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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Police Should Protect Matthew Packer From The Whitechapel Murderer
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by San Fran View PostI 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?
Leave a comment:
-
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 PostI assume the PS is satirical.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by San Fran View PostMy 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by San Fran View PostPacker 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.
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.
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:
-
Originally posted by Wicker Man View PostHello 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?
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:
-
Exactly what about the "Met's view" of Packer's ever changing story is unmerited?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lynn Cates View PostAnd the Met considered Packer altogether unreliable.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Chris G. View PostHi 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
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
unreliable
Hello Sleuth. Agreed. Tom Wescott has stated the same. And the Met considered Packer altogether unreliable.
Cheers.
LC
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: