Team Jack

[lynn cates]

face

Hello Cris. Thanks.

To save face after earlier rejections?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hello DLDW, Cris. Thanks.

I was thinking ONLY of the reply of Matthews in the House of Commons, 23, November:

"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."

(Hansard: 3rd series: Vol 331: p. 16--reproduced in "The Ultimate" p. 349.)

Cheers.
LC

I'm not sure what the rest of you are talking about, because I think I'm lacking in some detail of your political history. To me, that sounds like a circumlocution for "In the other cases, we can see how maybe the amount of blood on him either allowed him to be mistaken for a slaughterman, or just blended in with very dark clothes at night; in the case of Kelly, however, there must have been so much blood, that someone, somewhere, must have noticed, and probably even helped him 'cover,' in the sense of helping him either clean his clothes, or destroy them. If that person comes forward, we will not prosecute."

[Phil H]

I tink one just needs to read the files on the reward question.

The murder of MJK was just so ghastly that they were desperate - the Home Secretary could not say his previous policy was wrong (that, in such a high-profile case would have been to offer his head to the opposition). So they had to find an alternative way of offering a reward.

This they did by INVENTING an accomplice - thus changing the circumstances and making a change of official policy acceptable and necessary.

I don't think anyone in the Home Office believed for a moment that there was evidence of a second man/person. It was a vital contrivance in allowing a reward to be offered.

End of story.

Phil

[Hunter]

Hello Cris. Thanks.

To save face after earlier rejections?

To keep his job. Given all that had already been said, defend it anyway, claim that something new had come up that forced a change in plans, and throw an underling under the bus to give the detractors some red meat.

Its the first chapter in that best selling book where all seats of government exist - Politics for Dummies

[Wickerman]

Are we not confusing 'reward' with 'pardon'?

[Hunter]

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

[lynn cates]

could be

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Could be.

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]

"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

[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]

credence

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

other source

Hello Martin. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC