The question about a pardon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Here (for those unaware of it) is the actual question in the House of Commons about the pardon offered following the murder of Mary Kelly..

23 November 1888

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.

The interesting part are the words in bold and underlined.
This implies, does it not, that there were people known to have assisted the murderer in fleeing and or helping the murderer hide out, as it was after the crime.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

I think the words "more probable" argue against it being known.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hello c.d,

Yes I would probably agree. However, with the words beforehand...

"...In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases"

These words talk of the definitive fact of certain circumstances were wanting, ...one wonders what these alluded to exactly. All speculative , of course, but interesting none the less.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

If I had to guess I would say they were referring to her being killed indoors.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hello c.d.,

Yes, but then the question is raised what connection would that have to do with the words "after the crime"?

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

Yes, you are right. I need to work on my reading skills. I don't know what they are referring to by after the crime. Interesting statement though.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hello c.d.,

Therefore the implication is that the known circumstances were not linked to the crime scene itself, which tells me that people were suspected to have assisted the murderer in his getaway or were suspected of hiding him, based on some information the police had.. as these are the things that happens after the crime.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

I have to wonder why the police would have passed that information along to Matthews to be made known in Parliament. You would think that that would have been something that they would have wanted to be kept private. Perhaps Matthews misunderstood what he had been told or simply drew his own conclusions.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hello c.d. ,

Yes, a rum old business indeed. But re. Matthews, for the question of a pardon to be offered, something pretty definitive must have been uncovered, I would suggest?

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

I am not sure that I would go that far. It might have been predicated upon a lead or a hunch that didn't pan out. Also, in light of the substantial amount of the reward, a pardon doesn't seem that excessive. It could have been that the movers and shakers simply wanted this guy caught.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Daily Telegraph, Saturday 10th November 1888–

"During the course of last evening [Friday 9th November] Dr. G. B. Phillips visited the House of Commons, where he had a conference with the Under-secretary for the Home Office, Mr. [C.B.] Stuart-Wortley."

Star, Saturday 10th November 1888–

"A Cabinet Council was held at noon to-day at the Foreign Office."

The Times, Monday 12th November 1888–

"MURDER. - PARDON. - Whereas on November 8 or 9, in Millers-court, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, Mary Janet Kelly was murdered by some person or persons unknown: the Secretary of State will advise the grant of Her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice, not being a person who contrived or actually committed the murder, who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murder. CHARLES WARREN, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Metropolitan Police-office, 4, Whitehall-place, S.W., Nov. 10 [Saturday], 1888."

Echo, Monday 12th November 1888–

"It is asserted that the Home Secretary's offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken."

What did Doctor Phillips know [or had discovered] which led to the offer of a pardon to an accomplice?

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

It could also be that they were simply fishing. If we can't catch the killer let's see if we can get somebody that might lead us to him.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

Are you suggesting there was no good reason for the authorities to believe an accomplice was involved?

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

The idea of an accomplice has been discussed on these boards before so it certainly could have occurred to the police as well. And quite possibly there was some basis for that belief by the police at the time. At the same time, it is also possible that the police were so frustrated by the lack of leads in the case that they were willing to explore any possibility in the hopes of obtaining a lead whether there was a substantial basis for that belief or not.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hello c.d. ,

Here is the original Royal pardon offered by Warren on the 10th November 1888. Note the differences in description between this and the quote in posting No.1..

The following notice of pardon to accomplices who may give information leading to conviction, has been issued by Sir C. Warren:-
MURDER. - PARDON. - Whereas on November 8 or 9, in Miller-court, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, Mary Janet Kelly was murdered by some person or persons unknown: the Secretary of State will advise the grant of Her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice, not being a person who contrived or actually committed the murder, who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murder.
CHARLES WARREN, the Commissioner of Police
of the Metropolis.
Metropolitan Police-office, 4, Whitehall-place,
S.W., Nov. 10, 1888.

This was issued the day after the murder. That is pretty quick, and leads me to believe that a tip off had to be pretty hot stuff.

My italics and bold reference.

Now that surely means that the knowledge of the police was pretty sure. It is a Royal Pardon. They have to be on pretty sure ground to do this, as usually, Royal Pardons are only issued upon named persons. This very issue was discussed in the House of Commons around the time of the Crippin trial I believe.

best wishes

Phil

Edit: Hello Simon..threads crossed..nice posting!