|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | 
|
Hi,
I believe a worthy topic to debate , is the curious pardon offered after Kellys murder ie.
'There are circumstances surrounding the last murder, that were found wanting in the others, that make it more likely that the murderer had a accomplice, who may not have assisted him in the event but mayby afterwards'
I should add that this is not a precise quote but near enough.
I have always been curious what this choice of words meant, my idea is that the police were of the opinion that the killer left the scene of the murder in daylight hours , and that it was therefore more likely that his place of refuge, unless he lived alone contained someone who was aware of his disrevelled appearence, but did not report the incident, therefore could be considered a accesory.
It will be intresting to discover other posters opinions on this pardon, and possible reasons why it was made.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 346
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Richard,
A very good question and one, given what little we know about the crimes, that seems to me to have no easy answer. Certainly based on what evidence we have there is no reason to believe the circumstances of Kelly's murder were so different as to suggest a second individual involved. Unless (and this is really your "turf") the police took Sarah Lewis's deposition seriously enough to interpret the man she saw at 2:30 as some sort of associate of JtR or possibly Kelly's pimp?
And might it then have been the promise of a pardon (and not a bad conscience) that actually brought Hutchinson to the police?
More likely, I think, the actual wording about "circumstances" may not be important and that acting on the idea that JtR was "somebody's husband, somebody's son" or at least somebody's lodger or friend it was time to offer a pardon in case someone with a suspicion about an associate would not fear being implicated in the crimes.
Or, more cynically, because it was obvious the Home Office was not going to offer any reward the offer of a pardon no one believed applied might at least help stifle the clamor for a government reward.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
A good reply , although i feel sure that actual statement was made after Hutchinsons visit to the police Nov 22nd springs to mind but i may be wrong without researching the actual date.
It was just that I felt because locally ie Dorset street area, the residents believed the murder happened daylight hours [ mayby derived from Maxwells statement] that it was because of this that the police came to the conclusion that such a person who had to be saturated with all kind of nasties, must have been seen by at least residents or resident of his refuge, and possibly could have harboured him or kept quiet for whatever reason.
Therefore to offer a pardon for that kind of accessory might tempt someone close to the killer that may have assisted him ,to step forward.
Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 347
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Richard,
The offer of a pardon was made by the Secretary of State on November 10, 1888, and there was an immediate notification to the press. On November 23 of the same year, during a debate in Parliament, the pardon was extended to cover "the previous [to Kelly] Whitechapel murders."
Don't know if that gets us any further forward, but Hutchinson would have been able to learn of the pardon prior to his giving a statement to the police.
All this is further cluttered because, despite there being no government-sponsored reward, it would seem there was at least £1,200 in privately subscribed rewards to be earned. That would have been a nice hunk of change in 1888.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on December 20, 2004) |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 4:07 pm: |
|
The question of rewards is an interesting one.
It cannot be coincidental that one of the RETAINED JtR case files relates to the subject of rewards when so much else has been lost/destroyed.
The likelihood is that the Ripper case was seen as setting a precedent - a change of policy - in that rewards would again be offered (at least in certain circumstances) after a period when they had been rare or never offered.
Had the change been a simple reaction to circumstances - ie a realisation that there might be a confederate/accomplice then the decision would surely have been seen as an exception rather than a policy change.
The phrase referred to:
'There are circumstances surrounding the last murder, that were found wanting in the others, that make it more likely that the murderer had a accomplice, who may not have assisted him in the event but mayby afterwards'
Sounds more like a n explanation for the change of policy - ie a justification and face-saver (an element of a PR handling-strategy) rather than the reason for the change of policy itself.
We need to treat carefully here, bureaucratic waters are dangerous ones, and it would be unwise to jump to conclusions outside the context of the whole debate on rewards.
Just my view,
Phil
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 349
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Phil,
The government continued to offer rewards until 1884. In a letter dated October 6, 1888, from Sir Charles Warren to Home Secretary Henry Matthews this matter is discussed directly:
Up to 1884 the Commissioner was in the habit of recommending rewards in cases of murder &c.
Then occurred what is called the "German explosion case" which is supposed to have been the result of a conspiracy in order to obtain a reward.
After this, on 3rd July 1884, the Commissioner recommended a reward re attempted murder of P.C. Chamberlain, which the Secretary of State declined to approve, and at this time he said "since the case of the of German Explosion I have profound distrust of rewards."
At this time the view of the Commr. and others at Scotland Yard was that although a reward might not offer inducements which are likely to be accepted with a view to giving information, the offer of a good reward assists the Police by calling attention to the subject.
On the 31st July 1884 the Commissioner said "in the face of Sir Wm. Harcourt's memo I think we had better discontinue recommending the offer of rewards except in special cases."
The first special case that occurred that I am aware of, was the murder of Mrs. Samuels in 1887, in which it was supposed that there were several persons implicated. In this case the Commissioner recommended a substantial reward for information and a pardon to anyone implicated, but not the actual murderer.
In reply the Secretary of State approved the pardon but did not approve the promise of a reward.
Thus, it would seem that there was established a recent precedent for offering a pardon, but not a reward.
The decision to offer a pardon, as recorded in a memo from Matthews to Godfrey Lushington dated November 10, 1888, was made by the Cabinet. That decision was then passed on to Warren, the police, the press and ultimately the public. Coming so quickly in the wake of the murder and coming from the top down, so to speak, it would seem it was an exercise in PR and that there were no special suspicions by the police of an accomplice.
The phrase "certain circumstances" about the Kelly murder was first used by Matthews in Parliament on November 23 and may only have been so much eyewash. As it was, later in the same debate Matthews agreed to extend the pardon to cover the "previous Whitechapel murders."
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:01 am: |
|
Hi Don,
Surely we cannot suggest that Hutchinson reported himself to the police because he was an accomplice to the Ripper, that would be going against all logic.
He would hardly be welcome with open arms even if the promise of a pardon was in force, and most certainly not be given a grant of five guineas to trek round whitechapel with police officers, for surly he could have led the police straight to the perpretrator if he had first hand knowledge of the man.
I still feel that the circumstances found lacking in the other murders refer directly to the activities at millers court.
My question was.'What circumstances?.'
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 350
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:25 am: |
|
Richard,
No, I don't believe Hutchinson was an accomplice, quite the contrary, and never really did. It is just that when I first read your question I tried to answer off the top of my head (always a mistake)and in the process was struck by the fact that the pardon offer occurred before he came to the police. That's all.
Now that I have researched the matter, however, I don't think the "certain circumstances" phrase meant anything at all.
Whatever else they were, the murders were an embarrassment to the government and after the latest, most horrible murder yet, it would seem that within hours the cabinet decided to issue the pradon offer simply to give the apperance of doing something. There were no references in the initial correspondence about the pardon to any special circumstances in the Kelly murder.
It was not until two weeks later, in Parliament, that Matthews used the phrase "In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances that were wanting in earlier cases,..." and that was said as he sought to defend when and why the pardon was offered. Regardless, under pressure the pardon was expanded to cover all the supposed Ripper murders.
I am now convinced that there were no "certain circumstances" at all and Matthews's use of the phrase nearly two weeks after the pardon offer was simply spin doctoring, so to speak.
Don.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Checkable Detail: Who made the "circumstances" remark? Did he leave diaries? Family recollections? |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 355
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Diana,
The remark was made in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews (later Viscount Llandaff), while defending the cabinet's decision two weeks earlier to issue a pardon. I may be wrong, but my research suggests the remark was a "red herring" and had nothing to do with any "certain circumstances" particular to the Kelly murder and everything to do with giving some sort of answer to explain why the government was so tardy in at least making a public relations gesture to quiet the clamor at the continued Ripper depradations.
The debate in Commons should be available in Hansard: 3rd Series: Volume 331.
Don. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 1:46 am: |
|
Thanks, Don, very illuminating post. Good thread - this is not something I have given much thought to, but it IS important.
Phil |
Christi
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
i have a question for you all. i am working on a project on jack the ripper and i need to know how much money they offered if anyone were to find him...ive been up all night trying to figure this out....Please help me!!}} |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 407
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Christi,
According to Jack the Ripper A to Z: "By October 1888 the total on offer had reached about £1,200 (say £42,000 at today's values [Note: today was 1994]), and Angela Burdett Coutts had promised a pension of a pound a week for life to any successful informant who secured a conviction."
I hope this helps.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 150
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Hi Christi,
From Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper", on page 140:
(Referring to Nichols inquest)
"At the former, on 17 September, the foreman bitterly complained that the last two victims would probably not have died if the government had published a reward after the George Yard murder. The Home Office had not acted, he intimated, because the victims were poor but 'these poor people have souls like anybody else.' Coroner Baxter remarked that the next victim might well be rich. 'If that should be,' replied the foreman caustically, 'then there will be a large reward.' In the meantime private individuals and institutions were beginning to stump up a considerable sum. Samuel Montagu stood by his offer of £100. By the end of the month the Mile End Vigilance Committee had assembled £50. The outspoken foreman of the Nichols jury offered £25. And the proprietor of the Illustrated Police News pledged another £100."
Hope that helps answer your question.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Vicki Michelle,"Allo' Allo'"
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
