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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Coincidence? - by JeffHamm 9 minutes ago.
FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Help the technologically disadvantaged - by packers stem 14 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Coincidence? - by packers stem 19 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Coincidence? - by packers stem 24 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mitre Square VR - by richardh 38 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Coincidence? - by JeffHamm 1 hour ago.
"The Royal Conspiracy": Mary Jane Wilson - by Trapperologist 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: New Suspect Book Discussion - by Monty 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Coincidence? - (61 posts)
Witnesses: Was Albert Cadosch A Reliable Witness? - (21 posts)
Torso Killings: Pinchin Street Torso - who did it? - (18 posts)
Other: The Trial Of Lizzie Borden by Cara Robertson. - (10 posts)
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 165: October 2019 - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Evidence left behind - (7 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