Reward For WCM? Excellent 1888 Law Journal Article

[Archaic]

Hi Lynn.

I agree that the question was open for a short time, but not indefinitely.

I'm pretty sure that the discussions in Parliament occurred within a week of the murder of Mary Kelly- in other words, while the investigation was still new & ongoing.

While the case was so fresh, wasn't it only reasonable of the Home Secretary to be open to certain possibilities which might have occurred, and to subsequently discard those 'possibilities' when no evidence was found pointing to them?

Anyway, I'm kinda sleepy now... I'll give you time to reload, OK?

Cheers,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

sic et non

Hello Bunny. Yes, that was from November, 1888.

Yes, the HS was open to certain possibilities--given the circumstances.

No, I don't recall this notion being discarded.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

All,

It seems to me that the idea of accomplices after-the-fact indicates an early reference to the low class Jew idea; that it was believed that people of this class were reluctant to give one of their own up to gentile justice. If this is the case, it would seem that this idea was bandied about long before and memoirs or memorandums came to light.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

origin

Hello Michael. That is an interesting idea. One gets the feeling that such a phenomenon could have begun as early as Lawende and his friends' sighting near Church Passage. Perhaps that was the origin of the notion?

On the other hand, there seems to be no discussion about accomplices after the fact during the "Double Event." So one still might wish to know what was being "keyed on" in order to have the discussion about such a possibility in regard to MJK.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

On the other hand, there seems to be no discussion about accomplices after the fact during the "Double Event."

Lynn,

After the double, we know that JTR dropped the apron by a predominately Jewish apartment area, and that the grafitti was there as well, and that the text was so worrisome that it had to be erased. It's obvious to me that the only reason anyone could have been worried about some kind of riot would have been because the writing appeared to be pro-Jewish and thus, by its proximity, pro-Ripper who in effect killed gentile women, prostitutes or no. It would not have behooved the police and government to have voiced any suspicions about a Jewish murderer at this time. In fact, the opinion wasn't really voiced in any meaningful way until memoirs and memorandums began appearing.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Michael.

"After the double, we know that JTR dropped the apron by a predominately Jewish apartment area, and that the grafitti was there as well, and that the text was so worrisome that it had to be erased."

Well, SOMEONE dropped it there. And yes, it needed to be erased, and quickly. This may have averted a quasi-pogrom.

"It's obvious to me that the only reason anyone could have been worried about some kind of riot would have been because the writing appeared to be pro-Jewish and thus, by its proximity, pro-Ripper who in effect killed gentile women, prostitutes or no."

Pro-Ripper? I don't understand.

"It would not have behooved the police and government to have voiced any suspicions about a Jewish murderer at this time. In fact, the opinion wasn't really voiced in any meaningful way until memoirs and memorandums began appearing."

Right. But that is NOT what I am saying. I am thinking of the reticence of a witness--Lawende's friend. He seemed to know something but held his peace.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

But you did say we heard nothing after the double event regarding a Jewish suspect. I was suggesting why that was.

As far as Lawende and company, one of them gave the appearance of being smug. I think it was just a personality quirk. It's like pretending to know something someone else doesn't, or when someone asks a question that he already knows the answer to just to lord it over you. I think that's the kind of aura he may have given off. It really isn't possible to know whether or not he knew something.

Mike

[lynn cates]

rumour

Hello Michael. Well, we did not hear any talk of an accomplice after the "Double Event." If I recall properly, there was a Jewish rumour ever since Chapman.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Matthews was cornered by Mr. Hunter's question in regards to the tardiness of offering a pardon. His only way out was to give some excuse for finally coming forward with what he had previously been steadfast against. He had to give the answer he did to save face.

A typical politician wriggling out of an untenable situation. I wouldn't read too much into his answer. Acomplice or not, the Kelly murder coupled with Warren's resignation (who had been arguing with Matthews over that very issue) and the Queen's involvement... forced his hand.

[Archaic]

Article re: Reward/Pardon

Hi guys.

I'd like to recommend Don Souden's excellent article on this topic. It's titled 'Pardon Me: Spin Control At the Home Office?' and appeared in Ripperologist #82, August 2007.

It's quite a good read.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

WCM Reward: Albany Law Journal, October 27, 1888

Here's an interesting article from a prominent American law journal published in upstate New York.

Rather harsh criticism from across the pond.

Best regards, Archaic

[Archaic]

WCM Discussed In Parliament, November 9, 1888

Since we've had a few short excerpts already, I thought it might be helpful to post a transcript of the debate in Parliament over the handling of the Whitechapel Murders and the question of whether to issue a reward or a pardon. I think it makes more sense when the transcripts are read in full in chronological order.

This is from November 9, 1888, the day of Mary Kelly's murder.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

WCM Discussed In Parliament: November 12, 1888

Here's a longer Parliamentary discussion from November 12, 1888 in which the subject of rewards and/or pardons is raised.

Best regards,
Archaic

[The Good Michael]

Two things Adam:

1. The first article seems to infer that City Police could opt for a different approach, or did I read that wrong?

2. What does 'additional reward' mean in the 2nd article?

Finally: No one should forget that a reward is different from paying someone for time missed from work, or for time spent helping the police as in the case of Hutchinson.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

"or for time spent helping the police as in the case of Hutchinson."

No evidence for this at all, unfortunately.