|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Matthew Packer
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Matthew Packer
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 26 June 1999 - 09:48 pm |        | "Sergeant Stephen White had in fact interviewed Packer about 9:00 A.M. on the morning of the murder, 30 September, when he said: '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 I knew nothing about the murder until I heard of it this morning.'" (Begg, THE UNCENSORED FACTS, page 99.)
Soon after Packer said these words he began claiming, on the night of the murder, to have directly interacted with Stride and a man who behaved as if he were her boyfriend, and who purchased grapes for her from him. Packer then in several interviews altered this story over the next few days, sometimes directly in response to what he apparently believed was new information being given to him by the interviewers. Packer was obviously after reward money offered in the case, and his repeated changing of the data was his reaction to massive public expectations that the Ripper would be apprehended at any hour, considering the brazenness of his double event. Packer wanted to make sure that he could claim to have been the central figure in the apprehension, and therefore due the money, so he tried to keep himself in the forefront. It was a poor, 57 year-old man's once-in-a-lifetime chance at the big pound notes.
But there are problems with eliminating his testimony from consideration on the grounds that his first statement to White was likely the truth, as most writers have done. First, his quoted words seem a bit too unctious to be nothing more than a simple informational statement to an officer. It is plausible that Packer's first instinct was simply not to help the police, as is the feeling of many people. Or maybe Packer had his reasons for not wanting the police snooping around his business neighborhood, and he just gave White the standard blow-off. Perhaps Packer was earning some money from prostitution, gambling, rackets, etc. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but Packer and his family I believe lived in the fruit store. This means Packer would be sleeping fifty feet from the horde gathered around the Jewish Workingmen's Educational Club after Diemschutz found Stride's body. It would be pretty hard for him not to have not found out about the murder until the next day under these circumstances--if he did live there, he almost certainly would have gotten out of bed and been one of the people watching the detectives examine the body in the alleyway. And third, if Packer seriously entertained hopes of collecting the reward money, then he must have in some fashion believed that the clerkly, raspy-voiced Englishman he described as Stride's escort would be the person arrested and convicted. How else does he get paid? I understand that Packer may have simply made up the incident with Stride and her alledged boyfriend, inserting a description of a local tough guy who happened to be Packer's favorite suspect for being Jack the Ripper into the story, in the hope that if he were right in his guess about the man, then he could collect. But if he did do this, wouldn't he also try his best to get that person's name and address to the police to make sure they targeted the man for investigation, so that, if he were the murderer, he could get paid? The case ends with Packer discredited down to zilch, but, does anyone think, is there a way to rehabilitate him? How far can we go with this?
Discussion with my colleagues appreciated. Calling one and all, and especially Yost, Yost, Yost.
David |
Author: S Fern
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 01:21 am | | | "I beg to report that acting under the instructions of Inspector Abberline, I in company with P.C. Dolden C.I. Dept., made inquiries at every house in Berner Street, Commercial Road, on 30th ult, with a view to obtain information respecting the murder. Any information that I could obtain I noted in a Book supplied to me for that purpose. About 9 Am I called at 44 Berner Street and saw Matthew Packer, Fruiterer in a small way of business. I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve [a marginal note reads, "? Half past 11"] in consequence of the rain it was no good for me to keep open. I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfield's Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied '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.'..." (MEPO 3/140 ff 212-214) |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 09:58 am | | Fern,
So what is your point? Interpretation, please.
David |
Author: S Fern
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 05:56 pm | | Radka,
Thought you'd like the full piece from the original document, obviously you are not bothered to have this, and are satisfied with the incomplete version, I won't bother any more.
Fern |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 08:03 pm | | Hi David and Fern,
Packer is indeed an interesting figure within the Stride case, no doubt.
Many thanks, Fern, for passing along the full piece.
I'm not sure if I can agree that Packer, from the start, dreamt of reward monies that had been offered by that time. This may be possible given his statements after 6 Oct, but I think other views may more properly account for Packer's actions.
I do not think that he saw Liz's killer, and to be very honest, I do not think there is anything there to indicate that Packer was in anyway involved in prostitution.
I am not quite sure what is being asked here. The views which have been presented are different than those generally accepted for Packer. And, I must ask upon what information are they based? Are we asked to consider this view of reward money and possible involvement with prostitution based on a supposition, or on known information?
If the former, then there is little I can say, since it is difficult at best to alter belief and perception. If the latter, then I would prefer to see the information and the "unfolding" of the conclusions which lead to the initial post
prior stating anything further.
Nevertheless, I will respond to any additional posts as best I can. Although, I have written about Packer (part I), which is in the recent issue of the Ripperologist. Part II is due out in the Aug issue.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 10:02 pm | | Fern
Sorry if I offended. I didn't know what you were up to. Thank you for the complete picture.
Dave,
Glad you're here. I am trying to see if we can rehabilitate Packer in any way. Packer is rejected at this time in the literature because he changed his story. This rejection is, I believe, based on police- or court-type thinking. Since Packer changed his story, a defense attorney could easily cite that he did, thereby refuting any testimony he would make in court. Since the police knew this would happen, they treated what Packer said he saw as worthless. The current view of Packer is the same as this view--he's worthless.
But do we really have to abide by this kind of evaluating of Packer today? We aren't putting anybody on trial, and therefore the fact that he changed his story shouldn't necessarily bother us. We don't need to think in terms of the same hard-boiled narrowness of the people involved in 1888. We can think about Packer philosophically or cosmically. We can ask: If Packer is motivated by getting the prize, wouldn't he IN SOME WAY HAVE TO BE TELLING SOMETHING LIKE THE TRUTH? If he thought the raspy-voiced Englishman was the killer, doesn't that mean there WAS a raspy-voiced Englishman with Stride? As opposed to THERE WAS NO RASPY-VOICED ENGLISHMAN with her. Now, if there was a raspy-voiced Englishman, and he bought her grapes as Packer said, and they walk around arm and arm as Packer said, and then Liz gets killed right near there and the police think JtR did it, then what does THIS mean to the case, compared to there being no raspy-voiced Englishman at all? See what I mean? Just because Packer's RVE is considered imaginary in 1888 because the people back there just can't use him due to peccadilloes of Packer, that doesn't mean WE have to consider him imaginary now. Or does it? Point to ponder, responses welcomed--especially from Mr. Fern if he wishes.
The only other motivations of Packer beyond monetary that I've ever considered is (1) That he was elderly and senile. But this can't be true because he really was only 57 years old, and not senile--the newspapers wrote him up as being older than he was, and (2) That he was a neurotic who tried to talk himself into notoriety by making up stories. This seems possible, but a bit stretched. He'd have to be a bit off his rocker to be doing this, don't you think?
Thanks for you help, Dave.
David |
Author: Caz
Monday, 28 June 1999 - 02:55 am | | Hi David,
You make your point excellently. As you say, there would be little point in Packer choosing a 'raspy-voiced Englishman' as his 'man' unless he thought this would net him his reward. If I'd seen no-one and nothing but wanted to make up something believable in 1888, I would probably have chosen a foreign-looking bloke with evil eyes and his hand jiggling about in his pocket ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dave Yost
Monday, 28 June 1999 - 09:01 pm | | Hi Guys,
Ok, now I better understand from where you are coming on this David. Many thanks.
Actually I personally do not consider Packer completely useless. While I am confident in that what he saw or didn't see has no bearing on Liz's death, I am just as confident in that reconstructing what Packer may or may not have seen that night/morning can help us better understand the course of events as they might have unfolded prior to Liz's death.
I definitely agree that after the Daily telegraph article on 6 Oct, Packer seemed to be very willing to keep himself in the spot light. Whether or not reward money was at the forefront of his thinking with respect to any of this, I can only guess, but I suspect that he enjoyed the attention and wanted more than his proverbial fifteen minutes of fame.
As for the prostitution aspect, I am not familiar with that area being known for such, as indicated by inquest testimony. So from this perspective, I would not think he was involved in that line of activity.
I do, however, suspect that Packer saw Liz and her man that night, but think this would have occurred about 2 hours before Liz died.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: D. radka
Monday, 28 June 1999 - 09:05 pm | | Attaboy Dave! Thanks for the perspective.
David |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 02:17 am | | David, Dave and S. Fern
Congratulations on an interesting poste and some good follow-ups. The discussion to date seems to have covered most of the angles already.
In my own view, yes I don’t doubt that Packer sold some grapes to a couple who visited his shop. Packer was taken to see Stride’s body at the mortuary and he identified it. He also stated in his interview with the Evening News on 3rd October that the woman customer carried a white flower, which in his statement the following day had become red and white and ‘like a geranium’. That woman may well have been Stride, and indeed Dave has stated that he suspects it was.
Personally though, I’m not convinced of it in spite of Packer's identification. By the time that Packer saw the body he had doubtless heard dozens of descriptions of the victim from the newspapers, locals and the gruesome sightseers who flocked to the area. He certainly didn’t remember her on the morning after the murder when interviewed in the house-to-house enquiries. Remember also the words of Dr Phillips who stated that Stride had not eaten the seed or skin of grapes within many hours of her death. OK, so a grape stalk was found in the Yard by private detectives following up a lead, but Stride only had cachous on her person. The fruit stains on her handkerchief may have been grape stains, on the other hand they may not: no test appears to have been performed so we cannot tell.
The main focus of activity in Berner Street that night prior to the murder was the meeting at the International Working Mens Educational Club. Access to it could be gained either from the street or from the side door in Dutfield’s Yard, so anybody leaving or entering the Club that night, (or the adjacent cottages) could have eaten grapes and dropped the pips or stalks. Packer remarked that business was poor that evening, but we don’t know how many grapes he sold previously - it’s doubtful that he had cause even to remember. In addition there were two other greengrocers in Berner Street alone, so the fruit need not have come from Packer’s shop at all.
It is possible that talk of the murder jogged Packer’s memory some time after his questioning on Sunday or on the Monday, and caused him to remember a couple who came into the shop. Yet the manner in which he was so keen to adjust his story, and especially the times, to suit what he thought was wanted of him means that we simply cannot rely on him. The police regarded him with some suspicion because they didn’t call him to the inquest and this surely has some significance.
As for his motives, I think that Packer was certainly interested in pursuing his fifteen minutes of fame, but money was no doubt the main motive. As a small shopkeeper in a sidestreet, in a poor and further declining neighbourhood, he would not have been making much money. Selling his story to the newspapers provided him with useful income. Packer realised that if his name appeared in the papers in conjunction with the case, it would entice some of the sightseers into his shop to ask him about his encounter with the newly titled ‘Jack The Ripper’ and spend some money while they were there. Though many East Enders had their little secrets which made them wary of the police, I would suggest that this is far more likely than explanations such as his involvement with prostitution rackets for which there is no evidence.
Regards, V. |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 03 July 1999 - 08:34 am | | Hello All,
Packer is one of these shadowy figures from history who flits through so many theories concerning JTR. Whether or not we should believe his testimony nowadays is a moot point but his opinion was so highly regarded at the time that he was personally interviewed by Warren. And remember, this is the man who was "induced" to go with two detectives.
I wonder if the inducement was in the form of remuneration? Nudge nudge, wink wink!
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 03 July 1999 - 12:43 pm | | Hello Rabbi,
If I have interpreted your remarks correctly, you are implying that the two detectives who took Packer to see Warren offered him some kind of favours, such as ignoring any illegal activities in which he might have been engaged?
However Messrs. Batchelor and Grand did not represent the police, but were private detectives. As such, they could not possibly have offered Packer “inducements” of that type.
You may have a point though, if they induced Packer by reminding him of his potential financial value as an official witness. Part of their expenses were being covered by the Evening News. It had already run one article about Packer and like all the other newspapers it was looking for an extra edge on the Ripper story.
Regards, V. |
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 03 July 1999 - 11:30 pm | | Gentlemen,
In all seriousness, do you think it possible that Packer was simply being paid to continue concocting stories about meeting the Ripper by the newspapers? This is a new alternative to the above discussion. So far, we have alluded to the possibility that Packer was chasing prize money conditioned on the capture of the murderer, therefore he would have had to be sufficiently telling the truth about what he saw to hope to collect. But Viper has opened a new turn in the road here, by which Packer could profit simply by making up stories, absent both any arrest and any truthfulness.
Did London newspapers pay people for their stories in those days? Did they care if they were truthful or not? In a similar sense didn't a Mr. Bulling, a newspaper reporter, write some false letters? I would greatly appreciate anyone who might be able to speak authoritatively on this point. Thank you.
David |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 12:17 am | | Hi, David:
Did Mr. Bulling write some letters? Well you decide. As much flak as Sir Robert Anderson and the other police officials have been receiving (rightfully) about their so-called authorative views, maybe they were wrong about Bulling too? Pause for thought? I'll add quickly that I am not necessarily saying the Dear Boss letters were from the Whitechapel murderer. All I am saying is maybe they were not written by Thomas J. Bulling either.
Chris George
"An Enterprising Ripperologist" ha ha |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 03:27 am | | Hi All,
First, I'd like to comment on the Warren aspect: To-date, it has been properly argued that Sir Charles did not personally take Packer's statements, but only reviewed them & commented on them.
Batchelor & Grand were paid by a vigilance committee and by the Evening News to dig up what they could - they found Packer.
Packer, like so many others, is "shadowy" because we as a group have permitted him to be such...but this is not the true case. If we dare to review, bit-by-bit, what Packer or any other witness says and compare it to other such information (again bit-by-bit) then the shadows are brought into the light, and the "boogy-man" is not to be seen.
Definitely agree that the two private detectives could not possibly offer Packer anything more than what the newspapers themselves would offer for a story, if anything at all....why should they? people were practically lining up to tell their tale, figuratively speaking. Why pay the man who was more than willing to spew forth what he did?
Do we have our perspectives straight or are we proceeding from pre-conceived notions which might possibly be the most damaging aspect to us understanding the events and obtaining an actual solution?
As for Packer himself - I think based off the data at hand (with sources available, not just offering mere assumptions like many - nudge nudge wink wink) that Packer quite possibly did interact with Liz and her man at around 11:30pm that night.
Does any of this aid us in determining Liz's killer? No, absolutely not. This interaction occurred over an hour before she died, and between Packer's involvement and Liz's death, we have other witnesses who saw her.
So what do we have? A guy who might have sold some grapes and could only remember a few things unless prompted, then remembered more than he actually knew. I toot my own horn here a bit, but it seems appropriate; if anyone cares to review the Part 1 of my essay on Packer in the Ripperologist, it is on the C&D web site, or even the essay I did on LIz's time of death which is on the dissertation section of this site.
Again, does Packer have any bearing on Liz's death? No. The point in time we should focus on is in regard to 12:30 to 1am. This is the citical moment gentlemen. What happens during this half-hour is the most crucial. The rest is ALMOST background noise for the audience reading the next latest & greatest book on a suspect.
I am sorry and do appologize if I seem a bit out of sorts on this, and I realize that it is important to learn what events transpired that night/morning, but wonder if we'd all be further along if we as a group would focus on the information at hand instead of surmising and guessing possibly based on the mere reading of others' opinions, including my own?
Dave |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 04:58 am | | I wonder when assessing Packer's statements it would be of value to consider the character of at least one of the private detectives who took Packer 'into care'. Mr Le Grand operated as a private detective from offices at 283 The Strand in partnership with J.H. Batchelor. He was employed by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee at the time of the murders. According to an article by Gerry Nixon, 'Le Grand of the Strand', (Ripperologist, no. 18, August 1998) he was a notorious figure with a criminal past.
In 1877 he was convicted of several thefts and addmitted to two previous convictions, he was sentenced to 8 years penal servitude and released on 6th May 1884 - reported to Convict Supervision Office on release but did not do so after. In June
1889 he was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of sending letters to an A. Malcolm Morris, a Harley Street surgeon, demanding money with threats (in company with a French woman named Amelia Porquoi alias Demay - apparently his common-law wife).
In 1891 he sent a series of letters demanding money under threat of death. All the recipients were ladies of some wealth - Mrs Baldock, Baroness Bolsover, Lady Jessel. The Newmarket Journal, 17 October 1891 stated that "Le Grand" was a Dane 'who gave the name of Charles Grant and who is known by the alias of Le Grand, Grant, "French Colonel" and Captain Anderson, the last mentioned being the name he most recently adopted…" It also announced that the prisoner "is stated to be well connected, his father having held a very respectable position in the Danish diplomatic service."
Various accounts of his career in The Times called him Christian Nelson in 1877. By 1889 he was "Charles Conette Grandy or Grand". In 1891 he was initially referred to as Charles Grande alias Le Grand" - Newmarket Journal 17, 24 October 1891, The Times 12 July 1877, 8, 27 June, 1889, 29 Sept 1891, 7, 13 October 1891
The Convict Supervision Office circular 13, no.31: Christian Nelson, alias Briscony and Neilson, Office No. 24755, last conviction being at the Middlesex Sessions on 9/7/77, being sentenced to yrs. Pen. 7 yrs. Supn. Aged 36, 6ft tall, dark complexion, light brown hair, grey eyes; scars on nose, centre of forehead, right first finger, thumb, and wrist, left thumb, first and second finger, and left thigh; hair down centre of chest to bottom of stomach. Described as 'A German; professes to be a waiter, obtains money and goods from young women in good situations, on pretence of marrying them. Apprehension sought for failure to report.
An interesting figure in his own right and one wonders if he was perhaps responsible for changes in Packer's story and for the 'discovery' of the grape-stalks? |
Author: RLeen
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 07:51 am | | Hello Everybody,
An interesting new slant on another shadowy character of the Ripper Case Mr. Begg, my congratulations. I think it is probable that Packer's tale grew in detail because of this alleged behind the scenes prompting.
As to my own assumptions in this matter, as I am writing from memory it is hard to remember the sources from which I have drawn inferences. But I am sure that a police report of the time makes use of the term "induced" in relation to Packer. In fact, if memory serves, it was in the report of a PC who had gone to Packer's premises to interview him! So by whom was this term used by. Was it by someone explaining Packer's absence to the constable or by the constable himself? Please feel free to draw your own conclusions.
On a completely different note has anyone had minor problems in using the Casebook recently. It now takes an age for me to access the Last Day board and now, like this moment, when I post messages I am plagued with incidental double spacing acting of its own volition. Remedies gratefully accepted.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 06:18 pm | | Hi All,
No probs so far with accessing the message boards (don't all groan at once!).
Hi Paul,
Your piece on 'Le Grand of The Strand' was a grand read. Thanks. He sounds very Sherlockian, doesn't he? If he lived in a Brighton hotel he could have been 'Le Strand of the Grand' instead! Sorry folks.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
