what isn't. That's all round Berner Street, not just Packer.

As I've said before, we tend to create more confusion than necessary, often where there is none. We have two stories from Packer, one where he saw no couple standing about which he told to PS White within hours of the murder; the second that he watched a couple standing in the rain for 30 minutes after selling them grapes, a story which emerged only after he was taken under the wing of a known criminal. Besides, there's more than Packer at work here, such as the two sisters and the grapestalk 'discovered' by Le Grand. There was no grapestalk on the night of the murder, seen either near the victim or in the gutter, but Le Grand finds one? And the story told by the sisters happens to fit with the story he fed Packer?

To any rational mind there should be nothing at all confusing about this. It certainly didn't confuse Swanson and Anderson, who decided Packer's statement was valueless as evidence. The fact that other witness evidence is somewhat confusing has no bearing on Packer's blatant and obvious lie.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott