Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

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:
Letters and Communications: An experiment - by Abby Normal 13 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Herlock Sholmes 47 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Herlock Sholmes 51 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly? - by Varqm 2 hours ago.
General Police Discussion: PC Thain's beat - by The Station Cat 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (63 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (30 posts)
General Police Discussion: PC Thain's beat - (8 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential: Fanny Mortimer - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly? - (5 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: Lambeth Workhouse - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-21-2016, 01:41 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,740
Default Circumstances

Hi,

What might have been the "certain circumstances" he is talking about?

"The Times.
Saturday, 24 November 1888.

PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, November 23.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

Mr. HUNTER asked the Home Secretary whether he was prepared in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes.

Mr. MATTHEWS. - I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer.

In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate, after the crime, had assisted the murderer.


Any suggestions?

Kind regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-21-2016, 02:06 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,561
Default

Pierre

a very interesting question indeed? the interesting words to me are "after the crime"

i can think of several possible answers, I am sure you or others will come up with more.

1. Given the degree of mutilation, it is assumed the killer will be obviously covered in more blood than in previous murders, and this would be noticed by family or friends, who may have assisted in cleaning up.

2. That he was seen leaving the murder site, possibly in the company of someone, who waited for him, or had arranged to meet him.

3. He was seen and tentative identified, but either could not be found, or an alibi was provided for him, that was unshakable.

I am not sure how plausible any of those are? it is however a starting point

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2016, 04:21 AM
Rosella Rosella is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,542
Default

It may well have just been typical politician-speak on Matthews's behalf. This extremely intractable man had refused to offer any reward or pardon so far, but now things were reaching a new boiling point.

After Kelly's murder the press were screaming about as many as seven unsolved murders, British public opinion was increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of progress on solving these crimes, and Matthews had to be seen to be doing something, anything.

He couldn't offer a reward as his credibility would be in shreds, having stood against it for so long. So the Home Secretary decided on a pardon instead, an empty gesture wrapped up in vague language in the House of Commons about Kelly's killing being different, that maybe her killer had an accomplice, or friends that helped afterwards, yadeya.

Matthews knew the police didn't have any evidence of Ripper accomplices or helpful friends. He was just sparring away in the Commons, hoping the fuss would soon die down, leaving him in peace.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-22-2016, 08:19 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi,

What might have been the "certain circumstances" he is talking about?

"The Times.
Saturday, 24 November 1888.

PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, November 23.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

Mr. HUNTER asked the Home Secretary whether he was prepared in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes.

Mr. MATTHEWS. - I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer.

In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate, after the crime, had assisted the murderer.


Any suggestions?

Kind regards, Pierre
I should think the obvious answer is that in no other investigation prior to Kellys was there someone seen watching what would soon become a murder scene. The statement by Sarah Lewis, unfortunately initially attributed erroneously to a Ms Kennedy, provides what could easily be described as a lookout, either looking out for someone incoming who might spoil what was already happening in room 13, or someone who was making sure that the courtyard was silent and Marys room dark. The pardon was issued Saturday afternoon, after Abberline, Reid and some other officers re-visited the room Saturday morning. It was reported that they "re-sieved" the ashes.

I mention this in context with the thread question, because perhaps something was found on that second sieving that suggested Mary might have been involved in something. I know that minute bits of evidence might only provide a hint of something, just wondering if those minute bits had any serial numbers. Not so far fetched when you consider that the "Mary Kelly" killed before Mary Jane of room 13 was killed, was dispatched on a night when stamps and cash were stolen.
__________________
Michael Richards

Last edited by Michael W Richards : 05-22-2016 at 08:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-22-2016, 09:36 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Not so far fetched when you consider that the "Mary Kelly" killed before Mary Jane of room 13 was killed, was dispatched on a night when stamps and cash were stolen.
The weekend of the post office robbery, perhaps, but since the theft was only discovered on Monday morning, can you say for sure that it wasn't robbed on Sunday day or night?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-23-2016, 02:28 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,740
Default

Quote:
Elamarna;381886
Quote:
Pierre

a very interesting question indeed? the interesting words to me are "after the crime"
Hi Steve,

Yes, I agree.

Quote:
i can think of several possible answers, I am sure you or others will come up with more.

1. Given the degree of mutilation, it is assumed the killer will be obviously covered in more blood than in previous murders, and this would be noticed by family or friends, who may have assisted in cleaning up.
OK. But a consequence of such an hypothesis is a question as to how that information could have reached the police / the juridical system / the parliament and not the press?

(Hope you do not mind me asking questions. I am interested in your hypothetical answers.)

Quote:
2. That he was seen leaving the murder site, possibly in the company of someone, who waited for him, or had arranged to meet him.
Good hypothesis. But if so, how come nothing of it was spoken of in the press - when it was discussed in the parliament?
Quote:
3. He was seen and tentative identified, but either could not be found, or an alibi was provided for him, that was unshakable.
Another interesting point. But if he was seen and ID:d - why was there nothing about all of that in the press?

Especially since we hear it from Matthews. If he knew that they had ID:d the Ripper, everybody else would have known.

Or do you have any suggestion as to why they wouldn`t?

Quote:
I am not sure how plausible any of those are? it is however a starting point.
I think they are brilliant. And I am sure the answers to the questions will be just as interesting.

Best wishes, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 05-23-2016 at 02:33 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-23-2016, 02:36 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,740
Default

[quote=Michael W Richards;381915]I should think the obvious answer is that in no other investigation prior to Kellys was there someone seen watching what would soon become a murder scene.
Quote:
The statement by Sarah Lewis, unfortunately initially attributed erroneously to a Ms Kennedy, provides what could easily be described as a lookout, either looking out for someone incoming who might spoil what was already happening in room 13, or someone who was making sure that the courtyard was silent and Marys room dark. The pardon was issued Saturday afternoon, after Abberline, Reid and some other officers re-visited the room Saturday morning. It was reported that they "re-sieved" the ashes.
Hi Michael,

It could actually have been anyone. It could even have been a policeman watching out for Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-23-2016, 03:29 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,486
Default

I agree with Michael. The 'certain circumstances' probably relate to reports of a man seen loitering opposite Millers Court (Hutchinson). These reports would suggest that there was either an accomplice or someone who might have seen MJK with her killer. - as indeed there was. Then again, I am in the small minority who are prepared to accept the possibility (no more) that Hutchinson may have been telling the truth. My hunch (no more) is that Astrakhan Man was no toff, but someone making himself out to be one - perhaps even someone who knew Hutchinson (and who hid his face to avoid recognition).
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.

To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Last edited by Bridewell : 05-23-2016 at 03:33 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-23-2016, 04:37 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

OK. But a consequence of such an hypothesis is a question as to how that information could have reached the police / the juridical system / the parliament and not the press?

(Hope you do not mind me asking questions. I am interested in your hypothetical answers.)


Certainly do not mind

On the first point:

There need be no certain knowledge of such, just an assumption by the police (an educated guess if you like) that the killer may have been in a far worse state, of shall we say, contamination, and would probably have required help to clean up, and this is passed up the chain to reach Matthew eventually.
The obvious reasoning for the exclusion being that if you helped him in that state, you must have known, and should have come forward.




Pierre for the purpose of the next two hypothesis I will assume for the moment your theory is correct, even if we do not have a name, that is they were of high status. my reasoning for this is that if the killer is not of this status/class these options are highly unlikely to be required.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

Good hypothesis. But if so, how come nothing of it was spoken of in the press - when it was discussed in the parliament?

Depends who was seen? and when? and by whom?
if seen by Police, simple order is given- keep silent; if a member of public, may need to coerce them. Maybe a false story was produced on order, with grave consequences if not followed.

Details would be passed on by very senior officer/officers at Scotland yard, probably verbally.

The point to note is that no details are given in Westminster, just broad comments. Therefore only the Minister and the PM need know the truth! The members question could be a planted question, very common.
The reason would be to send a message to someone, along the lines of "we know, Stop!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

Another interesting point. But if he was seen and ID:d - why was there nothing about all of that in the press?


Especially since we hear it from Matthews. If he knew that they had ID:d the Ripper, everybody else would have known.

Or do you have any suggestion as to why they wouldn`t?

Much the same as above, depends who may have seen someone, and just how positive that id was?
It may have been "he looked like so and so" but of course if alibi supplied by someone of standing, may have been no real evidence.

story kept from press as above.

Such info would come from senior officers on a need to know basis. Only Matthews and a select other few may have known- orders, silence is required.

we would obviously be looking at a cover up if either of the latter two options were the case.

At present I see nothing to support any of the hypotheses.
Without supporting data I would go for the first choice because it does not require more than guess work on the part of the authorities. It is a plausible explanation.

however it is not a perfect answer.

Of course the point made by others about it relating to someone seen loitering may be even more valid, given we know that such was reported.



Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 05-23-2016 at 04:54 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-23-2016, 05:05 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
The weekend of the post office robbery, perhaps, but since the theft was only discovered on Monday morning, can you say for sure that it wasn't robbed on Sunday day or night?
Hi Michael and Joshua
What have I missed here ....the other mary Kelly ,post office robbery ? Sounds interesting
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.