Circumstances

[Pierre]

Hi,

What might have been the "certain circumstances" he is talking about?

"The Times.
Saturday, 24 November 1888.

PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, November 23.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

Mr. HUNTER asked the Home Secretary whether he was 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.

Mr. MATTHEWS. - 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.


Any suggestions?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

a very interesting question indeed? the interesting words to me are "after the crime"

i can think of several possible answers, I am sure you or others will come up with more.

1. Given the degree of mutilation, it is assumed the killer will be obviously covered in more blood than in previous murders, and this would be noticed by family or friends, who may have assisted in cleaning up.

2. That he was seen leaving the murder site, possibly in the company of someone, who waited for him, or had arranged to meet him.

3. He was seen and tentative identified, but either could not be found, or an alibi was provided for him, that was unshakable.

I am not sure how plausible any of those are? it is however a starting point

Steve

[Rosella]

It may well have just been typical politician-speak on Matthews's behalf. This extremely intractable man had refused to offer any reward or pardon so far, but now things were reaching a new boiling point.

After Kelly's murder the press were screaming about as many as seven unsolved murders, British public opinion was increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of progress on solving these crimes, and Matthews had to be seen to be doing something, anything.

He couldn't offer a reward as his credibility would be in shreds, having stood against it for so long. So the Home Secretary decided on a pardon instead, an empty gesture wrapped up in vague language in the House of Commons about Kelly's killing being different, that maybe her killer had an accomplice, or friends that helped afterwards, yadeya.

Matthews knew the police didn't have any evidence of Ripper accomplices or helpful friends. He was just sparring away in the Commons, hoping the fuss would soon die down, leaving him in peace.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,

What might have been the "certain circumstances" he is talking about?

"The Times.
Saturday, 24 November 1888.

PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, November 23.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

Mr. HUNTER asked the Home Secretary whether he was 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.

Mr. MATTHEWS. - 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.


Any suggestions?

Kind regards, Pierre

I should think the obvious answer is that in no other investigation prior to Kellys was there someone seen watching what would soon become a murder scene. The statement by Sarah Lewis, unfortunately initially attributed erroneously to a Ms Kennedy, provides what could easily be described as a lookout, either looking out for someone incoming who might spoil what was already happening in room 13, or someone who was making sure that the courtyard was silent and Marys room dark. The pardon was issued Saturday afternoon, after Abberline, Reid and some other officers re-visited the room Saturday morning. It was reported that they "re-sieved" the ashes.

I mention this in context with the thread question, because perhaps something was found on that second sieving that suggested Mary might have been involved in something. I know that minute bits of evidence might only provide a hint of something, just wondering if those minute bits had any serial numbers. Not so far fetched when you consider that the "Mary Kelly" killed before Mary Jane of room 13 was killed, was dispatched on a night when stamps and cash were stolen.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not so far fetched when you consider that the "Mary Kelly" killed before Mary Jane of room 13 was killed, was dispatched on a night when stamps and cash were stolen.

The weekend of the post office robbery, perhaps, but since the theft was only discovered on Monday morning, can you say for sure that it wasn't robbed on Sunday day or night?

[Pierre]

Elamarna;381886

Pierre

a very interesting question indeed? the interesting words to me are "after the crime"

Hi Steve,

Yes, I agree.

i can think of several possible answers, I am sure you or others will come up with more.

1. Given the degree of mutilation, it is assumed the killer will be obviously covered in more blood than in previous murders, and this would be noticed by family or friends, who may have assisted in cleaning up.

OK. But a consequence of such an hypothesis is a question as to how that information could have reached the police / the juridical system / the parliament and not the press?

(Hope you do not mind me asking questions. I am interested in your hypothetical answers.)

2. That he was seen leaving the murder site, possibly in the company of someone, who waited for him, or had arranged to meet him.

Good hypothesis. But if so, how come nothing of it was spoken of in the press - when it was discussed in the parliament?

3. He was seen and tentative identified, but either could not be found, or an alibi was provided for him, that was unshakable.

Another interesting point. But if he was seen and ID:d - why was there nothing about all of that in the press?

Especially since we hear it from Matthews. If he knew that they had ID:d the Ripper, everybody else would have known.

Or do you have any suggestion as to why they wouldn`t?

I am not sure how plausible any of those are? it is however a starting point.

I think they are brilliant. And I am sure the answers to the questions will be just as interesting.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;381915]I should think the obvious answer is that in no other investigation prior to Kellys was there someone seen watching what would soon become a murder scene.

The statement by Sarah Lewis, unfortunately initially attributed erroneously to a Ms Kennedy, provides what could easily be described as a lookout, either looking out for someone incoming who might spoil what was already happening in room 13, or someone who was making sure that the courtyard was silent and Marys room dark. The pardon was issued Saturday afternoon, after Abberline, Reid and some other officers re-visited the room Saturday morning. It was reported that they "re-sieved" the ashes.

Hi Michael,

It could actually have been anyone. It could even have been a policeman watching out for Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Bridewell]

I agree with Michael. The 'certain circumstances' probably relate to reports of a man seen loitering opposite Millers Court (Hutchinson). These reports would suggest that there was either an accomplice or someone who might have seen MJK with her killer. - as indeed there was. Then again, I am in the small minority who are prepared to accept the possibility (no more) that Hutchinson may have been telling the truth. My hunch (no more) is that Astrakhan Man was no toff, but someone making himself out to be one - perhaps even someone who knew Hutchinson (and who hid his face to avoid recognition).

[Elamarna]

OK. But a consequence of such an hypothesis is a question as to how that information could have reached the police / the juridical system / the parliament and not the press?

(Hope you do not mind me asking questions. I am interested in your hypothetical answers.)

Certainly do not mind

On the first point:

There need be no certain knowledge of such, just an assumption by the police (an educated guess if you like) that the killer may have been in a far worse state, of shall we say, contamination, and would probably have required help to clean up, and this is passed up the chain to reach Matthew eventually.
The obvious reasoning for the exclusion being that if you helped him in that state, you must have known, and should have come forward.




Pierre for the purpose of the next two hypothesis I will assume for the moment your theory is correct, even if we do not have a name, that is they were of high status. my reasoning for this is that if the killer is not of this status/class these options are highly unlikely to be required.

Good hypothesis. But if so, how come nothing of it was spoken of in the press - when it was discussed in the parliament?

Depends who was seen? and when? and by whom?
if seen by Police, simple order is given- keep silent; if a member of public, may need to coerce them. Maybe a false story was produced on order, with grave consequences if not followed.

Details would be passed on by very senior officer/officers at Scotland yard, probably verbally.

The point to note is that no details are given in Westminster, just broad comments. Therefore only the Minister and the PM need know the truth! The members question could be a planted question, very common.
The reason would be to send a message to someone, along the lines of "we know, Stop!"

Another interesting point. But if he was seen and ID:d - why was there nothing about all of that in the press?


Especially since we hear it from Matthews. If he knew that they had ID:d the Ripper, everybody else would have known.

Or do you have any suggestion as to why they wouldn`t?

Much the same as above, depends who may have seen someone, and just how positive that id was?
It may have been "he looked like so and so" but of course if alibi supplied by someone of standing, may have been no real evidence.

story kept from press as above.

Such info would come from senior officers on a need to know basis. Only Matthews and a select other few may have known- orders, silence is required.

we would obviously be looking at a cover up if either of the latter two options were the case.

At present I see nothing to support any of the hypotheses.
Without supporting data I would go for the first choice because it does not require more than guess work on the part of the authorities. It is a plausible explanation.

however it is not a perfect answer.

Of course the point made by others about it relating to someone seen loitering may be even more valid, given we know that such was reported.



Steve

[packers stem]

The weekend of the post office robbery, perhaps, but since the theft was only discovered on Monday morning, can you say for sure that it wasn't robbed on Sunday day or night?

Hi Michael and Joshua
What have I missed here ....the other mary Kelly ,post office robbery ? Sounds interesting

[packers stem]

Incidentally ,I agree with others with regards the initial question ......Sarah Lewis fault .I've no doubt had it not been for her testimony there'd never have been a Hutchinson to worry about

[Paddy]

Mr. MATTHEWS. - 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.

Henry Cox stated "We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes"
Matthews statement appears to me that whoever was suspected was given an alibi or sent away.

Pat...........

[harry]

The first part of Mathews statement suggests a lone killer, with no person aiding or abbeting in any way. How many ways could it be presumed a person would aid or abbet,for there were many people who did not come forward in the earlier killings.Pipeman,for instance,was also a loiterer,who must have seen something?

[Rosella]

But someone 'living in the East End' is very vague isn't it, and probably most of the men momentarily suspected or questioned or kept under surveillance lived in the East End rather than the West.

Plus, how many policemen involved in the Ripper Hunt, later intimated or hinted 'Yes, a man was suspected, we believed he knew more about the murders than appeared at first,' and 'some of our cleverest detectives were on his trail' etc etc.
Lots of Policemen, from Constables upwards had a theory or were inclined in the years afterwards to look wise and hint they had been on the fiend's trail, but...'

Anything rather than admit (as Acting Commissioner Smith did in his memoirs) that they hadn't a clue then or later who Jack was or where he lived. Failure to catch this serial killer was a hard pill to swallow for many.

[jerryd]

I've posted this before but it fits the conversation here.

Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888

THE POLICE AT WORK The ablest officers were detailed to work up the case, but the fullest investigation of the meagre facts at their disposal failed to lead to the apprehension of the murderer. They however arrived at a conclusion which, if correct, tends to explode the almost universally-held theory that these horrible crimes are all the work of a single miscreant. Carefully calculating the time it would take to cover the ground between Berners (sic) street and Mitre Square and having approximately fixed the hour at which each murder was committed they were forced to the conclusion that if the same man murdered both the women Catharine Beddowes (sic) must have met him by appointment in Mitre Square, as the supposition that he found her in this unfrequented place at the exact moment he desired was clearly untenable. It must be borne in mind that the saloons in London all close promptly at 12.30 A.M. The unhappy women of the class to which Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Beddowes (sic) belonged find the only field for obtaining their wretched means of livelihood, after the drinking places have closed, among the crowds of half-drunken men who throng the leading thoroughfares of the district.
It is obvious, then, that at 1 P.M. the woman Stride (sic) would not have been parading the silent Mitre Square, wholly unfrequented after dark, unless she was waiting there for some one. On the other hand if the murderer of Elizabeth Stride in Berners (sic) street had not been interrupted in his ghastly work, judging by the mutilations practiced in the other cases, he would have spent at least another quarter of an hour at his devilish work. Admitting this, he would have been then too late to keep his appointment with Beddowes (sic), and it is only on the supposition that such an appointment had been made, and that the woman went there to meet the murderer, that the theory of the two murders having been committed by the same hand will hold water.

TWO MURDERERS. The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.
The two brainy men who thus theorized, although they firmly believed they had at last opened the case, were still at a loss in what direction to look for the authors of the fearful crimes. With the utmost patience they sought out the degraded companions of the dead women, and bit by bit they learned all that probably ever will be known of their habits, tastes and mode of life.