Circumstances

[Elamarna]

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...........

Hi Pat

I don't think he could have been sent away at the stage of the question in the house.

Given Cox's statement and the suggestion he was watched for sometime, the time frame does not seem right.

However it is very possible that the lead they had (mentioned by Cox) could well be linked to the statement of Matthews. it may well be some unreported sighting.

Unlike the hypothesis I suggested to Pierre, this would not be a high level cover up, but silent surveillance, so has not to tip off the family/friends and thus the suspect himself.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

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

I believe Michael was alluding to the robbery of the post office in Aldgate, which occurred at some time over the weekend of the double event, and linking it to the death of Eddowes (who may have used the alias Mary Ann Kelly) and Mary Jane Kelly by speculating that the police may have been looking for (and/or found) bank notes in the ashes of MJK's fireplace.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382076]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.

So firstly, no knowledge, but an assumption by the police. Well, one could ask why they would make such an assumption in this case but not in the others, since that what was Matthews implied (if this hypothesis would be right). This also implies that the police, with such an assumption, must have seen the killer as a person with little integrity (letting someone else know he was a killer and helping him), a person who can not cope himself (being in need of help) and a person who was not one criminal anymore but at least two, or more. The question here is (more questions!) - Why would the police have made such an assumption?

The obvious reasoning for the exclusion being that if you helped him in that state, you must have known, and should have come forward.

OK. And from what we know about the murder of Mary Jane Kelly - Who could have helped the killer? Might we hypothesize that one or more persons, from all the people we think we know something about, helped him?

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.

Do you mean that the circumstances mentioned by Matthews could indicate that there was a killer from the privileged classes and someone who the police could not or would not put to trial? I am not sure if I am understanding you here.

But if those were the circumstances, why would Matthews have mentioned them? Why did he not keep quiet? And why would the police even notify him? It makes no sense.

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.

OK, but for such a story to be spoken of in the parliament? Your are making some suggestions here - wouldnīt people in 1888 have been able to make the same suggestions? Or did Matthews think that no one would understand? Maybe he did not even understand it himself, if the case were that:

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

- Would Matthews really stand in the parliament and indicate the above suggestion?

The point to note is that no details are given in Westminster, just broad comments.

Yes, I agree. And that is a problem, since we may overinterpret the statement of Matthews! And on the other hand, we may underinterpret it! This is always a problem with such 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!"

I see! So you mean that they actually thought that the killer would stop if they made him understand that they knew who he was! Well, that is a very generous interpretation. Why would they not just warn him personally and in private? That would have been easy for them.

Another problem: If Matthews is right - and without any hypothesis about him knowing who the killer was now - what was it that someone could have "helped" the killer with?

We could of course assume that he was soaked in blood and needed help to wash up or change clothes (an assumption of the type of killer described above) - but if we would make a list of hypotheses, what could the help have been, and are there any indications in the sources for such a help?

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

The loitering man could have been a policeman or a client or anyone.

Thanks a lot Steve for an interesting discussion.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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...........

Hi,

Thanks for the post. Do you happen to have a reference to a source as well?

Kind regards, Pierre

[MysterySinger]

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

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?

[Pierre]

Hi Pat

I don't think he could have been sent away at the stage of the question in the house.

Given Cox's statement and the suggestion he was watched for sometime, the time frame does not seem right.

However it is very possible that the lead they had (mentioned by Cox) could well be linked to the statement of Matthews. it may well be some unreported sighting.

Unlike the hypothesis I suggested to Pierre, this would not be a high level cover up, but silent surveillance, so has not to tip off the family/friends and thus the suspect himself.

Steve

Hi Steve,

the suggestion here is that at the point in time where Kelly was murdered, something changed (according to Cox and Matthews).

It coincided with another change: the murders stopped for some time. Just stating the obvious so everyone will see this.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=MysterySinger;382163]

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.

A good observation.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;382090]Hi Pat

I don't think he could have been sent away at the stage of the question in the house.

But he could have been sent away earlier.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

the suggestion here is that at the point in time where Kelly was murdered, something changed (according to Cox and Matthews).

It coincided with another change: the murders stopped for some time. Just stating the obvious so everyone will see this.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I would not say something changed from the viewpoint of Cox and Matthews, rather something happened, there is a difference.

If Matthews is correct something came to light, after the Kelly murder, Cox would seem to support this view. What this something was I have no idea, A sighting which was withheld, seems a plausible idea, but there are certainly other options.

The murders did stop, if they started again is open to debate.
I think we both think they did, but maybe different victims. I see only Mackenzie as a possible, whereas you see the torso's as well.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382169]

Pierre

I would not say something changed from the viewpoint of Cox and Matthews, rather something happened, there is a difference.

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

If Matthews is correct something came to light, after the Kelly murder, Cox would seem to support this view.

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

What this something was I have no idea, A sighting which was withheld, seems a plausible idea, but there are certainly other options.

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?

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

The murders did stop, if they started again is open to debate.
I think we both think they did, but maybe different victims. I see only Mackenzie as a possible, whereas you see the torso's as well.

Yes, but only the ones during 1888-1889.

And there must be at least some sources for that hypothesis. One can not base an hypothesis on nothing. And both sources and hypotheses must be coherent. High standards for history. But difficult, Steve, since we seem to have so little.

Kind regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382172]

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

Try to frame him. Unfortunately, the potato had too much dirt on them to be able to frame him.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;382174]

Try to frame him. Unfortunately, the potato had too much dirt on them to be able to frame him.

Intersting idea, Jerry. Could you elaborate a bit on it?

Kind regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

I believe Michael was alluding to the robbery of the post office in Aldgate, which occurred at some time over the weekend of the double event, and linking it to the death of Eddowes (who may have used the alias Mary Ann Kelly) and Mary Jane Kelly by speculating that the police may have been looking for (and/or found) bank notes in the ashes of MJK's fireplace.

Thanks Joshua
It's an interesting point about the ashes.
I knew the doctors were sifting the ashes so I suspect they were looking for burnt heart remains

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382175]

Intersting idea, Jerry. Could you elaborate a bit on it?

Kind regards, Pierre

Sure.

A prominent Post Office official inspected the scene a week after the murder. There were also two members of the RIC there. The Post Office in Aldgate, as Michael pointed out, was possibly robbed on the same night Eddowes was killed.

The Dublin Castle Scandal of 1884 involved the head of the Post Office in Dublin Castle who was allegedly involved having sex with young men. Some of these young men moved to London after the the scandal in Dublin and became involved with Charles Hammond in Cleveland Street. The brothel in Cleveland street was operating at the same time as the Ripper murders. The Cleveland street scandal involved young telegraph boys that worked for the post office. The men that were paying for sex with these young men included people of high status, such as, Lord Euston, Lord Arthur Somerset, a police official, bankers, high ranking soldiers, financiers and even possibly the heir to the throne, PAV and many other important men.

To make a long story short, the Cleveland affair began to crumble in June of 1889. Two men received "light sentences" for buggery, which was a major crime and should have been punished by a lot more time. The main players were all "tipped off" by a solicitor named Arthur Newton of their imminent arrests. The lead man in the Ripper case was pulled from Whitechapel to oversee the scandal. That would be Abberline. He dragged his feet on securing warrants which allowed Hammond and others to escape the country without punishment. By the time the dust settled, we are at September 1889 when the Pinchin Torso appears and then, all is quiet.