Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook


Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024 - by Lewis C 1 hour ago.
Pub Talk: Man, Dog Vanish in Grand Canyon After Homemade Raft Trip - by Fiver 3 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Wentworth Dwellings - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Wentworth Dwellings - by rjpalmer 5 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Wentworth Dwellings - by Christian 6 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Wentworth Dwellings - by Herlock Sholmes 6 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024 - by Geddy2112 9 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Left or right handed. - by rjpalmer 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery - (20 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: The kill ladder - (19 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer - (13 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Bucks Row - The Other Side of the Coin. - (11 posts)
Dear Boss Letter: Are There Good Arguments Against Bullen/ing? - (9 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Evidence of innocence - (6 posts)


Irish Times
Dublin, Ireland
Monday, 15 October 1888

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
(BY TELEGRAPH)

The Home Secretary has sent the following reply to Mr Lusk, of Alderney road, Mile End, in answer to a request that a free pardon might be offered to the accomplice or accomplices of the murderer :-

October 12th,

SIR, - I am directed by the Secretary of State to thank you for the suggestions with your letter of the 7th inst. on the subject of the recent Whitechapel murders, and to say in reply that from the first the Secretary of State has had under consideration the question of granting a pardon to accomplices. It is obvious that not only must such a grant be limited to persons who have not been concerned in contriving or in actually committing the murders, but the expedience and propriety of making the offer must largely depend on the nature of the information received from day to day which is being carefully watched with a view to determine that question. With regard to the offer of a reward M Matthews has under the existing circumstances nothing to add to his former letter.

GODFREY LUSHINGTON