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:
Annie Chapman: Richardson's View - by Curious Cat 1 hour ago.
Other Mysteries: DES Drama - Dennis Neilson - by OneRound 1 hour ago.
Levy, Jacob: Jacob the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour ago.
Annie Chapman: Richardson's View - by Observer 1 hour ago.
Annie Chapman: Richardson's View - by Observer 2 hours ago.
Catherine Eddowes: The Two Pawn Tickets - by Curious Cat 2 hours ago.
Annie Chapman: Richardson's View - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious? - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Annie Chapman: Richardson's View - (35 posts)
Witnesses: Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious? - (17 posts)
Catherine Eddowes: The Two Pawn Tickets - (8 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob the Ripper - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The apron was dropped... - (5 posts)
Pub Talk: Springsteen's New Album - (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