Team Jack

[martin wilson]

Hello Lynn
My reluctance to question the veracity of the Maybrick diary can only be put down to something similair to cowardice.

Hello Errata.
The Star on the 3rd of October reported there was a total of £1200 available to anyone who named the killer(s), it could be argued that Matthews was not so much stubbornly adhering to government policy as taking the practical view that the rewards on offer had not provided any information thus far,so what use would a further reward be?
My take on it is from the 5th of October Warren was actively pursuing the idea of an accomplice, both with the huge reward and offer of a pardon, but also the advertisement placed in order to meet with the 'alleged accomplice'.
All the best.

[lynn cates]

wishing

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Wish we had the report.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

They offered a pardon to an accomplice. Do you think they could have imagined that any accomplice might be a full partner?

[lynn cates]

conundrum

Hello Martin. Thanks.

Not a problem. The whole conundrum is puzzling, isn't it?

Cheers.
LC

[martin wilson]

Hello Lynn
I didn't know what the Jonas letter was, I had to look it up.


With the greatest of respect, I'm going to give that a wide berth.
All the best

[lynn cates]

other source

Hello Martin. Thanks.

I wonder whether that other source were the "Jonas letter"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

missing

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"I have never seen any suggestion that the police ever believed there was an accomplice, or that anything changed around the time of MJK's death in terms of their thinking or evidence."

Perhaps it is in that missing evidence of which we hear so much?

Cheers.
LC

[martin wilson]

Hello Lynn.
It was more I was trying to understand what changed Warren's mind.
Sugden has the reward offered on the 6th of October, along with the offer of a pardon.
Warren wrote on October 9th supporting the statement by George Lusk suggesting a government reward and a pardon be offered.
He also mentioned a anonymous letter recieved that same day from an accomplice requesting a pardon who he tried to contact through an advertisement,but on the 17th of October he wrote to Charles Murdoch, principal clerk at the home office,'The alleged accomplice did not turn up & it looks like a hoax but a communication has come in from another source which looks more genuine.We have not tested it yet.'
I think it's unlikely that he would have supported a reward and a pardon simply on the basis of one letter, he thought it may be a hoax in his letter of the 9th,and in any case this was after the proposal for a reward and pardon on the 6th.
I'm respectfully suggesting there was more than merely speculation about the possibility of an accomplice.

[Phil H]

To me a rather blatant "excuse".

I have never seen any suggestion that the police ever believed there was an accomplice, or that anything changed around the time of MJK's death in terms of their thinking or evidence.

Phil

[lynn cates]

credence

Hello Phil. I take it you put no credence in the tale regarding evidence of an accomplice?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Matthews was trying to shift responsibility.

As I recall, the files shows that there had been a good deal of lobbying by influential people to offer a reward. The Home Office steadfastly refused. the reasons were good but certainly not over-riding.

Then, when they realise that pragmatically, they have no alternative, Matthews needs a scapegoat. If he can say the Met Police have advised him to change policy (with reason that all else has failed) the Home Secretary and his officials are off the hook.

All politics - and Warren's resignation may have been tied up with this as well.

Phil

[lynn cates]

"m J K"

Hello Martin. Thanks for posting that.

Of course, Matthews seems to indicate that the accomplice was only in the "MJK" murder?

Cheers.
LC

[martin wilson]

The City of London police don't seem to have been subject to government policy.
Within hours of Catherine Eddowes murder, the Commissioner, Sir James Fraser offered a reward of £500.
Sir Charles Warren must have been aware of this, but in a meeting with Home Secretary Henry Matthews on the 3rd of October his view was 'A reward would serve as eye wash for the public and nothing else'.
Something obviously changed his mind because on the 5th of October he proposed a reward of £5000!
We don't know what it was,ultimately Matthews backed Warren into a corner,agreeing to offer the reward only if Warren admitted the utter failure of the police to catch the killer.
Obviously this predates the Kelly murder, I wonder if her murder confirmed to some extent the accomplice theory, leading to the offer of a pardon PDQ.

[lynn cates]

could be

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Could be.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Yes, a pardon would have been a way to save face and still give the appearance of action without actually altering policy.