|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 4:48 am: |       |
But Sarah, we are simply trying to solve puzzles here, we are not bound by the rules of law. We have been left thousands of jig-saw pieces and we don’t know which pieces belong in Jack’s puzzle, how many pieces are missing from Jack’s puzzle, and which pieces don’t belong at all.
Do you throw away any of the pieces that don’t look like they belong to Jack’s puzzle, because they would not currently be admissible as evidence in a court of law? Or do you hang on to every piece in case more pieces are found later that not only belong to the puzzle but allow one or more of those other pieces to slot in as well?
Think pending tray – or keeping one’s balls in the air if you will.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 380
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
Caz,
Ok, maybe it would be good to keep it to one side as you say but I just hope it doesn't cloud our judgement.
I'm just stating that if he is unreliable in some aspects how do we know that he isn't totally unreliable. Ok maybe some of it is good but we really can't tell which bits.
I'm just saying that if this case was a modern one and Packer was on the stand giving evidence that was half false and half true, how can we know which half is what. Because of things like this people have actually been set free because of it which is very unfortunate but the witness shouldn't have lied in the first place.
I was mostly just pointing out to Cludgy that it doesn't matter if it's a good judge or not, it's the law.
Say a woman was raped and her only witness gave his evidence but tried to help more by adding some things about what he saw that were false. If he was proved to have been lying even in the slightest then his whole statement would be thrown out the window and the rapist would probably walk free unless there was some other evidence.
Sarah |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
The only way you could accept some of Packer's evidence was if parts of it were corroborated by other evidence. |
Martin Anderson
Police Constable
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:24 am: | |
Hi Diana/Caz/Sarah et al,
Hey a witness is a witness, even a bad one with a bad memory! For christsakkes even when a witness has an excellent memory he is criticised ala George Hutchinson.
How anyone can believe GH was a suspect defeats me. He was held in very high esteem by Abberline so this should tell us something about his character.
Anyway I digress slightly. Matthew Packer on the other hand was less reliable but isn't that just human nature. The fact of the matter is, a grape stem was found in the vicinity of the murder scene which actually backs his statement up. This was quite a find considering that there were no forensics in that day!
And as for his times being wrong, people didn't necessarily have watches so they had to go by the local clock's hourly chime. Even a lot of officials made mistakes with times and dates as we have found.
I need to read the Stride case again in more detail, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss Packer's statement on the grounds that he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
Unless anyone can prove otherwise?
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 580
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
Guys,
Speaking as an investigator, Packer is sus.
That said, I wouldnt dismiss him. I would just see how he would fit with the other witnesses and events of that night.
The thing is Martin, which came first. Packers staement or the finding of a grape stem ?
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 381
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:26 am: | |
Martin,
I don't think Packer's statement was accidently false in parts, I think he made some of it up to get attention. There is a difference.
Monty,
You say that we should see where his evidence fits in but what if we come across something that looks like it would fit in with Packer's but it didn't and could lead us completely in the wrong direction because Packer lied and it just so happened to look like it fits in with something else.
Hope that made sense.
Sarah |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
How is the stem significant? We know Packer's place of business was nearby. It is quite possible that someone totally unconnected to the crime bought grapes and ate them in Dutfields Yard, which after all was a place open to any number of people. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 382
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Bought them from where? Grapes were rich man's food. The average person living in Whitechapel in 1888 couldn't have afforded grapes, except maybe someone who was on quite a good wage for the time, someone like, oh I don't know, for the sake of argument, Joe Barnett....but I digress. 
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 333
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Sarah, if people who passed Packer's shop would not have bought grapes, he wouldn't have sold them. The fact that he was selling grapes means that someone was buying them. The same is true of the grape stalk as the seeds and skins which Walter Dew said were in the yard. Why do we consider this an unusual thing to find right next to a fruit shop? |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
Sarah,
For all I know, Matthew Packer may have been such a liar as to eclipse Baron Munchausen -- but he was a grocer and had been for a while. If he didn't have customers for grapes he wouldn't stock them, would he?
Don. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 387
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
I know this but the fact remains that it was a rich man's food. I can't change history, that's just how it was. Maybe there were some more wealthier people nearby to his shop.
I found this quote from a food web site just to clarify matters:-
"Once they were a luxury, grown in expensive hothouses, or imported from far flung places at great expense as an indulgence for the few."
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on January 07, 2004) |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:03 pm: | |
"...if this case was a modern one and Packer was on the stand giving evidence that was half false and half true, how can we know which half is what..."
>>Several posters have provided misstatements concerning the value of Packer like the above. Our prospect with respect to EVERY witness, not only Packer, is to determine what part of what he says is correct and what part isn't. Just because Packer manifestly lied at various points doesn't mean that everything he said was incorrect. Generally speaking, Packer increasingly lied as the days wore on. If we take what he said the first day or two, we don't find many OBVIOUS overstatements or exaggerations, and at least have something of a reasonable baseline. From the perspective of current Ripperology, the lament that we CAN'T know what part of what he said was true and what part was false really ought to fall on deaf ears. We OUGHT to try for greater definition concerning Packer, if we don't want to simply pass on our chance to solve the case.
Posters I believe pick up this unfortunate negativity toward Packer from reading Ripper books written during the eighties by Begg, etc. Those were more cynical days, when anything that smacked of exaggeration was immediately stomped out of order. Begg was famous for his damning tongue-in-cheek phrase "use with caution" concerning anything that didn't smell quite right to him. The problem with it is, it's not ALWAYS so simple a matter.
Bullwinkle
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Sarah,
So a judge has no say in the matter, even if he realises that some of the testimony a witness makes might be true? Come off it, have you never heard of summing up? |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Diana
"The only way you could accept some of Packer's evidence was if parts of it were corroborated by other evidence".
Packer was corroborated on two counts. Firstly he stated that he saw Stride and a man at 12:30, standing in the exact position that P.C. Smith saw them at that time. P.C. Smith corroborated Packer
Secondly, Packer stated that he saw Stride and her companion look up to the Workers International Club as if listening to the music. How did he know they were playing music at that time? Because he was there at that time.
This looking up, and listening to the music, has the ring of truth about it, to me. Only Packer has them looking up at the music.
His initial negative response to the police the next morning however is beyond me, he might not have been over fond of the police, a lot of people in that area were like minded. Remember the police are sworn enemies to some elements in our society. Was Packer encouraged to tell what he actually saw by the lure of money?
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:13 am: | |
Martin wrote:
"Hey a witness is a witness, even a bad one with a bad memory!"
Yes, he would still be called a witness -- a bad witness.
"For christsakkes even when a witness has an excellent memory he is criticised ala George Hutchinson. "
Well, yeah, when his "memory" is way more detailed than makes sense in the circumstances, yeah he's going to be criticized. Common sense, really.
"How anyone can believe GH was a suspect defeats me. He was held in very high esteem by Abberline so this should tell us something about his character. "
That doesn't tell us anything. Lots of modern serial killers have been interviewed by police and let go. Besides, considering that we know Hutchinson was not the person the police used to try to ID suspects with later, Hutchinson must not have been in very high esteem for very long.
"The fact of the matter is, a grape stem was found in the vicinity of the murder scene which actually backs his statement up."
A grape stem was found in the vicinity of the place where someone sold grapes? How can this be considered significant? Unless you can tie it specifically to Stride instead of one of the uncounted other customers it's completely useless as meaningful information. And since the autopsy ruled out grapes that angle is a dead end. |
Martin Anderson
Police Constable
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
I appreciate your opinions. You are entitled to them as I am to mine. I just want to answer one point and maybe about the grapes later (Sarah you are right but approaching it from from a different angle perhaps,)
Anyway, I THINK that Abberline judging by all accounts was a very good judge of character (isnt that ironic?) and he happened to talk to Packer a lot. Anyway the point is (AP would you agree???) that most people who were overlooked by police were only interviewed briefly
I saw a picture of Packer tonight and I must admit he looked very dodgy. But then again I look very nice and sweet! What does that tell you?
I'm not trying to be informal but I would really like to see this case resolved. I have just bought 'The ultimate Jack The Ripper' by Skinner and Evans which is supposed to present the facts and facts only. I'm sure once I've read this that my opinions would have changed a lot!!!
Anyway, be honest (especially Dan) why are people so scared of me warranting Packer any credibility whatsoever?
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Martin Anderson
Police Constable
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Sarah: "Martin,
I don't think Packer's statement was accidently false in parts, I think he made some of it up to get attention. There is a difference."
I said he may have said this to get his 15 mins of fame.
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hi Monty I appreciate your opinions and I am well looking forward to being educated by you.
"Monty:-
The thing is Martin, which came first. Packers statement or the finding of a grape stem ? "
I really don't know but I am about to read Skinner's book and I am sure this will tell me. Perhaps you will spare me the time?
Monty
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 940
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 2:18 am: | |
Cludgy,
I really can't say that much in favour for your attempts in finding statements corroborating with Packer's.
I can possibly agree on the first one, and -- as we've said earlier -- there is no reason to believe that ALL parts of his statements were false.
But regarding the other one:
"Packer stated that he saw Stride and her companion look up to the Workers International Club as if listening to the music. How did he know they were playing music at that time? Because he was there at that time."
Yeah, he was there. Hello! What does that prove? That music was probably heard over a large part of the street. How does this prove, or even suggest, that his statement seeing Stride and her companion looking up towards the club has any truth in it? The fact that he was close by and that music from the club could be heard by most people who were outside or had their windows opened, doesen't in any way back up his other details in the testimony. He may have been there, and he may have seen Stride with a man. Period. The fact is, that we have no statements corroborating his story about them buying grapes in his shop. Furthermore, his description of the man in question is totally useless, since he put forward a second, completely different one.
---------------------------------
David Radka,
"Posters I believe pick up this unfortunate negativity toward Packer from reading Ripper books written during the eighties by Begg, etc. Those were more cynical days, when anything that smacked of exaggeration was immediately stomped out of order."
Smacked schmacked. That is completely bogus. I haven't even read Begg's book. I am simply forming my opinions out of own experiences with digging through criminal cases and plowing through endless piles of witness accounts. And my experience tells me, that focusing on a witness who we know have changed his testimony and appeared in the press with a different one on each occasion, has left two different descriptions of the same man and who's statement can't be verified by others -- AND the fact that the police themselves finally lost interest in him just because of the same reasons -- are a waste of time and nothing else, considering the risks involved that he pulls the investigation in the wrong direction. No police officer in his right mind takes such a witness seriously after he has undergone the necessary examination.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: there are strong indications on that he was mainly interested in getting curious people to visit his shop (a very good reason for him to appear frequently in the papers; it is beyond me that people are disregarding this). But by all means, be my guest...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 339
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Packer - take your pick, either he wanted his "15 minutes of fame" or he used the press for a wee bit o free advertising for his shop. Beyond his own personal motivation for making up the stories, there is little if any reason to accept anything he had to say with regards to actual facts about the murder.
Shannon |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 582
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Sarah,
I was taught to look at every piece of evidence, on its own merit.
If it leads us to a suspect or away it matters not. As long as it was followed through.
Packers statement is not the be all...just a part of.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 391
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
Martin,
Sorry I must have missed that part.
Cludgy,
You obviously are not too aware of our law, don't worry I wasn't until my boyfriend studied it and I thought a load of it was rubbish including this one but the judge has to follow the law not what he thinks at all. That's the way it is. Even if the judge could do what he wanted, how could he work out which parts were true and which were false. Just because there is no evidence that some of it was false, it doesn't mean it was true either.
Monty,
All I'm saying is that others should be looked at before we begin to consider Packer's statement.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 583
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
Sarah,
And Im saying no matter how hooky Packers statement seems it should be investigated as seriously as Schwartz's or any others statement. Its a case of verifying it, which is why White re-checked his story.
Monty
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
Sarah wrote:
"Bought them from where? Grapes were rich man's food."
Hello, Packer sold grapes. Period. We know this. If people couldn't afford them, he wouldn't sell them.
It sounds like you are getting your ideas about what people did and didn't do from a comic book or something. Plenty of people in Whitechapel could afford grapes. Anyone who tells you differently is seriously misinformed.
"The average person living in Whitechapel in 1888 couldn't have afforded grapes, except maybe someone who was on quite a good wage for the time, someone like, oh I don't know, for the sake of argument, Joe Barnett"
You mean the unemployed guy? The one who, when he was employed, had the same sort of job countless other people in the area also had? If Joe could afford grapes, lots and lots of other people could as well.
Use some common sense. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Martin wrote:
'I'm not trying to be informal but I would really like to see this case resolved."
Don't let your desire to solve the case get in the way of looking at the case logically. This board and ripperology and general is littered with people who wanted so much to believe in something that they sucked down any bit of nonsense that came along.
I would like the case to be solved too, but it's entirely possible that we simply don't have enough evidence to do so. Evidence has to be examined fairly, even if it means that we might not end up with an answer. That sure beats believing in nonsense for the sole reason of convincing yourself that you do have an answer.
We may get there yet. It's possible someone has gotten there and we just need more evidence to verify it. But there are certain dead ends that are pretty clearly useless, and this grape angle is one of the more obvious ones.
"Anyway, be honest (especially Dan) why are people so scared of me warranting Packer any credibility whatsoever?"
I am not "scared" of it, I'm saying it's foolish. "Scared" is a word specifically chosen to try to make you sound like a wise guru talking to fearful children. One could just as easily ask why you are so scared to acknowledge that Packer was a liar and that a grape stem in the vicinity of a place where grapes are sold is completely unnoteworthy. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
