Reward For WCM? Excellent 1888 Law Journal Article

[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,

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]

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

[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]

accomplice

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

I look forward to your further posts.

Cheers.
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]

good job

Hello Bunny. Nice find.

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

LC

[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