The question about a pardon

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello spyglass,

Nice idea...hahaha, but I stress Matthews words on the 23rd November, in Parliament.. "after the crime"...

Intruiging.

best wishes
Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

I'm not quite getting your point. Surely the idea of a murderer or any criminal having an accomplice was not unique to the Ripper case.

c.d.

[c.d.]

It's also quite possible that the police had approached the government with regards to the pardon issue prior to Kelly's murder. As Phil has pointed out, they might have been told that this was a step quite out of the ordinary and let's hold off for now. Then something that Phillips told them made them go ahead with it.

c.d.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon,

I'm not quite getting your point. Surely the idea of a murderer or any criminal having an accomplice was not unique to the Ripper case.

c.d.

Hello c.d. ,

I re-quote the exchange in the first posting.. my emphasis..

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.

Obviously, the other murders showed less probability to Matthews and the police than that particular caveat you question. But in the Kelly case, it was more probable. Therefore the difference.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

The government wasn't entirely stupid. It would never have eaten crow and offered a pardon to accomplices unless it believed such an offer might bear fruit.

The real sticking point in the idea of a pardon to accomplices in the matter of Millers Court is that it requires us to divest ourselves of the idea that it was the work of a lone serial killer. And this is a notion which most people, including yourself I would venture to guess, find difficult.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

Well I'm sure that the goverment wasn't wild about offering a reward either. A pardon would seem like a small price to pay if if produced an accomplice that lead them to Jack.

Yes, I find it hard to believe that Miller's court involved more than one person. Rather than conclude without a doubt that the offer of a pardon indicates that the police had concrete evidence of an accomplice, I tend to go the desperate times, desperate measures route. Especially so given the fact that neither the reward nor the pardon appears to have produced any results.

So it looks like we have to disagree on this one.

c.d.

[spyglass]

It could have been desperation by the government and police,I think I am correct in saying that pardons were mentioned during the earlier murders ( I stand to be corrected )
I have always suspected though that something was found inside 13 Millers Court, and that the Police held back certain info from the press, something that has been lost in documents over the years.
I also read some years back that a few people including policemen now think that Peter Suttcliffe had an accomplice who has never been found.

[Supe]

C.D.,

Well I'm sure that the goverment wasn't wild about offering a reward either. A pardon would seem like a small price to pay if if produced an accomplice that lead them to Jack.

"Wasn't wild about offering a reward" is an understatement. It was adamant against a reward and with good reason because of the "German dynamite case" several years earlier. And that is one very good reason why a pardon offer was likely an expedient that looked as if the government was doing something.

Don.

[c.d.]

Hi Don,

If the government was begrudginly willing to offer a reward with no guarantee that it would result in Jack's capture, I see no reason why they wouldn't follow the same line of reasoning, i.e., let's take a chance on a pardon for an accomplice in hopes that it might produce a lead.

c.d.

[Zodiac]

I also read some years back that a few people including policemen now think that Peter Suttcliffe had an accomplice who has never been found.

"A few people" being the operative words here. I can think of one who genuinely believes so, off the top of my head, but yes there are a few others. I cannot think of any police officer involved in the case, serving or retired, who has expressed such a view "now" or indeed since Sutcliffe was put away, but then again there have been so many theories, rumours and speculations about the case bandied about over the past 30 years that it is quite possible. Many police, at the time, openly stated that what the media had dubbed "The Yorkshire Ripper Murders" were not all the work of one murderer, that they were looking for two seperate, unconnected killers and were worried about the possibility of the whole ripper phenomena inspiring copycat killers.

The facts and the evidence that drew them to that conclusion remain as strong today as the did back then. This is an aspect of the murders that some of us are actively researching. There is still much more about the case that is not yet widely known. Sadly, as often happens in such cases, certain cranks have more that muddied the waters by twisting these facts in order to shoehorn their own particular Suspect into the frame as the other ripper, or even as "The Real Yorkshire Ripper". Needless to say, they do those of us who are trying to conduct serious research no favours at all, as we risk being lumped in with such cranks. Meanwhile, whenever we challenge the cranks about their BS they accuse us of being "Angents of the Establishment" payed to discredit them and the "truth" I kid you not!!!

Sutcliffe was indeed accompanied on some of his early cruises through the Red Light Districts of West Yorkshire by a one or more of his friends. One of them was in fact driving on the night Sutcliffe made his "Stone in the Sock" attack in 1969. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that Sutcliffe had an accomplice for any of the "Yorkshire Ripper" attacks and murders, 1975-80.

Sorry to have gone on at such length, I'll desist now, I promise! If you do have any questions on The Yorkshire Ripper, please feel free to PM me. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Zodiac,

The difference here being that we were told the police were looking essentially for one killer in 1888, and it isn't until the KJelly murder that all haste came about with the mention of accomplices...

Hello c.d. ,

The word accomplice can also mean, of course, anyone who helped after the crimes, so the accomplice(s) didn't have to be in 13 Millers Court...

best wishes

Phil

[Zodiac]

Hello Zodiac,

The difference here being that we were told the police were looking essentially for one killer in 1888, and it isn't until the KJelly murder that all haste came about with the mention of accomplices...

Hello c.d. ,

The word accomplice can also mean, of course, anyone who helped after the crimes, so the accomplice(s) didn't have to be in 13 Millers Court...

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Thank you for your reply. I have no doubt at all that you are quite correct. I have certainly never read anything that has persuaded me that "Jack" was, in any way, some sort of a double act, let alone a cabal of killers, Masonic or otherwise! My post was actually meant more for the benefit of spyglass, and was in response to his comment about Peter Sutcliffe, aka "The Yorkshire Ripper", a subject on which I feel far more qualified to speak to than I ever would do about the "Jack the Ripper" case, on which I readily admit to being no more than interested reader of secondary source material. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Best Wishes,

Zodiac.

[spyglass]

Hi Zodiac,
Thanks for your info on The Yorkshire Ripper,I will confess not to know very much about that case, I just added the comment as a side note.

[Fisherman]

Okay, moving on thin ice here, but ...

...could it be that the assumption of an accomplice owed to Lewis´testimony? Of course, it was not given at the inquest until the 12:th, but since Lewis was called to the inquest, one must surmise that the police had made certain that she had something to add to that inquest that was of interest - the loiterer.
Hutch turned up three days after the inquest, and at that stage, the accomplice bit was five days old already. And we know that it seems that his testimony was disregarded very shortly after it was given.
So maybe we set out with a scenario where the police had a very probable lookout guy outside the court, and maybe Hutch´s testimony was disproven effectively (the police may perhaps, for instance, have been able to place him somewhere else than Dorset Street at the crucial time), leaving the police with the same scenario as the outset one: somebody was quite possibly keeping watch for the Ripper.

I´m sure somebody has thought of this before, and maybe I am demonstrably wrong - but if so, I´d like to find out why. Thoughts, anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

Not bad but what part would Dr. Phillips have played since he seems to be the one that pushed for a pardon?

c.d.