Reward For WCM? Excellent 1888 Law Journal Article

[Archaic]

This article is from an American publication, 'The Central Law Journal', October 26, 1888.

The article discusses the question of whether a reward ought to be issued in the case of significant unsolved crimes, and in particular whether such a reward ought ever to be offered by the Government.

The article is brief but well written and I feel it offers a helpful insight into the significant ethical dilemma this question posed for lawmakers in 1888.


Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

good job

Hello Bunny. Nice find.

What do you think caused the somewhat altered thinking after Miller's Court?

LC

[Archaic]

Hi Lynn. Thanks. Sorry i didn't respond sooner, I've been busy and have also been thinking over your question. British Police & Govt. internal matters aren't really my area of expertise, so I'm sure someone else could give you a better answer, but I'll give it a try...

Firstly, this is an American law journal article, so although it presents the legal dilemma that the subject of State-funded rewards entails, it doesn't necessarily represent every aspect of the thinking of the various British Govt. & Police officials who were handling the issue of a possible reward in the case of the Whitechapel Murders.

The British Govt. hadn't offered rewards like that for years, and being a very conservative body were loathe to start doing so again. One important reason is that the offer of rewards was believed to encourage the 'manufacturing' of false evidence, often at the expense of innocent citizens. (I believe it was Sir Charles Warren who cited examples of this danger in his correspondence with Mathews and others.)

There was of course a great deal of public demand for a reward, as seen in papers like The Star and in the various members of the public who sent petitions to the Govt (like the one signed by George Lusk) or even collected cash for such a reward and forwarded it to the Govt.

All through October and early November the issue of a reward was frequently discussed by Sir Charles Warren, the Home Secretary, Parliament, etc. (Detailed transcripts of many of these letters and telegrams are to be found in 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' by Keith Skinner & Stewart P. Evans.) The issue was still being discussed on the eve of Mary Kelly's murder.

As I understand it, the reward that was offered for the Whitechapel Murderer was offered by the Mayor of the City of London and the City of London Police, and was based upon the fact that Catherine Eddowes was murdered within its jurisdiction. (There is a reference to this fact in the Oct. 26, 1888 Central Law Journal article.)

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am mistaken, but as far as I know, the Home Secretary didn't change his policy against the offering of Govt. rewards in the wake of Mary Kelly's murder...and of course Sir Charles Warren resigned.

Lynn, I have some more articles, etc, on this topic that I think you'll find interesting; I'll post them a little later when I have more time.

Cheers,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

accomplice

Hello Bunny. I was thinking about the clause which hinted at complicity.

I look forward to your further posts.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

re: "Complicity"?

I was thinking about the clause which hinted at complicity.

Hi Lynn.

Can you please post the clause you are referring to that "hints at complicity"? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The reward statement issued by the City of London Police Commissioner is very short and simple, and the only 'clause' I can think of that it contains is the standard caveat issued in parentheses which states that members of the police forces of the U.K. are not eligible for the reward money.

As far as I know, the Govt. didn't believe there was any "complicity" in the Whitechapel Murders. That's one of the main reasons they declined to issue a reward, because they felt it to be so unlikely that anyone was really in a position to turn the true murderer in. They believed it to be much more likely that innocent citizens would be falsely accused by those seeking to obtain the reward money, as that had happened in the recent past.

But again, others Casebook members know much more about the details of these particular matters than I do.

Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

complicity

Hello Bunny.

"MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)-asked the Secretary of State for the Home 16 Department, Whether he is 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?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)-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."

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

Was that the exact quote? I seem to remember more to it where he said that anyone that wasn't an accomplice may be pardonable and then cited the Kelly case as being one that could have been done with assistance as you've stated. I haven't had coffee today, so I may have dreamt it all up.

Mike

[lynn cates]

quoth he

Hello Michael. I think it was an exact quote (at second hand though).

But there is more. This is just an excerpt from the parliamentary discussion on the subject.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

Yes, that is the quote. I neglected to read the last few words in the statement were after-the-fact accomplices were mentioned as a possibility.

Cheers,

Mike

[Archaic]

re: "Complicity"

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)-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."

Hi Michael & Lynn.

Lynn, when you used the word "clause" in your question to me, I'm afraid I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to a legal clause, as in a precise stipulation pertaining to a legal statute, in this case the actual offer of a reward. I didn't realize you were referring to a portion of a spoken sentence, which is why I was confused (sorry). Thanks for providing the quote.

In my opinion, in the quote above Mathews is simply stating that IF there were information suggesting that an offer of pardon would help catch the murderer, he would be agreeable to offering one. That is not the same thing as stating that such information exists. Don't you agree that his statement is a "conditional"? You know logic...If A, then B. If Not A, then Not B. All Mathews said was "If A."

His remark that the murder in Miller's Court involved some different circumstances to the previous murders is an acknowledgment of the fact that it was committed indoors and that there had been some discussion of whether it were possible that the killer had some kind of assistance after the crime. Please note that his stress upon the word "after" means that Mathews is not speaking of 'multiple perpetrators' or even a 'lookout' who kept watch during the murder- he's speaking of the possibility that the murderer was rendered some type of assistance after the crime had already been committed. Mathews is simply referring to the possibility that the killer had somewhere safe to go after the murder, and if he was all covered in Mary Kelly's blood perhaps friends or relatives had observed that fact. He's not even hinting at offering a pardon to someone who might be complicit in the crime.

The word "complicity" has a legal meaning indicating that an individual had foreknowledge of a crime and had the ability to stop it or report it beforehand but chose not to. This term is related to the crime of "Aiding and Abetting" and is a criminal offense in itself.

I have seen no reference anywhere in the parliamentary debates or anywhere else that the Home Secretary (or any other official) ever believed there were multiple perpetrators/active participants in the murder of Mary Kelly and ever considered pardoning them.

I've read all of the parliamentary debates, and if you read them all in order and take all the statements in context, it's evident that the Home Secretary and others, upon reviewing all the available information, continued to believe that the Whitechapel murderer was a single individual who committed his murders alone, and that therefore
no solution as to his identity could come of offering a reward.

On the contrary, they saw the potential for great harm in the form of false accusations against innocent citizens if the Govt. offered a reward, because they had recently gone through that with the Dynamite case.

That's my take on the situation, but again, other Casebookers are more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Police & Govt. than I am, so perhaps they would care to contribute to the conversation.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Definition of "Reward" in 1889 Law Lexicon- Mentions WCM's

Lynn, this is one of the articles, or rather 'excerpts', that I thought you might find interesting.

It's the entry defining the term "Reward" in the 1889 edition of 'Wharton's Law Lexicon'.

I was surprised to find that Wharton's used their entry for the term 'Reward' to mention the Whitechapel Murders, and to state that "the Home Office, though urgently requested to offer a reward for the discovery of a series of murders in Whitechapel in 1888, steadily refused to do so."

Seems a bit "editorial" to me.

Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

helpers & inferences

Hello Bunny. Yes, I think we read it the same. He is suggesting, I think, that someone helped the perpetrator get away. Wish we knew what the circumstances were.

Logic? Sure. But,

"If A, then B. If Not A, then Not B."

is not a valid deductive inference. See why?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reward

Hello Bunny. Right. A reward, if I recall, was never offered by the Met. Only a possibility of pardon for a non-perpetrating possible accomplice, and only for MJK.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

Hi Lynn.

I'm sorry, I don't agree that Mathews was "suggesting that someone helped the perpetrator get away". I think he was simply acknowledging that the murder in Miller's Court contained a somewhat different circumstance, that of being committed indoors, and that while the case was still being investigated the question as to whether someone might possibly have assisted the killer after the crime was still open.

No such evidence was ever found, and thus the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police never offered a reward.

They took a lot of heat for refusing to offer a pardon- and frankly, still do!
I really believe they would have offered a reward if they had honestly believed it would have been effective and done more good than harm.

Cheers,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Bunny.

"the question as to whether someone might possibly have assisted the killer after the crime was still open."

But we agree. This is ALL I'm saying. Something was different and a suggestion was made about the possibility of help after the fact.

Cheers.
LC