Circumstances

[Mayerling]

Mayerling, did S resign from a certain high position in the year you mentioned (or just after it?)

Hi Rosella,

No, it was not a matter of resigning. It's just he no longer really mattered in that year.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

S didn't click last night. It has now. Certainly an interesting idea. It has the added benefit of that group being as likely to grab cultural imagination as the Masons & the monarchy, more than the others would today, if you wanted to usurp the Royal Conspiracy from it's place as the gateway theory. I'd read it or pay to see the movie anyway.

I have no play to write a study or novel, or screenplay on this. Let's just see if the theory can work. I need some information before I fully present it - if it is correct (if not I'll just say I was wrong).

Jeff

[David Orsam]

A little bit of context is needed to understand the parliamentary exchange reproduced in the OP.

A notice of pardon for any accomplice to the murder of Mary Jane Kelly only was issued by Sir Charles Warren on Saturday, 10 November 1888, subject to that accomplice not having committed the murder.

In the House of Commons on Monday, 12 November, Mr Hunter asked the Home Secretary whether he had considered offering a pardon for an accomplice in any of the earlier murders, noting that Emma Smith had said that she had been attacked by a group of men. Mr Matthews said he could not answer on his feet but would consider the suggestion.

Subsequently, Mr Hunter repeated his question in the House on Friday 23 November (which would, I believe, have been a written question for which the Home Secretary had advance notice), as reproduced in the OP and the Home Secretary gave his answer.

The London Correspondent of the Birmingham Daily Post commented on 25 November (published on 26 Nov) that:

'This hint of the existence of accessories after the fact is quite new to the London public, for nothing in the very full reports published at the time indicated anything of the kind; and though the police authorities - perhaps rightly - refuse to say upon what grounds the Home Secretary's statement was based, it affords a hope that something more than a visionary clue has been obtained.'

A reporter from Liverpool Courier might have managed to extract some information from the police for it was reported in the Sheffield Evening Telegraph of 27 November that this newspaper stated:

'The police have reason to believe that the Whitechapel murderer has several accomplices, and they are convinced that in the case of the last murder they kept watch so as to ensure his escape; hence the remarks of the Home Secretary the other night. But what can be the object of this conspiracy? The people of Whitechapel believe that the crimes are the work of some Irish-Americans; but even the denizens of the Bowery do not murder for murder's sake. To shock the community is, no doubt, part of the purpose of the monster, but to shock the community for what purpose?'

Given that the pardon was issued on 10 November, it may be, as others have said, that the authorities at that time had the evidence of Sarah Lewis in mind that there was a man watching Miller's Court who was believed to be a possible accomplice. That might have reinforced Sir Charles Warren's belief (as expressed in a memo dated 13 October) that a secret society was possibly behind the murders.

[Pierre]

A little bit of context is needed to understand the parliamentary exchange reproduced in the OP.

A notice of pardon for any accomplice to the murder of Mary Jane Kelly only was issued by Sir Charles Warren on Saturday, 10 November 1888, subject to that accomplice not having committed the murder.

In the House of Commons on Monday, 12 November, Mr Hunter asked the Home Secretary whether he had considered offering a pardon for an accomplice in any of the earlier murders, noting that Emma Smith had said that she had been attacked by a group of men. Mr Matthews said he could not answer on his feet but would consider the suggestion.

Subsequently, Mr Hunter repeated his question in the House on Friday 23 November (which would, I believe, have been a written question for which the Home Secretary had advance notice), as reproduced in the OP and the Home Secretary gave his answer.

The London Correspondent of the Birmingham Daily Post commented on 25 November (published on 26 Nov) that:

'This hint of the existence of accessories after the fact is quite new to the London public, for nothing in the very full reports published at the time indicated anything of the kind; and though the police authorities - perhaps rightly - refuse to say upon what grounds the Home Secretary's statement was based, it affords a hope that something more than a visionary clue has been obtained.'

A reporter from Liverpool Courier might have managed to extract some information from the police for it was reported in the Sheffield Evening Telegraph of 27 November that this newspaper stated:

'The police have reason to believe that the Whitechapel murderer has several accomplices, and they are convinced that in the case of the last murder they kept watch so as to ensure his escape; hence the remarks of the Home Secretary the other night. But what can be the object of this conspiracy? The people of Whitechapel believe that the crimes are the work of some Irish-Americans; but even the denizens of the Bowery do not murder for murder's sake. To shock the community is, no doubt, part of the purpose of the monster, but to shock the community for what purpose?'

Given that the pardon was issued on 10 November, it may be, as others have said, that the authorities at that time had the evidence of Sarah Lewis in mind that there was a man watching Miller's Court who was believed to be a possible accomplice. That might have reinforced Sir Charles Warren's belief (as expressed in a memo dated 13 October) that a secret society was possibly behind the murders.

So, as expected, the journalists were speculating about the statement of Matthews already in November 1888.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382208]Pierre

Could there not have been more than one event ?

One to stop the killer at that time, if only temporarily.

And a separate one as too why he was suspected after the Kelly murder.

The two events are distinctly separate, but appear to be related from an outside viewpoint.

Hypothetically it could. And since you write that one event could have stopped the killer temporarily, another event must have happened if he returned.

One must look at possible reasons why none of those options could be used before progressing on to what they would do next:

Could not put him on trial-

1. He was too important, it would cause too much embarrassment and possibly civil unrest

2. There was not enough evidence to go to trial, his social status does not matter in that case.

3. He had information which could be used against his accusers, which they knew about.

All those could be possible and I agree one has to look at possible reasons. But of course, we are only speaking of possibilities here.

Could not be placed in an asylum


At first sight I find it hard to see why this could not be used.

Only options I can see are the killers family supported him and would fight such a move. if the aim of the authorities is not to make his id public such action by his family may have worked.

Alternatively I go back to point 3 above.

Another hypothesis could be that if they did put him in an asylum, he would tell people there he was the killer. On the other hand, if he did, who would have cared? He would just have been categorized as another "lunatic". So I reject that hypothesis.

One hypothesis could be that he threatened them to contact the press if they tried to catch him in any way. If he would contact the press, everyone would know who the killer was.

Another hypothesis is that Monro got information which let him understand who the killer was. Monro told Warren, and Warren resigned, backdating his resignation to the 8th. Monro thereafter saw to it that the killer was sent away.

However I have no sources at all for any of the above, to allow them to be formed into anything more than vague suggestions.

Which of course is poor science!

But a lot of fun!

He could not be killed.

Surely that should be they would not kill him, not could not.
While such an option may seem extreme, this would be a viable option for them if he could not be stopped any other way.

If he was killed, it would have been a safe way to get rid of him. So if they would not kill him, provided that others would wonder where he was, what could they have done to find another safe way to get rid of him?

While locking him away would physically stop him, would merely sending him away work?

Hypothetically we could say that it obviously did not work, i.e. if we think he killed Alice McKenzie or McKenzie one or two of the torso "victims" in 1889.

Unless those sending him away knew his motivation, and that such was specifically linked to Whitechapel, would there be any reason to think the killings would stop? Would they not just move?

Depends on what they would have sent him away to. If it was something that would temporarily take away his motive, it could have been effective.

So what could they do?

He could not be allowed to just carry on surely?
At the very least he would need to be watched very closely.

Yes. But a surveillance would hypothetically have raised suspicion among those who knew him. And then there was the risk of him noticing it.

Of course as I suggested at the start of this post maybe he decided to stop after Kelly anyway.

Maybe his life changed in some way? Maybe the authorities helped his life to change? This of course fails to explain why he would start again.

One hypothesis could be that he was sent away at the same time as the motive was temporarily deactivated, but it could then again have been activated if he returned.

Has you rightly said Pierre, questions leading to more questions, with so little to go on.

Yes, indeed.

There is a third option, put it down, and let it cool. watch it and check on it regular. Possibly dispose of it later?

If no more murders take place, the hot potato is only ever known to existed to a select few, it becomes just an old cold potato.

Yes. "Jack the Ripper of last year", as Monro said.

Of course this still leaves us needing a reason for the murders to stop in 89. What action was taken?

If we use an hypothesis about a motive driving the killer, maybe the motive was not active anymore at that point in time?

In conclusion

Wild ideas, no sources or data of any sort, don't think I would give any of them the title of an hypotheses.

Regards

Steve

Yes. Very interesting.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So, as expected, the journalists were speculating about the statement of Matthews already in November 1888.

No Pierre, you haven't read the extracts properly. There is no speculation by journalists in either of them. In the extract from the Birmingham Daily Post it was simply stated that the police were refusing to say on what ground the Home Secretary's statement was based. In the Sheffield Evening Post extract it was stated that the police were convinced that an accomplice had kept watch. It was also said that people of Whitechapel believed that the murders were work of Irish Americans but the newspaper was not saying this.

You, however, seem to be speculating wildly in this thread.

[David Orsam]

Another hypothesis is that Monro got information which let him understand who the killer was. Monro told Warren, and Warren resigned, backdating his resignation to the 8th. Monro thereafter saw to it that the killer was sent away.

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Firstly, how would Monro have got information which "let him understand who the killer was"? Secondly, why would he have told Warren? Thirdly, why would this have caused Warren to resign? Fourthly, why would Warren have backdated his resignation to the 8th? Fifthly, why would Monro have seen to it that the killer was "sent away"?

Talk about wild speculation Pierre. You seem to be the master of it.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

The obvious problem I have with taking this any further with regards to the cessation of the murders in 88 and the starting again in 89, is having little idea of the possible motivation involved.

I could apply the possible motivation of some "suspects" but given have said time and time again, I consider none of them to be more than possibles; that does not really take the various hypothesis in this thread any further forward.

Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;382282]No Pierre, you haven't read the extracts properly.

The lesson of "reading things properly" by David Orsam. Come on, children! We are going to learn to read properly today. Oh, what luck!

There is no speculation by journalists in either of them.

I did think you would say just that, but I also did hope you would not, for your own sake. You will soon see why.

In the extract from the Birmingham Daily Post it was simply stated that the police were refusing to say on what ground the Home Secretary's statement was based.

In the Sheffield Evening Post extract it was stated that the police were convinced that an accomplice had kept watch. It was also said that people of Whitechapel believed that the murders were work of Irish Americans but the newspaper was not saying this.

Goody, goody. Here it is.

A: The police "refused to say". Now, having done your homework in reading properly, what does it mean, David?

It means that the police did not say anything. They remained silent. But still:

B. In the Sheffield Evening Post extract it was stated that the police were convinced that an accomplice had kept watch. It was also said that people of Whitechapel believed that the murders were work of Irish Americans but the newspaper was not saying this.

C: Conclusion: Since A = nothing said by the police > B = speculation.

You, however, seem to be speculating wildly in this thread.

Yes, letīs have some fun, for once! I do as the police A) but then I say B).

Now David, "it has been pointed out to you", as you often say to others when you think you are right, that your lesson in "reading properly" did not help, since the teacher could not read properly himself.

And by the way - it is not called "extract". It is called excerpt.

Back to the ignore function.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,

The obvious problem I have with taking this any further with regards to the cessation of the murders in 88 and the starting again in 89, is having little idea of the possible motivation involved.

I could apply the possible motivation of some "suspects" but given have said time and time again, I consider none of them to be more than possibles; that does not really take the various hypothesis in this thread any further forward.

Steve

I understand that, Steve. Thanks a lot anyway for a very interesting discussion.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The lesson of "reading things properly" by David Orsam. Come on, children! We are going to learn to read properly today. Oh, what luck!



I did think you would say just that, but I also did hope you would not, for your own sake. You will soon see why.



Goody, goody. Here it is.

A: The police "refused to say". Now, having done your homework in reading properly, what does it mean, David?

It means that the police did not say anything. They remained silent. But still:

B. In the Sheffield Evening Post extract it was stated that the police were convinced that an accomplice had kept watch. It was also said that people of Whitechapel believed that the murders were work of Irish Americans but the newspaper was not saying this.

C: Conclusion: Since A = nothing said by the police > B = speculation.



Yes, letīs have some fun, for once! I do as the police A) but then I say B).

Now David, "it has been pointed out to you", as you often say to others when you think you are right, that your lesson in "reading properly" did not help, since the teacher could not read properly himself.

And by the way - it is not called "extract". It is called excerpt.

Back to the ignore function.

Regards, Pierre

If you had read my post properly Pierre you will have seen that I made the point that, despite the Birmingham Daily Post having failed to obtain any information from the police, the Liverpool Courier/Sheffield Evening Telegraph does appear to have obtained some information. It may be that the latter newspaper was not telling the truth about having obtained information from the police but it wasn't speculating. It was reporting what it claimed to have been told.

As well as not knowing the meaning of the word "speculate" you also don't seem to know the meaning of the word "extract". So here it is from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"A passage copied out of a book, manuscript, etc.; an excerpt, quotation."

[Yabs]

"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"

On first read I interpreted that to mean.

Unlike the other murders In the case of Kelly the killer would have undoubtedly been blood soaked and had only one escape route into a part of Dorset St where he would surely encounter other people, I find it probable he was assisted in his escape.

I'll now read the whole thread to see how wrong I was

[Rosella]

Yes, it can be read as the authorities believing that, after the near-destruction of Mary Kelly's body, the killer must have escaped to his nearby home with bloodstains of some sort (not necessarily so.)

Perhaps they were hoping to flush out some of Jack's terribly worried relatives, who'd helped burn his bloodstained clothing and assisted him to get some more. I can't see that scenario happening somehow, but maybe some known suspects had family who the police thought could break ranks and give information, knowing they would not be prosecuted. A faint hope perhaps, but still...

[Elamarna]

Yes, it can be read as the authorities believing that, after the near-destruction of Mary Kelly's body, the killer must have escaped to his nearby home with bloodstains of some sort (not necessarily so.)

Perhaps they were hoping to flush out some of Jack's terribly worried relatives, who'd helped burn his bloodstained clothing and assisted him to get some more. I can't see that scenario happening somehow, but maybe some known suspects had family who the police thought could break ranks and give information, knowing they would not be prosecuted. A faint hope perhaps, but still...

Rosella

I feel he must have been stained more than in previous cases, just the amount of blood and nature of the cuts mean he could not have escaped clean.

so unless he brought a change of clothing, (possible but unlikely) and burnt the old ones in the room or stripped for the murder, (again this has been discussed) there would be clothing to dispose of and a need to get home without raising attention.

Indeed there was a reported sighting of a blood stained man going through Mitre square, just before the body is found.

I consider it highly unlikely that a family member would willing turn a one of their own in, hence the statement.

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre,

The obvious problem I have with taking this any further with regards to the cessation of the murders in 88 and the starting again in 89, is having little idea of the possible motivation involved.

I could apply the possible motivation of some "suspects" but given have said time and time again, I consider none of them to be more than possibles; that does not really take the various hypothesis in this thread any further forward.

Steve

Hi Steve,

But what if the motivation was the same?

Regards, Pierre