Circumstances

[Elamarna]

Yes, I agree. Something happened, an event, and things changed.

Pierre


Could there not have been more than one event ?

One to stop the killer at that time, if only temporarily.

And a separate one as too why he was suspected after the Kelly murder.

The two events are distinctly separate, but appear to be related from an outside viewpoint.

Something came to light. That can be our hypothesis. And also, the murders stopped for some months.


A new hypothesis here: Letīs just assume that they had found the killer and could not put him to trial, could not kill him, and could not place him in an asylum - would they just let him be or would they intervene in his life? Would they for example send him away? What would they do, given that he must be stopped?

One must look at possible reasons why none of those options could be used before progressing on to what they would do next:



Could not put him on trial-



1. He was too important, it would cause too much embarrassment and possibly civil unrest

2. There was not enough evidence to go to trial, his social status does not matter in that case.

3. He had information which could be used against his accusers, which they knew about.




Could not be placed in an asylum



At first sight I find it hard to see why this could not be used.

Only options I can see are the killers family supported him and would fight such a move. if the aim of the authorities is not to make his id public such action by his family may have worked.

Alternatively I go back to point 3 above.


However I have no sources at all for any of the above, to allow them to be formed into anything more than vague suggestions.

Which of course is poor science!




He could not be killed.

Surely that should be they would not kill him, not could not.
While such an option may seem extreme, this would be a viable option for them if he could not be stopped any other way.




While locking him away would physically stop him, would merely sending him away work?

Unless those sending him away knew his motivation, and that such was specifically linked to Whitechapel, would there be any reason to think the killings would stop? Would they not just move?


So what could they do?

He could not be allowed to just carry on surely?
At the very least he would need to be watched very closely.


Of course as I suggested at the start of this post maybe he decided to stop after Kelly anyway.

Maybe his life changed in some way? Maybe the authorities helped his life to change? This of course fails to explain why he would start again.

Has you rightly said Pierre, questions leading to more questions, with so little to go on.

What would they do with a hot potato? Drop it? Throw it away?

There is a third option, put it down, and let it cool. watch it and check on it regular. Possibly dispose of it later?


If no more murders take place, the hot potato is only ever known to existed to a select few, it becomes just an old cold potato.


Of course this still leaves us needing a reason for the murders to stop in 89. What action was taken?

In conclusion

Wild ideas, no sources or data of any sort, don't think I would give any of them the title of an hypotheses.

Regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

This exchange in the House on Friday, November 23rd seems a little strange. Either stage managed or framed to solicit particular information about the murder of Kelly. Why would Mr Hunter be asking whether the Home Secretary was prepared to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes when it had widely been reported that this would be the case.

London Nov 10 - Gen. Warren, Chief of the Metropolitan Police, has issued a proclamation offering a free pardon to any accomplice the Whitechapel murderer may have had, provided he will give information which will lead to the murderer's apprehension.

So the pardon was well established. What was new in the question in the House was in the phrase "other than in the case of the woman Kelly" and that was raised by the questionner - Mr Hunter. It was also, therefore already known that the pardon would be for the earlier murders only (at that point).

Was this simply a way of amending the terms of the pardon officially or can anything else be read into the timing of this question?

Hi

i would say 99.99% certain it was planted question, the reason for such is the interesting point, maybe it was just a a quick way of amending the terms of the pardon. That is certainly how things are done today!

Steve

[Elamarna]

Jerry

That would make the "hot potato" ?

Steve

[jerryd]

Jerry

That would make the "hot potato" ?

Steve

Hi Steve,

Political hot potato: A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences.

Yes, it would have been a hot potato with everything on it.

[Mayerling]

Very curious thread. I agree it is a planted question in the House. Does anyone know anything about Hunter, M.P.? What was his reputation in the Liberal Party ranks (if he was a Liberal - he might have been one of the first Labour Party members).

Yes, I can see that based on the comment of Matthews, there could have been two separate new developments, post-Miller's Court. However, as I was considering this I thought of somebody as a possible ... well just another shot in the dark.

A person I'll call "S".

He is wealthy, and his disgrace would cause embarrassment to two groups. But one of those groups (at least) would bend over backwards to protect him.

He has high connections - oddly like Pierre has suggested. And there is evidence that he never had time for women. Yet a woman was instrumental in his rise to great prominence.

Despite his connection to this woman, another who secretly may have had a connection to him, never did warm to him on other grounds.

I have to also say that "S" made frequent blunders, but he survived them - at least until 1895 or so.

Jeff

[Shaggyrand]

Very curious thread. I agree it is a planted question in the House. Does anyone know anything about Hunter, M.P.? What was his reputation in the Liberal Party ranks (if he was a Liberal - he might have been one of the first Labour Party members).

Scottish jurist and Liberal. Professor of Roman Law, wrote a few books on the subject. A vocal supporter of Charles Bradlaugh, one of the first advocates for old age pensions and a couple years later got free primary education in Scotland passed.

[Mayerling]

Scottish jurist and Liberal. Professor of Roman Law, wrote a few books on the subject. A vocal supporter of Charles Bradlaugh, one of the first advocates for old age pensions and a couple years later got free primary education in Scotland passed.

Thanks Shaggyrand.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Political hot potato: A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences.

Yes, it would have been a hot potato with everything on it.

Nice Answer Jerry, almost Pierre like. sure you know i was asking who or whom?

Steve

[Rosella]

Mayerling, did S resign from a certain high position in the year you mentioned (or just after it?)

[Shaggyrand]

S didn't click last night. It has now. Certainly an interesting idea. It has the added benefit of that group being as likely to grab cultural imagination as the Masons & the monarchy, more than the others would today, if you wanted to usurp the Royal Conspiracy from it's place as the gateway theory. I'd read it or pay to see the movie anyway.

[jerryd]

Nice Answer Jerry, almost Pierre like. sure you know i was asking who or whom?

Steve

Steve,

In all fairness, your question to me was, That would make the "hot potato" ?

I see nowhere in that question, you asking for the name of anybody. In fact, I wasn't quite sure what you were asking? And to make a comment that my answer is Pierre like, is out there, Steve. I never hold anything back on these two forums. If I find something of interest, I share it with everybody. That can be verified by many people around here.

If you're asking for a name, it is hard to provide just one. Mainly, I was referring to Charles Hammond and the Cleveland scandal as the hot potato. I am not saying he is the ripper, although he fits the description of A-Man very closely.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

In all fairness, your question to me was, That would make the "hot potato" ?

I see nowhere in that question, you asking for the name of anybody. In fact, I wasn't quite sure what you were asking? And to make a comment that my answer is Pierre like, is out there, Steve. I never hold anything back on these two forums. If I find something of interest, I share it with everybody. That can be verified by many people around here.

If you're asking for a name, it is hard to provide just one. Mainly, I was referring to Charles Hammond and the Cleveland scandal as the hot potato. I am not saying he is the ripper, although he fits the description of A-Man very closely.

Sorry Jerry,

hands up, perhaps my original post was not clear, I accept that!

The reply was a little tongue in cheek, and not meant to offend, guess that says loads about the comparison.
I realised after the 30 min deadline it looked bad. Where did that time frame come from I wonder ? it lets you correct mistakes but not second thoughts!
You are always very open and i have found you incredibly helpful.

So full and unreserved apologises. I grovel!


somewhat embarrassed and certainly chastened


Steve

[jerryd]

Sorry Jerry,

hands up, perhaps my original post was not clear, I accept that!

The reply was a little tongue in cheek, and not meant to offend, guess that says loads about the comparison.
I realised after the 30 min deadline it looked bad. Where did that time frame come from I wonder ? it lets you correct mistakes but not second thoughts!
You are always very open and i have found you incredibly helpful.

So full and unreserved apologises. I grovel!


somewhat embarrassed and certainly chastened


Steve

No need for an apology, Steve. I appreciate all you offer to the forums as well. Please don't be embarrassed. I'm pretty easy going.

[Bridewell]

Michael and others.

While the idea of the man seen loitering would be a nice convenient fit here, there is to me a problem here.

Matthews says does he not:

"that there were other persons who, at any rate, after the crime, had assisted the murderer."


I have underlined what I feel is important:"after" suggests some form of post action to cover up.

That would not seem to fit with a man loitering at the time of the murder, it would not be "after the crime"

However this need not be any more than a cover-up by family and friends, not some high level conspiracy.

Such certainly fits with what Anderson said.

Steve

The best fit for this, among known suspects anyway, would be (Aaron) Kosminski and his family - especially in view of Swanson's comments in the Marginalia.

[Bridewell]

(he might have been one of the first Labour Party members).

Not in 1888. The first 'Labour' MP was James Keir Harding, although even he was originally elected as an independent (1892).