The question about a pardon

[Hunter]

Hi Fisherman,

The Star was not particularly friendly to the police and the latter was none too happy about the Hutchinson story breaking to begin with; so many different things could be assumed about was transpired publicly. All we have 'officially' from the police is Abberline's report that he believed him, and unlike Packer, no followup stating otherwise.

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"All we have 'officially' from the police is Abberline's report that he believed him, and unlike Packer, no followup stating otherwise."

That is a hundred per cent correct, Hunter. And so, since we have that confirmation from Abberline, we know that the police finally had gotten their hands on a very good description of a very probable Ripper. It would have been what they had yearned for for three and a half months time - so why did they not act upon it? Why do the papers not follow up on it? Why are the memoirs of the officers and policemen involved not filled with assertions that they had the Ripper described, down to the spats?

You, Hunter, as well as I, would - at least it applies in my case - be perfectly aware that there are police reports and statements that have gone lost over the years, for a variety of reasons. Let´s just say that if there never was any dismissal of Hutch on behalf of the police, then they seem to have been extremely lazy and uninterested when it comes to following up on Hutch´s lead, or even remember that the poor fellow ever existed. Don´t you, Hunter, find that a tad strange - to say the least? I know I do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Hi Fisherman,

The fact that they did file the reports mentioned says something... and yes, there are missing files, but those to and from the Home Office are, as far as we know, complete, and that's where we find Packer's dismissal via Swanson. There could have been many more reports of suspects matching Hutch's testimony in the missing files showing that the police did act upon it... we don't know either way. It could simply be that the story going public made it less important as Abberline & Co. may have thought the suspect would be tipped off.

When one looks at witness descriptions and how they relate to the passage of time during an investigation, all of the witnesses, except perhaps Lawende, become less relevant because they run a course when leads are checked out and filed, provided by citizens as well as police... and if there is no positive result over time, they become less useful on their own.

It is possible that Lawende remained as a viable witness longer simply because the police thought Sadler matched his man more closely and its possible that Hutch didn't fall off the radar until Moore replaced Abberline in March of '89.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,

I have been following this closely, and would like to ask you something? Let us assume, for the sake of it, that your Hutch possibilities are as you speculate. Where does that fit in with Matthew's line in Parliament? (Posting No.1) also below..

And another point. If nothing is missing as you say, from the Home Office Files, then surely, by the time Matthews, the Home Secretary gave that answer in The House of Commons on the 23rd November... there would be some sort of record of what he meant, or at least an indication of what he meant? It couldn't have been a secret... he himself spoke of this in open, public chamber!

"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."

Persons.... Plural.
After the crime...surely indicating knowledge of help?

This really intruiges me....

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

I suggest, again, that you not consider the pardon offer as the spontaneous result of something new and different that happened at Miller's Court but as a cynical political maneuver that had been long considered.

That phrase “certain circumstances” has bedevilled Ripperologists for more than a century now as they seek to uncover its meaning. For some it means that the Ripper and his clothes had to be such a bloody mess after he had hacked her to bits that wherever he called home there must have been someone who saw him in such an incardine state. For others it has been suggested that the police may have thought that the man seen by Sarah Lewis loitering across the road from Miller’s Court was an accomplice (though, Israel Schwartz’s “pipeman” might also have filled that bill). Then there are the conspiracy buffs whose febrile imaginations conjure up all manner of secret evidence involving Fenians, Royals or rogue elements of the Knights of Pythias.

In fact, they are most assuredly all wrong. On the morning of November 10 the Salisbury cabinet was faced with a political crisis of frightening proportions and as politicians they sought an expeditious—and political—solution. Given time, they doubtless would have fallen back on the politicians’ favored answer to any looming problem: the appointment of a Blue Ribbon Commission. Indeed, commissions are an ideal way to deflect adverse public criticism. They give the impression those in charge really care, they can suggest the “best and brightest” are on the job (especially if a few prominent and seemingly disinterested citizens can be persuaded to serve) and by the time a commission finally issues a report it can be hoped that the original problem will no longer seem important. Commissions are the ideal way to handle a political crisis, but they do require time and above all the Salisbury cabinet must have known they had very little time to assuage public opinion.

Still, there was a need for the government to be seen as doing “something” and moreover a something that suggested a rapid response to the Ripper’s latest murder that might actually help run him to ground. Popular as it still was in the public mind, a reward was impossible after all the previous refusals to offer one. A pardon, however, had many of the same advantages (e.g. a strenuous bid to discover the Ripper) and having never been dismissed out of hand like a reward it could be proffered with a straight face.

Ah, but what about Matthews’s phrase in answering Mr. Hunter in the House, the business about “certain circumstances”? To understand that, we must go back to Godfrey Lushington’s minute about pardons in early October in which he advised Matthews about a pardon that “it will provoke renewed attention to the action of the Home Office and hostile critics are sure to say that the step if taken ought to have been taken earlier.” This objection to a pardon would be obviated, however, if it could be suggested that the Kelly murder was somehow different than the others. Since Mr. Matthews was not known as a great debater in the House one suspects he was primed with the “certain circumstances” response (perhaps by Lushington) if the question ever did come up. In fact, the phrase was a very clever rejoinder because it provided the government with plausible deniability in the event anyone wondered why the pardon was so late in coming. As it was, the pardon offer succeeded. It looked as if the government was concerned enough to try something daringly different, it bought time and, except for a couple momentary frissons of fear after the murders of Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles, the Ripper scare subsided enough that the government also survived its own scare.

Boys will be boys and politicians will always be politicians—even at the height of the Ripper terror. The pardon was an exercise in spin control.

Don.

[Hunter]

Hi Phil,

I was about to reply when I caught Don's post. I believe he summed it up quite well. If there was one thing unique about the WM murders other than the obvious, it was that they did cross over from a purely law enforcement perspective and into the realm of politics... with all of the baggage that it entails. As Don noted, the history of corespondence between Warren, the Home Office and the reports on the subject of a reward/and or pardon in the media are well known and one can see the classic 'he painted himself into a corner' with regards to Matthews. He attempted to get out of it in the typical fashion of a politician. It appeared to work partly because he had managed to deal with the embattled Warren and partly because - like all politicians - he hoped the crisis would subside and the electorate would have a short termed memory.

In regards to the Star, their report on Hutchinson and the rest of the media for that matter, following the Kelly murder; the police, for the first time, had effective control over the crime scene and divulged very little. Some of the information that leaked out may have been misleading on purpose. Modern day police did the same thing during the Zodiac murders. They were trying to catch a criminal, not sell newspapers. I believe the abbreviated inquest was also for this purpose and McDonald nearly stated as much. As a result, the rumor mills flourished... and to this day there is much speculation as a result.

I understand that the Home Office files were placed on microfilm in 1988. If there is evidence that part of that had been purloined, then I stand corrected. Perhaps, if he has time, Stewart Evans could better enlighten us on that subject.

[Fisherman]

Supe writes:

"Boys will be boys and politicians will always be politicians—even at the height of the Ripper terror. The pardon was an exercise in spin control."

You are quite possibly correct here, Supe - it covers things pretty nicely, plus it clinches what politics are all about ...

Thing is, we are still left with a loiterer and a man who tried to establish that he was that loiterer - but whose story went from top rate stuff to uninteresting babble in an extremely short time. And even if, as you say, the wording about "certain circumstances" was not aimed at the loiterer from the outset, it does not change that this is a circumstance that is wanting in the other cases. It has, so to speak, with the passing of time provided us with something that could have been the kind of thing that was spoken about by Matthews.
One cannot help but to wonder exactly what lay behind the Stars wording ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don, Hunter, Fisherman,

Spin control would seem to cover it, I agree. That is, however, only an interpretation, as we do not know the exact reasons.

I reitterate, and cannot stress this strongly enough for consideration, the act of issuing a Royal Pardon is no light one, as I stated before. I can find no record of any unnamed person or persons previous to this example, and especially not within 24 hours of a murder, or any other crime for that matter. Only named suspects are normally offered this action, and certainly not unnamed accomplices.

It still does not answer the words "after the crime", which is explicit. We are not talking of a killer here. We are talking of a person, or persons, having information about, or having helped the killer, within 24 hours of the murder.

Spin is one thing, but to be honest, if this was purely a political act, then we are talking of someone pressing a panic button in desperation, because it breaks all the known rules of issuing such a major proclamation.
The factual political climate was that Warren had already resigned, so the press baying for his blood(which they had been for months) had gotten their way in any case.

I agree, spin does explain it, but I am mighty doubful as to this being the reason, given the above. Ignore the above, and yes, it is totally sound. Historical record on the issuing of a Royal pardon however, says otherwise.

best wishes

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
My interpretation of ' Certain Circumstances' is as follows.
It has always been my belief that MJK met her end around 9am on the morning of the 9th, and that being the case made it likely that the killer would have to return, to his refuge with a somewhat deranged appearance., making it likely that he would have been seen en -route, or once he entered his residence.
A parent mayby, a brother/sister, a girlfriend, a wife, or mayby someone who had suspicions, but did nothing about it.
So, as the other murders were much earlier, it would figure that this scenerio would be most likely , thus the pardon.
The young man rushing through Mitre square at 1010am has always fascinated me, blood spattered , and very excitable, especially as that was the scene of the previous murder... was this the killer hurrying to his safe haven? was he doing the same after killing Stride, when he came across Eddowes.
Last but not least.
I am a staunch believer in Hutchinsons statement, and pro Topping, and firmly believe the acount of a hundred shilling payment, for many reasons.
Question .
If payment was received why?
Was it assistance money paid by the police?
Was it from a newspaper?
Was it from someone who may have been the killer, or who assisted the killer to fool the police.?
That amount was a large sum in 1888, and whoever handed it over would have done so for a very good reason.
Regards Richard.

[Redjack]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I readed your discussion about Pardon with particular interest. I'm writing a blog, in italian language, about Jack the Ripper case.

Why Pardon come just after Kelly's murder and from Dr. Phillips could got a simple answer.

The Ripper from Mary Ann Nicholls to Mary Kelly become more violent and bloody.
Maybe the Doctor was just scared that the killer increase his bloodlust with more violent murders in few days.

Cathrine Eddowes mutilated body was found in The City and Kelly at her home. We have also to remember that often the last 2 victims used the same name: Mary Ann Kelly. So if Eddowes was an error? Surely means that someone informed the murderer that Mary Ann Kelly left Bishopsgate Police Station.

So for stop the Autumn Murders, Home Office pushed the request of the Doctor for "fishing" granting Pardon and also Reward?

[lynn cates]

series

Hello Redjack. Welcome to the boards.

I assume that, in saying the series got progressively violent, you exclude Liz Stride from the killings?

I don't think I've seen the last victim referred to as Mary Ann? Perhaps you have a source for that?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I don't believe the pardon issue had anything to do with a perceived escalation in the brutality of these murders. There was an escalation in the pressure on the Home Office to do something. Warren gave them one out by resigning. The other was the pardon. Even then, questions were asked; look at the debates in Parliament. When political opponents see an Achilles heel, they shoot for it... such is politics.

[Jason]

What a truly interesting thread ! I believe that something was known at senior levels which consequently led to this "pardon" language being used in parliament. Perhaps the word had been offered directly to an individual or individuals but they didn't think that the persons offering the pardon were of a credible or senior enough position to follow it through .....subsequently it went higher in order to try and convince the person or persons that it was genuine and likely. Either way , it merely adds more smoke to a very smokey room !

[Redjack]

Hello Redjack. Welcome to the boards.

I assume that, in saying the series got progressively violent, you exclude Liz Stride from the killings?

Hi Lynn,
No I don't exclude Liz Stride from killings but Liz body was not so mutilated (maybe cos the Ripper was interrupted) but surely she was part of the killer violent escalation as annunced also in "Dear Boss Letter" and then her lobe was the proof that she was a victim of Jack the Ripper as letter announced.

Then with Saucy Jack postcard, JTR gave also proof of Eddowes killing.

2 killings in the same night as announced with proofs. Usually this kind of letters are wrote to announce an increase of violent acts and wish to be hunted.

I don't think I've seen the last victim referred to as Mary Ann? Perhaps you have a source for that?

According to victim profile on Casebook, Mary Jane Kelly was also known as Marie Jeanette Kelly, Mary Ann Kelly, Ginger, Fair Emma.
That attracted my attention when Eddowes claimed to be Mary Ann Kelly from 6 Fashion street the night of her murder for left Bishopsgate Police Station about 1 hour before her death. She gave in some way the name of the next victim and from a street not so far from Miller's Court and Dorset St. With the death then 39-40 days later, seem that MJK HAVE to die as she was programmed and an error was occurred with Eddowes. If so who informed the Ripper that Eddowes (identified as Mary Ann Kelly) was arrested and released from the police station? And if the second victim of Double Event HAVE to be the real MJK? This could mean that the murderer had changed his modus operandi going from occasional victims to designed victims. And hitting even in private homes would be more difficult capture him.

Maybe the Doctor noticed the similarities between last victims names/alias.
Surely Eddowes and Kelly bodies were the more mutilated of the all series.
That seem to me that killer have some kind of hate against Kelly.

There are many theories about "Ripper Assistants". I think he got at least 1 as cab driver, informer and "act as lookout" on streets.

[Bridewell]

Hi, Redjack. Welcome from me also.

There are many theories about "Ripper Assistants". I think he got at least 1 as cab driver, informer and "act as lookout" on streets.

I don't really see anything to indicate an accomplice. I think the offer of a reward was made out of desperation as much as anything else.