Police Should Protect Matthew Packer From The Whitechapel Murderer

[Howard Brown]

Gordon, J.S. 1 November 1888


Letter to the City Police

[Sleuth1888]

Philip Sugden in his book The Complete History of Jack the Ripper contended that Matt Packer was a highly imaginative and dishonest character, and that his witness statement was on the whole, unreliable.

However I believe that the police at the times knew of his dishonesty and wanted to protect him from public anger if they ever found out about his dishonesty.

[Cogidubnus]

Although incorrectly spelt "It strikes me" is something of an east-end expression in this context, and I wonder if that's where, despite the Scottish sounding name, Gordon originated?

All the best

Dave

[Lynn Cates]

unreliable

Hello Sleuth. Agreed. Tom Wescott has stated the same. And the Met considered Packer altogether unreliable.

Cheers.
LC

[Sleuth1888]

Apparently even the story of Packer selling grapes to a couple on the night of Stride's murder is fiction, and even if it was true, there is every possibility that the couple could be entirely different people!

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard et al.

While the letter writer may have meant Packer, the wording implies more than one person, street fruit sellers in general:

". . . you may depend on the Whitechapel Murderer attempting to kill the only persons who can identify him, namely the Fruitsellers. . ."

Best regards

Chris

[Lynn Cates]

right

Hello Sleuth. Thanks.

Yes, indeed.

Cheers.
LC

[Wicker Man]

Hi Howard et al.

While the letter writer may have meant Packer, the wording implies more than one person, street fruit sellers in general:

". . . you may depend on the Whitechapel Murderer attempting to kill the only persons who can identify him, namely the Fruitsellers. . ."

Best regards

Chris

Hello Chris.
Hope you are well.

I wonder if the plural is aimed at 'the Packers', that is Mr & Mrs Packer. Even though the original threat is supposed to have been leveled at Mr. Packer alone.

We can hardly guess which source this Mr Gordon up in Aberdeen had used, but the Echo of Oct. 6th in London had included Mrs Packer as a witness.
"...and Mrs. packer remarked it as strange that they should remain, for rain was falling at the time."
Perhaps a similar erroneous version had found its way up to Scotland?

[Lynn Cates]

Mrs.

Hello Jon. All of which makes one wonder why Mrs. Packer did not get questioned a bit more by the coppers.

Cheers.
LC

[Stuart Taylor]

And the Met considered Packer altogether unreliable.

I am not sure we should put too much store by the Met's view of Packer. They hardly covered themselves in glory throughout the whole business!

[Cris Malone]

Exactly what about the "Met's view" of Packer's ever changing story is unmerited?

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Hello Chris.
Hope you are well.

I wonder if the plural is aimed at 'the Packers', that is Mr & Mrs Packer. Even though the original threat is supposed to have been leveled at Mr. Packer alone.

We can hardly guess which source this Mr Gordon up in Aberdeen had used, but the Echo of Oct. 6th in London had included Mrs Packer as a witness.
"...and Mrs. packer remarked it as strange that they should remain, for rain was falling at the time."
Perhaps a similar erroneous version had found its way up to Scotland?

Packer was a 58 year old man living with his wife and step mother. He should have been offered protection before he was even asked for information.

I’m surprised he even had that much recall at that age. Witnesses are not deemed unreliable because of reticence or incorrect times. If you’re a witness they like, police will work with witnesses like that. This was not one of those cases.

[Wicker Man]

Packer was a 58 year old man living with his wife and step mother. He should have been offered protection before he was even asked for information.

It doesn't work that way, the witness must give a statement first.

I’m surprised he even had that much recall at that age.

Excuse me, but 58 isn't 'that' old, recollection shouldn't be a problem for the average 58 year old.
Would it be true to say you don't know many 58 year olds? :-)

Witnesses are not deemed unreliable because of reticence or incorrect times.

In this case the police are only looking for 'one' time, Packer is thought by modern theorists to have given two conflicting times, basically 11:00-11:30 and 11:45-12:30.
The source for the earlier times noted by A.C.B. may lay elsewhere. I'm wondering if the intrusion by the two private detectives, claiming to take Packer to see Warren didn't have something to do with it?

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

My main point was that he was endangering his life and those of female relatives, hence the obvious reluctance to make a statement, until he was compelled. Or until he suddenly and inexplicably decided he wanted a lot of public attention!

I know a 59 year old with no short term memory. If 11-1130 was Packer’s initial time, then 1230 could have been an adjustment based on the other witness timelines. It’s an understandable incremental adjustment. Otherwise, his memory looks mint.

But I’m beginning to think the grapes non-issue is just a distraction from the witnesses who did testify. Marshall and PC Smith both testified to the gentleman Liz was with, and their sightings were at 1145 and 1230. Smith said he was respectable but was not forthcoming on occupation. Marshall came right out and said businessman. What can possibly be achieved with a denial of the possibility of a simple purchase of grapes, in light of this fact?

PS I know a 59 year old who has no short term memory.

[Chris Phillips]

My main point was that he was endangering his life and those of female relatives, hence the obvious reluctance to make a statement, until he was compelled. Or until he suddenly and inexplicably decided he wanted a lot of public attention!

I know a 59 year old with no short term memory. If 11-1130 was Packer’s initial time, then 1230 could have been an adjustment based in the other witness timelines. It’s an understandable incremental adjustment. Otherwise, his memory looks mint.

But I’m beginning to think the grapes non-issue is just a distraction from the witnesses who did testify. Marshall and PC Smith both testified to the gentleman Liz was with, and their sightings were at 1145 and 1230. Smith said he was respectable but was not forthcoming on occupation. Marshall came right out and said businessman. What can possibly be achieved with a denial of the possibility of a simple purchase of grapes, in light of this fact.?

PS I know a 59 year old who has no short term memory.

I assume the PS is satirical.