Druitt and the Home office

[Mayerling]

Reply Part I

Hi Roy,

I will have to break up my response a bit because I do have problems responding with long replies on this website.

A) what are the two events in Matthews' career as Home Secretary that show his clumsiness and oafishness and that are concentrated on?

1) his handling of the Whitechapel Murders investigation - on the surface he seems to be a model administrator here letting the Yard run things from Warren down to Anderson and Abberline, etc. But he failed to give any sensible direction to it at all, nor did he do a really effective job reassuring the public at all that something was actually being done in the East End to stop the killing spree.

2) the murder of Richard Davies Sr., a clothier, at Crewe on 25 January 1890.
Davies Sr. was killed riding home on a pony cart. Subsequently the investigation found his sons Richard Jr. and George killed him. Richard was 19 and George 17. The motive was Richard Sr. was a drunken bully who threatened and beat his wife, the mother of the two boys. The murder was to protect her. Both were found guilty and there was a major effort by the public to get a reprieve for Richard Jr. to serve life imprisonment (George was too young to have the death sentence against him - he got life imprisonment). Matthews refused to consider the circumstances behind the crime regarding the older boy, and Richard was executed 8 April 1890.

[Mayerling]

Reply Part II

B. The Corruption Charges:

In July 1887 Mr. W. S. Caine and others revealed a police blackmail scheme. This was not something to be easily dismissed. Only ten years earlier the Benson "Turf" Frauds had led to the discovery of massive bribery of the Yard, and the trials of several Chief Inspectors and Detectives (three of whom were convicted). This really called for action by the Home Office to reassure the public. A civilan based set of hearings, possibly under Parliamentary cotrol, would have been in order. Matthews had none of it - he allowed an inter-department investigation by Warren who basically said (in February 1888) that there was no foundation to the charges. Perhaps there wasn't but it looked odd coming from Warren - sought of like a whitewash.

C. The Cass Case fiasco:

This happened in June 1887. Ms Cass was out one evening on Regent Street at 9:15 P.M. P.C. Endicott arrested her for soliciting (she wasn't). This was on 28 June, and Ms Cass and her friends demanded an inquiry. Good old Matthews would have none of it (1 July 1887). It exploded into the face of the Tories in the House of Commons, where there was a vote on the matter, and the Tories lost it 153 to 148. It was too close for a vote of no confidence, but it was not to be sneezed at - between 1885 and 1887 the government rose and fell due to weakened coalitions between Liberals, Home Rulers, Tories, Fourth Partyists, and Chamberlains Unionists. All could have been avoided if Matthews would have allowed a simply inquiry. He wouldn't do so (ah the master's touch!). Endicott would be tried and acquitted for perjury on 1 November 1887.

[Mayerling]

Reply Part III

Roy I am going to try this one more time tonight - twice I went up to the issue of Lipski, and the site rejected my attempt to print a response to your questions. I seriously wish that the people who run the Casebook would go over the entire system to see why it rejects long responses from some users like myself. It is annoying.

D. Trafalgar Square:

Key to this is that Warren had been appointed by a Liberal Government which fell just before he took his job (but after he was confirmed). Matthews basically let the soldier do what he sought to do. A military man, Warren hoped to put a military stamp on the Yard. To some extent he succeeeded - he got the men promotions and ranks that pleased them. But he kept failing to note that he was dealing with civilians, not serving in the empire on the frontier. He should have used the men at Trafalgar Square to arrange an orderly path for the marchers to follow so they could voice their views without damage. Instead when he thought there were signs of a revolt he charged them. Matthews failure was not to rein in Warren's viewpoint about crowd control or civilians. Matthews is not totally at fault, but he is involved in the final outcome.

E. Lipski.

I recommend Martin Friedland's "The Trials of Israel Lipski". Lipski was not able to understand English and no Polish or Yiddish translators were in court. His two barristers were not the best (though the second, Gerald Geoghegan, did develope a good reputation for a few years). Matthews and Justice Stephens (who tried the case) did meet the weekend before the execution to review the issues that were brought up (including failure to try to find two possible witnesses who knew what really happened). In the end they were ready to reduce the sentence, when word came that Lipski confessed. So they didn't and he hanged. But Friedland points out that the Rabbi who was with Lipski pressured him into confessing to prevent a possible growing anti-semitic fervor in the East End. IF so Lipski should not have hanged. And far from standing firm, Matthews was ready to reverse the decision of the trial fo a lesser one.

[curious]

Roy I am going to try this one more time tonight - twice I went up to the issue of Lipski, and the site rejected my attempt to print a response to your questions. I seriously wish that the people who run the Casebook would go over the entire system to see why it rejects long responses from some users like myself. It is annoying.

Hi, Mayerling,
Excuse me for butting in, but when I read this it occurred to me that maybe it "times out." All that means that writing a long post might take more time than the program is set up to allow. (Just a guess on my part and I could be totally wrong about the issue.)

A simple solution might be to write your response in a text or word program on your computer then copy and paste into the reply form here. That way you don't lose all that work. And you don't get frustrated.

curious

[Mayerling]

Hi, Mayerling,
Excuse me for butting in, but when I read this it occurred to me that maybe it "times out." All that means that writing a long post might take more time than the program is set up to allow. (Just a guess on my part and I could be totally wrong about the issue.)

A simple solution might be to write your response in a text or word program on your computer then copy and paste into the reply form here. That way you don't lose all that work. And you don't get frustrated.

curious

Thanks Curious.

It may be a good idea about using your solution. Either that or write smaller comments. But thank you for responding to what is a really frustrating issue to me.

Jeff

[Hunter]

When you log into the message boards click on the "Remember me" box. This should stop you from timing out.