Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police Should Protect Matthew Packer From The Whitechapel Murderer

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

  • San Fran
    replied
    Thanks for reminding me.

    Now what were we talking about? Oh, yes, Packer and the grapes!

    I doubt the hour and a half time range/discrepancy was the most relevant thing. The police were just embarrassed to have been outdone by a pair of private detectives and con men. As if there wasn't enough to be embarrassed about. They missed one piece of evidence down the drain and washed another one down it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    I know someone who went to jail unjustly after the police convinced the witnesses to alter their timeline by half an hour so he could get there in time after work to commit the crime. (Pas moi.) I thought this might be the case here but it's obvious to me now that it wasn't.

    Yes, it is, Chris. It's the only joke I can remember. Ha ha. Did I already tell it to you?
    One benefit to having no short-term memory, ....you can hide your own Easter eggs.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    I know someone who went to jail unjustly after the police convinced the witnesses to alter their timeline by half an hour so he could get there in time after work to commit the crime. (Pas moi.) I thought this might be the case here but it's obvious to me now that it wasn't.
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    I assume the PS is satirical.
    Yes, it is, Chris. It's the only joke I can remember. Ha ha. Did I already tell it to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    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?


    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Stuart Taylor
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    Mrs.

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

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    right

    Hello Sleuth. Thanks.

    Yes, indeed.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sleuth1888
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    unreliable

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

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X