Reward For WCM? Excellent 1888 Law Journal Article

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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