Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[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.

[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

[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).

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

You are spot on. I wanted to reply to Simon's above post, which is nonsense from beginning to end, but I decided not to, in hopes Stewart or someone would do so and take a bit of the onus off myself. Either you're not the newbie you claim to be (not many newbies are familiar with Radka and his A/R theory), or you're a quick learner. Kudos.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

The Evening News story made Packer a potential key witness, and it was this which prompted Sergeant White's return to Berner Street to take him to see Stride's body at the mortuary. If Packer's original story of having seen and heard nothing was true how could he ever have been expected to identify Stride, which he did? The story makes no sense.

Evening News, 8th October 1888–

"No apparent advance has been made on the clue we were able to supply in our editions of Thursday. We then pointed out the only man who had clearly seen the victim and the more than probable murderer within a few minutes and a few yards of the time and place of the murder in Berner street. The only notice taken by our contemporaries on that day was a denial of the truth of our information, made ostensibly on the authority of the police. On Friday, no public admission of the value of the clue was given, but on Saturday, after mature consideration, the Daily Telegraph gave out that Packer, whom our informants had discovered, and the worth of whose testimony they recognised, had been summoned by Sir Charles Warren, at Scotland yard, and questioned as to the appearance of the man . . ."

Good going for a man who had seen and heard nothing. A simple 58-year-old fruiterer would never have risked the possible consequences of falsely accusing the police of nonfeasance, so if anything should come under suspicion it is Sergeant White's story of having interviewed Packer on Sunday morning.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Dear Mr. Wood,
thanks so much for posting the (probably second) Evening News story on Packer, which I hadn't had the chance to peruse yet. I can't yet form a defined opinion on all this until I've had the chance to read Examiner 2 and Ripper Notes 25 (plus any transcripts of original documents contained in Ultimate or posted here on casebook), but my (uneducated) guess is that some Ripperologists might suspect Le Grand and perhaps his accomplices/minions of having provided to the Evening News the “clue they were able to supply in their edition of Thursday“. Please remember that it was NOT Packer who accused the police of nonfeasance, but the press who did! I'm not saying that Packer wouldn't have been worried eventually about getting in trouble being caught with perjury, but until I've perused the articles cited above plus Packer's statement of october 4 with the accompanying notes by senior Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce, [MEPO 3/140 ff. 215-216], I can't form an informed opinion.
On the other side: Simon Wood wrote:
If Packer's original story of having seen and heard nothing was true how could he ever have been expected to identify Stride, which he did? The story makes no sense.
How do you know that Packer IDENTIFIED Stride? I don't believe that they showed him several corpses in a line up, they showed him just her! He just SAID that he identified her. On the other side, I could imagine that HAD Packer indeed truly seen Stride with a john on the night of her murder, the only possible reason for him to have lied on his first police statement is fear, if he knew her assailent. Your suspicion (if I'm right that you are truly assuming this) that it was PC White who lied due to his being involved in some police cover-up is as outrageous as believing in the Royal conspiracy “theory“!

To Tom Wescott:
Tom, you totally got me uncovered, I'm David Radka under a new pseudonym, trying to rehabilitate myself in Ripperology! No, for real, I'm a real newbie, my name is really Maria, I've been infrequently perusing casebook for about a year (mostly when ill in bed/procrastinating from doing my own stuff/trying to relax from other pressures etc., and yeah, I know, strange proclivities!). In the old threads on casebook I've been mostly appreciating everything posted by Glenn Anderson and Dan Norden (I think's the name?) the old editor of Ripperologist, and somehow their sardonic commentaries brought my attention to the A/R thread, which I read out of curiosity (about which I know it killed the cat!). The Radka name (under different pseudonyms, such as initially “Saddam“, later “Mefisto“) kinda stuck in my memory from the beginning, as it was impossible not to notice his aggressiveness and confusion, which stuck like a sore thumb in the midst of other very informed, courteous, and often scholarly exchange. Hence my “insider“ jokes about Radka.
As for “quick learner“, I'm not so sure, but the truth is that, in a different field, I'm not a complete stranger to research and to reconstructing evidence from uncomplete primary sources (for which it has been said that I have a “lucky hand“ locating them, often where others have failed –oops, was that my turn to get “bigheaded“ now?!!). I've been working on this since at least 8 years now, since I was a grad student and going on after my PhD (which was 2 1/2 years ago), hence probably the disillusionment with my own field and the attempt to get new kicks with my newbie status on JTR research and on poor casebook here... (as long explanations go!)
As for your saying that I “took away“ Stewart Evans' “job“ by replying to Simon Wood here, WOW!, I have to confess you totally made my day (my night actually), and I'm going to bed all thrilled, albeit shivering, under the sound of pouring rain here in Stellenbosch, ZA!

[mariab]

I've just been told that David Radka is deceased, and I deeply apologize for (inadvertently) having shown disrespect to his memory, and having kept talking about him when he can't defend himself anymore.
I've also obviously blurted out some things uninformed about a former Editor, which at least will convince Tom Wescott about my true status as a very clueless newbie (with a mouth running too high ).
Apologies again,

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

Even Tom believes Packer identified Stride. So it must be true.

I was the person who in 1976 disproved the Royal conspiracy theory, so why don't we start afresh?

And please call me Simon.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

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

Simon, whatever one's personal ideas or theories may be I'm afraid that we have to adhere to the facts. And the facts are better personified in the official reports than in sensational press reports - like it or not.

It's simply not good enough to ask 'If Packer wasn't a key witness...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 heard and seen nothing...' White was not obliged to tell a couple of 'private detectives' anything at all about the police inquiry and the contarary statement had already been printed in the popular press. And he was being taken to Scotland Yard merely on the direction of these two private detectives at their instigation, not that of White or the police.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that "Packer's story was taken down in some detail by Senior Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce" which is something that I have gone into in detail in the past. At the Yard a proper written statement would have been taken from Packer (similar to the one which exists for Hutchinson) and that would have been taken by a senior investigating detective such as Moore or Abberline. This statement has not survived.

The notes in Bruce's hand of what Packer said are merely that - notes, and not a formal statement which would be signed by the person making it. Also Assistant Commissioners are not into seeing witnesses and taking statements from them. What we have here is the newspaper story published on the 4th which amounted to an allegation of police negligence in that they had missed a relevant witness who had seen a suspect. The newspapers loved stories that highlighted police incompetence.

Undoubtedly Bruce investigated the allegation and in doing so made notes of what Packer had stated in his written statement. The police obviously decided that it was merely a sensational press story based on the unreliable and contrary words of Packer. This fact is borne out in Swanson's overall summary of the Stride murder investigation dated 19 October and sent to the Home Office. Regarding Packer, in this summary Swanson clearly concludes, "Packer 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." (see below) [HO 144/221/A49301C ff. 156-157].

Now this is the police conclusion regarding Packer as late as 19 October and it cannot be gainsaid - unless you are some sort of 'conspiracy theorist' pursuing your own agenda of a fantasy police cover up idea.

[Stewart P Evans]

Facts

...
Please remember that it was NOT Packer who accused the police of nonfeasance, but the press who did! I'm not saying that Packer wouldn't have been worried eventually about getting in trouble being caught with perjury, but until I've perused the articles cited above plus Packer's statement of october 4 with the accompanying notes by senior Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce, [MEPO 3/140 ff. 215-216], I can't form an informed opinion.
On the other side: Simon Wood wrote:
If Packer's original story of having seen and heard nothing was true how could he ever have been expected to identify Stride, which he did? The story makes no sense.
How do you know that Packer IDENTIFIED Stride? I don't believe that they showed him several corpses in a line up, they showed him just her! He just SAID that he identified her. On the other side, I could imagine that HAD Packer indeed truly seen Stride with a john on the night of her murder, the only possible reason for him to have lied on his first police statement is fear, if he knew her assailent. Your suspicion (if I'm right that you are truly assuming this) that it was PC White who lied due to his being involved in some police cover-up is as outrageous as believing in the Royal conspiracy “theory“!
...

I'm afraid that too many theorists have no understanding of the true nature of these events and of police inquiries.

We do not know the character of Packer other than anything based on surviving material. He may have been a bit thick, susceptible to suggestion or even a bit simple. Perjury would hardly come into it as this is a serious charge which requires independent witnesses or evidence to confirm. They had only Packer's word and could not actually prove he hadn't seen anyone, and perjury is committed in a court of law when giving sworn evidence.

The statement regarding Packer 'how could he ever have been expected to identified Stride, which he did?' is totally misleading and irrelevant. This was not the formal identification, conducted by the police, nor was it a body in some sort of 'line-up'. All that happened was that the two 'private detectives' took Packer to the mortuary to see Stride's body and to say to Packer "Is this the woman you saw with the man?"

I do wish people would get the basic facts straight.

[mariab]

To Stewart Evans:
(And please let me state I'm feeling endlessly honored to be answering a post partly addressed to me by yourself, Mr Evans!) Already yesterday night, as I was typing the word “perjury“ regarding Packer, I felt not too good with the choice of word! Obviously it's not real “perjury“ in a court of law, just a change of his statement.

[B]Simon Wood wrote:
I was the person who in 1976 disproved the Royal conspiracy theory, so why don't we start afresh?
Wow, no idea it was you who disproved the Royal conspiracy, Simon. Is this a fact, and where was that? (The newbie demon strikes again , as you clearly see that I'm missing a lot of important information here!)
Even Tom believes Packer identified Stride. So it must be true.
No idea if Tom really believes so, and even if he does, I can imagine scenarios in which Packer
1) did not even see Stride and lied (manipulated by Le Grand)
2) saw someone else and mistaken them for Stride
3) saw Stride and her assailant, identified HIM, but lied about having seen him, terrorized.
When I manage to read the lit (hopefully soon), I expect to be able to form a more defined opinion on this. Presently I gotta run back to my conference,

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Thank you. The point I am making is that the basic premise of the episode contained in two police reports - White being "directed to make further inquiry & if necessary see Packer and take him to the mortuary" ["with a view to the identification of the woman Elizabeth Stride"–Inspector Moore] - makes absolutely no sense if Packer's earlier statement that " . . . I saw no one standing about . . . I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise . . ." was true.

You said one of my statements was misleading and irrelevant. How so? It doesn't matter whether Packer's identification of Stride was a formal police procedure or not. You cannot identify a person you haven't seen before, and Sergeant White in a police report tells us that Packer had identified Stride.

After your unwarranted suggestion that Packer may have been a "bit thick, susceptible to suggestion or even a bit simple" came this misleading statement: "All that happened was that the two 'private detectives' took Packer to the mortuary to see Stride's body and to say to Packer "Is this the woman you saw with the man?"

This heavily-loaded spin on Packer's character and the morning's events suggests that the two 'private detectives' steered Packer in his identification of Stride. But equally there may have been a number of corpses at the mortuary that morning and, shown just their faces, Packer was asked, "Are any of these women the one you saw on Saturday night?"

We'll never know, but here's the nub of the matter.

"I identify the woman at the St. George's mortuary as the one I saw that night"–extract from ACB's two-page summary of Packer's story.

That's fairly unequivocal. Don't you think Packer would have crumbled by this time if Stephen White's report of their initial interview had been true?

Trust you're well.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

The Point

Hi Stewart,
Thank you. The point I am making is that the basic premise of the episode contained in two police reports - White being "directed to make further inquiry & if necessary see Packer and take him to the mortuary" ["with a view to the identification of the woman Elizabeth Stride"–Inspector Moore] - makes absolutely no sense if Packer's earlier statement that " . . . I saw no one standing about . . . I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise . . ." was true.
You said one of my statements was misleading and irrelevant. How so? It doesn't matter whether Packer's identification of Stride was a formal police procedure or not. You cannot identify a person you haven't seen before, and Sergeant White in a police report tells us that Packer had identified Stride.
After your unwarranted suggestion that Packer may have been a "bit thick, susceptible to suggestion or even a bit simple" came this misleading statement: "All that happened was that the two 'private detectives' took Packer to the mortuary to see Stride's body and to say to Packer "Is this the woman you saw with the man?"
This heavily-loaded spin on Packer's character and the morning's events suggests that the two 'private detectives' steered Packer in his identification of Stride. But equally there may have been a number of corpses at the mortuary that morning and, shown just their faces, Packer was asked, "Are any of these women the one you saw on Saturday night?"
We'll never know, but here's the nub of the matter.
"I identify the woman at the St. George's mortuary as the one I saw that night"–extract from ACB's two-page summary of Packer's story.

That's fairly unequivocal. Don't you think Packer would have crumbled by this time if Stephen White's report of their initial interview had been true?
Trust you're well.
Regards,
Simon

I don't really see how you are missing the point here. White saw Packer on the day of the murder when he stated he had seen nothing suspicious. A few days later the totally contrary press report is published in which it is alleged that Packer may have seen the murderer with his victim.

Obviously the direct implication is that the police have missed a relevant and important witness who lives almost adjacent to the murder scene. Neglect of this sort would be a serious disciplinary offence and something the press could have a field day with. Hence White was asked to address the situation and, if necessary, take Packer to identify the body as the woman he had seen. It wasn't a case of identifying the body from amongst others, it would be the only body he would be shown and he would merely be asked if he recognised it as the woman he had seen with the man. In the event the two private detectives took Packer to the mortuary thus obviating the need for White to do this.

The fact that Moore directed White to do this was in case Packer was changing his story, i.e. saying he had initially forgotten or had not thought it relevant, thus making it necessary to ascertain it was Stride he had seen (hence the 'if necessary'). You seem confused in regard to what I called misleading or irrelevant. White had to ascertain if Packer was changing his story, for whatever reason, and if he was to make sure that the body at the mortuary was one and the same as the woman he had seen with the man.

It's not an unwarranted suggestion that 'Packer' may not have been the brightest tool in the box, from this story and his later 'American cousin' concoction this would seem to be very possible. He seemed to be someone enjoying his moment of glory and all the attention he was getting. people who identify bodies as persons possibly seen by themselves aren't asked to pick from a row of convenient similar bodies - they are shown the actual body in question. It's not like an identification parade to identify a suspect. You do have some strange ideas. But, I see here that you are suggesting that a respected detective sergeant is actually the one who is lying and making things up - ah, I get it, it's another one of those dastardly police conspiracies.

[Tom_Wescott]

If Packer's original story of having seen and heard nothing was true how could he ever have been expected to identify Stride, which he did? The story makes no sense.

Even Tom believes Packer identified Stride. So it must be true.

I can't speak for myself, thank you. What's with the inane questions? Packer never saw Stride with a man, so how could he have 'identified' her body as the woman he never saw? Get real. But yes, he went through the motions of viewing the body and saying it was her, per Le Grand's instructions.

I hope nothing you're working on requires Packer to have been a legitimate witness or Le Grand to have been an honest PI, but that has been blown out of the water for all time.

This debate is a waste of time, because it was over before it began.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Stewart and I may vehemently disagree, but I appreciate and respect where he is coming from whilst reserving the right to challenge his opinions and assumptions, as he does mine. In contrast, your grasp of the various arguments is dismal. All you know is that you are ineffably right, and that is dangerous as far as any intelligent pursuit of the truth is concerned.

Regards,

Simon