The question about a pardon

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

Sorry but I have to disagree. I still think it could have been a case of lets try everything possible in order to get a lead.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

Come down from that fence before it collapses.

Regards,

Simon

[Supe]

C.D.,

Stay on your fence as it has a much stronger foundation than some suppose. One can not simply look at the pardon itself but must study the long discussions preceeding it that concerned rewards and pardons as well as the increasingly parlous political situation of the Salisbury government. When you do, the likelihood that the pardon was spin-doctoring becomes more and more probable.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

Re. discussions in Parliament about pardons..

I quote from The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler) who in 1961, in answering a long debate surrounding the issuing of Royal Pardonage and its involvements, said the following:-

"I have examined what my predecessors have said in this matter. I have what was said by Sir Matthew White Ridley. I have another precedent by Mr. Akers-Douglas in 1904, and one on 18th April, 1911, by Mr. Churchill who, when asked to state the considerations which influenced him in refusing a reprieve for Stinie Morrison said: "It would not be in accordance with the usual practice which has long received the approval of this House to enter upon a discussion of reasons for the exercise or refusal of the prerogative of mercy in capital cases." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1911]"

There were no long discussions in Parliament about a pardon for Mary Kelly's murderer, nor his or her accomplices.

The murder happened on the 9th. 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 that very evening. A Cabinet Council was held at noon the next day at the Foreign Office. That same day, the Royal Pardon was issued.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

I think the pardon can be seen in the same vein as the reward. The police were under a lot of pressure to solve the case. With no real leads they took the extraordinary step of offering an extremely large reward. When that didn't pan out, they had to avail themselves of every possible option. I find it strange that the pardon was instigated by Dr. Phillips. Perhaps he felt the carnage inflicted upon Mary was too extensive for one man to have done. But even if he had suggested that there possibly could have been an accomplice, I think the police had no choice but to persue an accomplice pardon.

Sometimes the fence is a good place to be. I just checked and so far my behind is splinter free.

c.d.

[Supe]

Phil,

Sorry if I was not clear. I was writing about the many discussions--on paper that we can find and doubtless in camera of which we have no record--among the police officials, the Home Office, and individual MPs about rewards and pardons. Having gone over as much of that as is available, I find the pardon declaration simply an exercise in seeming to do something--the next best expedient to forming a Royal Commission--in order to forestall further criticism of the police, Home Office, and ultimately the government.

I find it interesting that you and Simon, both of whom usually find even the most straightforward of official documents worthy of suspicion, are willing to accept the wording of the pardon at face value.

Don.

[Addy]

Sorry to intrude with something that might be totally off but I feel that the police and so on thought this murder and more specifically the ripping was done so totally, that it was [I]probable[I] that there was an accomplice. I believe it also lead to theories (also on this board) that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim.

MK was also seen with a lot of men that night, perhaps they thought that they knew each other? Or that, if she was seen that often, her killer also could not have escaped unnoticed? If someone saw the killer leave and did not report him, that would qualify them as an accomplice after the fact.

Greetings,

Addy

[Phil Carter]

Hello c.d. ,

The issuing of a Royal Pardon is no easy task. As I stated before, to do so is usually, infact nearly always done to a named person or persons. Decisions like this are firmly weighed up after a considerable amount of discussion and counter-discussion. There was no known discussion in this case. Phillips went to the House of Commns that very evening, after having been at Millers Court for hours examining the body for his initial autopsy report.
As far as I can find, and I may be wrong, there is no precedent before this one to issue a Royal Pardon to an un-named person, especially one who is an "accomplice" to murder, and almost certainly not to an accomplice not within 24 hours of that murder.

That implies to me that the police knew all but the name of said accomplice or accomplices. Dr Phillips was the Divisional Surgeon of the Met Police, who was asked to interact directly with and under the instruction of the Home Secretary. So when Phillips went off to the House of Commons, whatever he said must have been mighty important for a Royal Pardon to be issued the next day.

I refer back to that first posting from the short one question and answer from the House of Commons on the 23rd November.. the words "after the crime" are very singular here, and I propose, very important.

best wishes

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

Then I have to ask why the police never caught any accomplice or accomplices if they had a name and why no report ever mentions them.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

Minutes of Cabinet meeting at the Foreign Office, 10th November 1888–

"I've got it!" exclaimed Lord Salisbury in an unexpected fit of inspiration. "Let's suggest that the lone serial killer who's been running rings around our two police forces for the past ten weeks actually had more than one accomplice."

"Devilish clever," agreed Henry Matthews. "And if we back it up by offering the imaginary accomplices Her Majesty's pardon it will do much to convince people why it's been so impossible for us to catch JtR. Good thinking, PM. I'll get on to Warren straight away."

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

I'm sorry you said all but the name. Still my question is a valid one.

I think the expression desperate times call for desperate measures could help explain a lot.

c.d.

[spyglass]

Phil,
Maybe they found the missing Pheonix Park Murder Knives at the site.

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

But don't police forces even today have to pursue leads that they think have an almost zero chance of producing a positive result?

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Sorry if I was not clear. I was writing about the many discussions--on paper that we can find and doubtless in camera of which we have no record--among the police officials, the Home Office, and individual MPs about rewards and pardons. Having gone over as much of that as is available, I find the pardon declaration simply an exercise in seeming to do something--the next best expedient to forming a Royal Commission--in order to forestall further criticism of the police, Home Office, and ultimately the government.

I find it interesting that you and Simon, both of whom usually find even the most straightforward of official documents worthy of suspicion, are willing to accept the wording of the pardon at face value.

Don.

Hello Don,

Yes, "..in order to forestall further criticism of the police, Home Office, and ultimately the government..." would be a fine argument IF the original idea about Mary Kelly's murderer or accomplices had come from a high ranking policeman. It didn't, it came from the Divisional Surgeon of the Police. He had been previously been instructed to answer to Matthews, the Home Secretary, directly. That doesn't smack of political trouble shooting.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it continually strange that everything surrounding this is seen to be seemingly and totally normal. It isn't normal at all!

I suggest that if that pardon was politically motivated, then it by-passed all the known constraints of the system of those very politicians. It is done with haste, and decisive. A trait not well known nor adhered to, nor indeed associated with British Politicians... unless there is a damning reason. Any major political decisions would not hinge on the words of a Divisional Surgeon of the Metroplitan Police having just examined a dead body rushing along to the House of Commons to recommend one, unless something very incriminating was known to him. That, I suggest, makes sheer common sense.

Hope you are well.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

Sure. But they don't invent leads that they think have an almost zero chance of producing a positive result.

Regards,

Simon