Jump to content

Talk:Alfred Packer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.23.157.102 (talk) at 07:37, 17 October 2009 (→‎Alferd?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Writing

What is with this writing? "the story did not wash" "hornswaggled" ???????

is there any reference to Packer's pardon? http://www.custerguide.com/quillen/eqcols/19897268.htm says it was declined by the governor. I can't find a reference to it going through. PW

http://www.archives.state.co.us/packer.html Colorado State Archives says packer arrived alone at the Los Pinos Indian Agency near Gunnison on April 6, 1874, not March 6. The extra month makes a difference in the snow-bound conditions so I'd guess the Archives more reliable.

What's up with the exhumation project? It's been 14 long years ago! --Menchi 01:33, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I'll try to research it tomorrow -- anyone else who wishes to, fine.User_talk:Dino

Used with permission, posted by orthogonal 23:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting us on this matter. Apparently, the use of Alfred
and Alferd occurs depending on signature and time. In many indexes, he is
simply listed as A. Packer or Al Packer. All of the official criminal
documents (at least those filled out by the court) list him as Alfred.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem to matter which he is called
historically. Perhaps, in that era lacking birth certificates, he went by
both.
[from a later message: one of my coworkers here mentions that both names were
in use but many historians prefer 'Alferd.']
Sincerely,
Lance Christensen
Department of Personnel & Administration
Division of Information Technologies
Colorado State Archives
1313 Sherman St., Rm.1B20
Denver, CO 80203
'phone number elided'


-----Original Message-----
From: 'orthogonal's real name elided'
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:08 AM
To: archives@state.co.us
Subject: Alfred Packer or Alferd Packer?
In your web page at
http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/pen/packer/index.htm, you give the
subject's name as "ALFRED Packer", but other sources seem to use "ALFERD
Packer".

What side of the Civil War did he serve on? Presumably, on the Union side. But this should be explained. Kent Wang 03:09, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Apparently Union, in an Iowa regiment. Edited a little. — dino HE IS A TOTAL FREAk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.119.222 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Post story

I removed "See the Denver Post reference below for more evidence that Packer's story of self-defense may have been true" because the DP article does not, in fact, contain any such evidence.

The closest it comes is stating (without referencing, elaboration, or quotes) that "The expert forensic evidence, now available only 106 years after the first trial, indicates that one of Alferd Packer's versions of the tale is true." That's a *claim* of evidence, but in itself it's not actual evidence. --Calair 00:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

USDA dining facility?

I can imagine a university naming a dining hall after a famous cannibal, but a USDA facility? Can anyone provide supporting evidence? It seems a bit far-fetched. The edit in which it was introduced seems to have come from Ta bu shi da yu. grendel|khan 14:42, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I eat at the university dining facility so-named pretty much every day, so that's no mystery. It appears that Ta bu shi da yu's edit is valid as well. See this page: Several months later the cafeteria was renamed when it was discovered that Packer had been convicted of murdering and eating five prospectors in 1874. --Alterego 16:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it out, along with the Congress comment. It's too ridiculous to be true, and even if it is, I don't feel it belongs here. - User:Barfooz

Um, it IS true, like I said above, and whether or not it is ridiculous doesn't matter, because it's true. --Alterego 02:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Editing

The first sentence of this article makes absolutely no sense. He was one of only two people convicted of cannibalism, but he was not really convicted of cannibalism, cannibalism is not a crime. If anyone has any idea what this first sentence is trying to get across, please make the edit and remove the tag at the top of the page. DKK

I was just about to make the same comment, DKK. Please, if anyone knows anything about US or Colorado law, would you clarify the article? At present our article is wildly self-contradictory; he was either convicted of cannibalism or not (all sources I've checked say that he definitely was not). Maybe it should have read 'capitalism'. (Is that a crime in US?) Alpheus

American Antiquity Article

This piece should be updated to reflect a piece written by Alison Rautman and Todd Fenton in the April 2005 issue of American Antiquity. They describe data from the 1989 excavations that indicate that all five bodies had repeated blows to the head by a heavy sharp object such as an ax, as the cause of death. There was no evidence of gunshot wounds in any of the bodies. Packer's story that he shot one of the others in self-defense doesn't hold up.

National Geographic Channel Special

I saw a documentary today that discussed Starrs efforst and also disputed the hole in the pelvis (which might not be a bullet hole and belonged to the wrong corpse). I was unable to find further information online with a cursory check. Is anyone interested in digging deeper?

--KNHaw 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead spectrography

The lead spectrograph data mentioned in footnote 6, is currently challenged as a method in forensic science. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to that, but I read David P. Bailey's article and from what I can tell, all it shows is that the bullets still in the rusty gun were 19th century like a bullet fragment found in the gravesite. It can't actually demonstrate that the gun is the murder weapon, thought it may well have been. It hardly matters. Bailey's article seems terribly naive, and the contention that the spectrograph data indicates Packer was innocent of the deed is ludicrous in light of what else is known. Packer's first story was that his companions had all died gradually along the trail of exposure and hunger, with Packer finally killing Bell after the latter went crazy. Later the bodies were discovered by a traveler, all in one group at a single campsite, proving Packer's story was a lie. Faced with that, Packer changed his story to have Bell killing all the men with a hatchet so he could eat them, then Packer shooting Bell in self-defense. He admitted to cannibalism, but he kind of had to, because Bell had been partially eaten as well. Knowing all that, I don't understand the pull to try to escape from the conclusion of common sense.
By the by, until I edited it this article was trying to claim that recent research by Starrs and Bailey cast doubt on Packer's guilt. Bailey's contribution does no such thing, and the only research that qualifies as a real contribution to our knowledge of the killings (Starrs's forensic analysis of the victims) apparently came to an opposite conclusion. "While not everyone on the team agreed about how much actual support there was for making a definitive statement, Starrs went on record as saying that Packer was a murdering cannibal and liar." http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/alfred_packer/9.html 69.224.223.175 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Quotes

I'm afraid that in the absence of proper cites, the judge's supposed quotes look like unsupported legend, more suited to a tourist guide than an encyclopaedia. Just the kind of sloppy information that gives WP a bad name. It's not helped by the weasel words that introduce them, as this simply makes it appear that the editor who added them is aware they are nonsense, but liked the sound of them and so hoped to get away it. Can it not be changed to explain that "legend has it" or something, just to emphasis that what's being recorded is not what the actual words were, but rather amusing and fanciful local legend. This can be contrasted with the actual words of the third quote. And a cite (and I'd hope for one that was at least semi-sceptical) would go a long way. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information about this is found in Gantt. Unfortunately, I'm not the one who added this material, and I do not have access to Gantt--I can simply verify that the material is in there. I read the copy that belongs to the Indianapolis Public Library. The last I checked, the New York Public Library did not have one, and given its age, I doubt they have aquired one. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell's gunshot wound

"While it appears certain that Bell was killed by gunshot, the question of murder itself remains." That's what the article says right now, and it's easily knocked down. James Starrs, who led the forensic examination team and whom an editor is trying to imply is part of that "recent evidence" that casts doubt on Packer's guilt, concluded the opposite. I'll quote from a blog discussion that quotes extensively from articles in archaeology journals:

Bailey's case rests on what he claims is a bullet hole in Bell's hipbone, though Starrs, whose team took the photographs Bailey is working from, insists the hole was made by animals gnawing on the bones. "It wasn't a bullet hole at all--it was a carnivore gnaw mark. It had none of the classic marks of a bullet hole," Starrs scoffs. "The most likely scenario is that Packer killed all five with an ax. Packer was quite a con artist, and apparently he's still at it."

Whatever Bailey says, the evidence seems pretty plain that Bell did not have a bullet wound. A quote on the same page reads: "There was no evidence of perimortem gunshot wounds to any of the five individuals. What had previously been reported in the media to be possible gunshot trauma to the pelvic area was, in fact, damage from carnivore activity. The shape and location of large, circular puncture defects in the iliac blades of four individuals (A,B,C, and D) is consistent with bear scavenging."

According to the article, "Starrs concluded Packer was the killer [of all five men], arguing that an old war wound would have made Bell a bad ax-murderer, unable to overpower the younger Noon [whom medical evidence indicates struggled furiously]."

See http://stephenbodio.blogspot.com/2006/01/donner-party-and-alferd-packer.html (The page also contains an amazing picture of the 5 skeletons in situ.)

Why is Bailey, a local historian who never participated in the study, being favored here over the conclusions of the actual forensic examination? 69.224.223.175 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Packer's Head

The Ripley's museum in New Orleans has closed. What happened to Mr. Packer's head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.72.106 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"American cannibal"?

Is it really necessary to call him an American cannibal? It's extremely inappropriate as it suggests that he was in the practice of canniablism on a frequent basis. He was a prospector who happened to resort to cannibalism. I suggest strongly that this be changed. --Bentonia School (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alferd?

The page URL/title is calling him Al-FERD, while the article refers to the more common (and I'm guessing correct) name Al-FRED. If it's wrong, I don't know how to change it. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.166.22 (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change anythign and read the article. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article and can say that the spelling issue should be addressed immediately in the main body of the text, not in a footnote that one would expect to be a citation in Wikipedia format. Perhaps we also need a footnote to explain "anythign"? 76.23.157.102 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be convicted of Cannibalism when you weren't?

The article says he was "convicted of cannibalism," then says immediately afterward that he was not. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He couldn't have been convicted of cannibalism. Cannibalism wasn't against the law in Colorado at the time. He was, however, a self-admitted cannibal. Rklawton (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Packer&oldid=320365674"