Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matthew Packer : Greengrocer & Witness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • San Fran
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    It's been a while since I got 'into' Stride's last night, San....I'd have to go with the opinion that she was out with someone who purchased grapes.

    I've not only no idea how they could ascertain that grape pulp was in that melange...but how they could differentiate it from the potatoes and cheese when mixed.
    I never got into it at all until now. I still thought she had a bag of nuts in her hand and cashews freshen your breath! Mint, huh?

    I could never understand the issue with the grapes. Why even bother with a categorical denial? I'm guessing their hand was forced by private investigators putting the police performance into question.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    I understand perfectly the reticence to come forward initially, and then feeling compelled to report, especially if two private detectives show up at your door with a grape stalk. I'm assuming Grand and Batchelor found the stalks first. The altering of the times was either done by Packer or the police. Either way, that only supports the testimony that grapes were sold even if it was at 11:30.

    If Packer changed it, it means he was reporting a sighting about an hour and a half before the murder. How could he have known or assumed Stride was on a date with the Ripper and he was a major witness? Is that how a publicity-hungry person tries to make a splash in the papers? The police, taking the statement, are at least acknowledging Liz was with a gentleman leaving the pub at 11 and he could have bought grapes for her. (I see no police denial of there possibly being a grape stalk at the murder scene, and I doubt they did a ground search for evidence like grape seeds and skins.) The time of the sale really makes little difference if she was on a date and she was with the same man she left the pub with. I'm sure the police automatically thought she dumped him and found another client who turned out to be the Ripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    In his statement to Sgt White, Packer claimed the whole encounter with Stride & the man who bought the grapes took place between 11:45 until he closed up shop at around 12:30. He told the same story to the papers.
    The anomaly is the summary penned by Carmichael-Bruce (A.C.B.) where the times are changed to 11:00 - 11:30, where did that come from?

    We know that the police were aware of the statements by the two witnesses (Best & Gardner) at the Bricklayer's Arms who saw Stride and a man outside the pub about 11:00pm, so the summary by A.C.B. is obviously erroneous, yet it seems to have unduly influenced modern researchers.
    Best & Gardiner's statements confirm that Stride (and her man) could not have bought grapes at 11:00, so we must set that statement aside.

    I'm inclined to think the source might have been Packer himself, otherwise there seems to be little cause for Swanson to dismiss him as unreliable. The fact Packer did claim at first to have seen no-one, and nothing suspicious, only then to come up with quite a detailed story to both the police & the press is not uncommon, it happens frequently today. Some witnesses at first choose to not get involved, only to later open up. That fact in itself is not cause to dismiss a witness, but if Packer made at least one statement to police using different times, that is justification for their dismissal as a reliable witness.
    If this is what happened, then we are left with the bigger question of 'why?'

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Considering Packer saw Stride with a man about 12:30, who had just bought a package of grapes, and PC Smith saw Stride with a man about 12:35 carrying a parcel, then the obvious conclusion in any other crime series would be that Packer & Smith saw Stride with the same man.
    Anywhere else, but here......
    Thanks for clearing that up for me, WM. I thought the package contained his knife. But you're right. The earlier witnesses didn't see a package. This would explain that. Those were the grapes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post

    Liz was fed but probably still needed her doss money. Nonetheless the other 3 or 4 sightings were likely of her with her “gentleman”. At least two of them saw his “parcel”.
    Considering Packer saw Stride with a man about 12:30, who had just bought a package of grapes, and PC Smith saw Stride with a man about 12:35 carrying a parcel, then the obvious conclusion in any other crime series would be that Packer & Smith saw Stride with the same man.
    Anywhere else, but here......

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post

    There were at least two couples walking or standing in Berner St. around the time of the murder besides Stride & her man. If I recall, the "not tonight" was spoken between one of those couples, but not everyone agrees on the number of couples.
    I think you’re right, WM. The “not tonight” was probably the second couple. They were also there at 1240 for 20 min and James Brown saw his couple and heard them around 1245.

    Liz was fed but probably still needed her doss money. Nonetheless the other 3 or 4 sightings were likely of her with her “gentleman”. At least two of them saw his “parcel”.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    Not including Packer, there were 5 witnesses coming forward, including a police officer, describing 4 separate sightings and encounters over an hour and 45 minutes. It's highly unlikely that it wasn't the same man. I don't think Liz hooked up with three or four different clients in less than 2 hours after leaving the bar with one, especially not when she said, "Not tonight," in one of the reported sightings.

    https://www.casebook.org/timeline.stride.html
    There were at least two couples walking or standing in Berner St. around the time of the murder besides Stride & her man. If I recall, the "not tonight" was spoken between one of those couples, but not everyone agrees on the number of couples.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post



    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?
    From the time of the murder, to the time the post-mortem was conducted, it was some 38 hours, or thereabouts.
    Had there been any grape 'flesh' in her stomach at the time of death it would not have survived for 38 hours.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Not including Packer, there were 5 witnesses coming forward, including a police officer, describing 4 separate sightings and encounters over an hour and 45 minutes. It's highly unlikely that it wasn't the same man. I don't think Liz hooked up with three or four different clients in less than 2 hours after leaving the bar with one, especially not when she said, "Not tonight," in one of the reported sightings.

    https://www.casebook.org/timeline.stride.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    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?
    It's been a while since I got 'into' Stride's last night, San....I'd have to go with the opinion that she was out with someone who purchased grapes.

    I've not only no idea how they could ascertain that grape pulp was in that melange...but how they could differentiate it from the potatoes and cheese when mixed.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    ... 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.

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Edward Stow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maria Birbili
    replied
    Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X