Matthew Packer : Greengrocer & Witness

[Debra Arif]

I think Simon posted something once about Mac knowing the editor of this paper, but I could be misremembering that.

I don't think Simon's article was about LG. The article Simon posted on casebook about was also discussed on a thread here on forums when Chris posted it- and was a massive source of confusion. I think you might even be discussing it again on a Druitt thread somewhere that I haven't had chance to read properly-one about Farquaharson?


archived version http://www.jtrforums.com/archive/index.php/t-15301.html

full version : http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=15301

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Debs. I wondering now if this wasn't something Simon shared with me in private. If so, then Oops.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wicker Man]

P.S. I don't think Le Grand talk is too off topic here, since he's the sole reason there would be need for a Packer thread.

There you go again....

[Tom_Wescott]

There you go again....

Do you deny that had Le Grand not knocked on Packer's door we'd have nothing much to say about Packer, other than another name in a census?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debs. I wondering now if this wasn't something Simon shared with me in private. If so, then Oops.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Simon posted something from the Western mail 1892 as far as I recall-and named the editor looking for connections (that's what you were asking about-a if Simon made a link between the editor and someone at Scotland Yard).Chris S posted the same snippet (I linked to above) from another paper-it doesn't fit LG at all- he wasn't watched day and night and gave up becuase he knew he was being watched-this is a completely different suspect-and if you looked at the forums links I posted above you will see others read it that way too.


Here's a link to the CB thread where Simon posted the snippet for discussion.
http://forum.casebook.org/archive/in...t-181-p-5.html

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, I'll check that out later. If this is the Plaus of Koz thread, I remember it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stephen Thomas]

Do you deny that had Le Grand not knocked on Packer's door we'd have nothing much to say about Packer, other than another name in a census?

That's a very good point, Tom.

What do you think about the story that Packer was shown the bodies of Eddowes and Stride and he picked Stride as the person who got the grapes?

Did that happen?

[Maria Birbili]

What do you think about the story that Packer was shown the bodies of Eddowes and Stride and he picked Stride as the person who got the grapes?
Did that happen?

Yes, it did happen. Might it be that someone described Stride to Packer before the sighting? Who might that have been? :-)

Esp. since Packer changed his initial deposition to Sergeant White. Packer in his initial deposition claimed that he had NOT seen Stride on the night prior to her murder.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a very good point, Tom.

What do you think about the story that Packer was shown the bodies of Eddowes and Stride and he picked Stride as the person who got the grapes?

Did that happen?

There's no proof that Packer was taken to see Eddowes, but Le Grand definitely took Packer to see Stride, no doubt with Le Grand passing himself off as a detective as he attempted to do with PS White. Had Packer been a genuine witness, he would not have allowed himself to be handled by a man who lies about being a detective, but would have told his story to PS White and worked with the law.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Edward Stow]

Why do you say that Le Grand wasn't a detective?
Do you actually mean he wasn't a police detective or an ex-police detective?
Or do you mean that so far as you are concerned he was not eligible to describe himself as a detective?

Do you think that someone in 1888 (or even now) had to have certain qualifications before they could decsribe themsleves as a detective, seek work as a detective or carry out work as a detective?

Do you think that it is reasonable for a member of the public who lived near a murder scene to respond to someone who described themselves as a detective. Why would that person disbelieve the 'detective'?

Whatever else might be said about him, how can any of this reflect on Packer?

I can't think why Packer would have been taken to see Eddowes.

[Maria Birbili]

Why do you say that Le Grand wasn't a detective? Do you actually mean he wasn't a police detective or an ex-police detective? Or do you mean that so far as you are concerned he was not eligible to describe himself as a detective?

Edward, Le Grand held an office at the Strand which he advertised in the press as a detective agency. So far we haven't found evidence of any activities run by this office, apart from what "investigative actions" Le Grand claimed he conducted in the Stride and the Eddowes cases, where he was also acting in his capacity as a leading member of the WVC.
Apart from this, there's been some activity of his as a "private eye" pertaining to the Parnell scandal.

Primarily Le Grand was a thug and a pimp.

I can't think why Packer would have been taken to see Eddowes.

Think hard, Ed. Why would the police want Packer to view both bodies?

[Edward Stow]

Why would the police want him to view a body in a city morgue and one just around the corner? Dunno please tell me.

The stuff you said about le grand is somewhat irrelevant.
There was nothing to stop anyone setting themselves up as private detectives.

[Wicker Man]

... Had Packer been a genuine witness, he would not have allowed himself to be handled by a man who lies about being a detective, but would have told his story to PS White and worked with the law.

Tom.
Are you suggesting Packer found out that LeGrand was not a detective (of sorts) at some point, but continued to cooperate with him instead of the police?

I suggest that Packer was an old man with poor eyesight who initially did not want to get involved. This is why he came over all 'Schultz-like', - I know nuthing!
Once the Private Dicks payed him some attention he melted with visions of being a celebrity.
Unreliable yes, but actually lying? - thats a different matter.

.

[Maria Birbili]

OK, this thread has gone to the dogs. But then again, it's a Stride thread.

[San Fran]

Thread for discussion and posts related to Berner Street's most well publicized witness.
Despite Johnny Depp/Inspector Abberline famously claiming that no one in the East End could afford grapes....Matt was your man on Berner Street for vitis vinifera.

Do you believe in the corroborating witnesses who all said Elizabeth Stride was out with a gentleman, like she was out on a date, for 2 hours or more, starting in the pub? I'm sure any visiting "gentleman" could afford grapes as much as they could afford a prostitute. I counted 5 witnesses to Stride and gentleman, with minor contradictions, IMO.

And what is your opinion on a pathologist being able to detect grapes by sight in a "vomit pile" of stomach contents after an hour of digestion mixed with potatoes, cheese and bread stuff, when the peel and likely the seeds were spit out? "Never touched or swallowed grapes"? How can that be determined?