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

 Search:


Most Recent Posts:
Catherine Eddowes: Kates Cuts - by Trevor Marriott 41 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: The Indents in the GSG - by Trapperologist 50 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: The Indents in the GSG - by Trapperologist 58 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: The Indents in the GSG - by drstrange169 58 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: The Indents in the GSG - by DJA 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: The Indents in the GSG - by Trapperologist 4 hours ago.
Catherine Eddowes: Kates Cuts - by JeffHamm 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Catherine Eddowes: Kates Cuts - (22 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: The Indents in the GSG - (18 posts)
Other Mysteries: Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence - (7 posts)
Witnesses: Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness? - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Rubber Sole - (2 posts)
Pub Talk: Active Members - (2 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