|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 12:36 pm: |       |
I wondered whether anyone actually knows just how unique 'Her Majesty's Gracious Pardon' issued after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly is or was?
I certainly know of no other case where such a pardon has been issued, and I am keen to find out if this was a totally unique situation... and still is.
Any help greatly appreciated. |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi AP
I think you may be right in the unique circumstances in which the offer of a pardon was made. The two circumstances that seem unique to me are:
1) it was offered to any accomplice, not the perpetrator
2) it was offered before the individual implied in the offer was identified, let alone taken into custody.
For those of you not too conversant with the oddities of the British constitution, the Royal Pardon was (and still is) one of the royal prerogatives delegated to Parliament, in this case in the person of the Home Secretary. Within the UK, the royal pardon was of much greater importance during the present Queen's reign before the death penalty was abolished. One oddity of the position then was that if a prisoner condemned to death appealed for clemency, the Home Secretary was obliged to take the decision entirely alone. He was not allowed to consult with anyone else before he reached his decision. It may also surprise some that cases involving the death penalty are still referred on occasion to the British Parliament to rule on. Some Caribbean states which retain the death penalty retain the Queen as their head of state and the House of Lords as their supreme court.
The Royal Pardon has been used on many occasion for political or less than ethical uses. For example, pardons were offered to privateers (i.e. pirates) who were acting in effect on behalf of the British Crown but whose role as such could not be openly acknowledged.
But as far a I am aware the offer you refer to is certainly unique in murder cases. I also wonder to what extent it was "window dressing" in that with the exception of the Schwartz testimony, there was no firm evidence on which the police could base the assumption that the Whitechapel killer had an accomplice.
Regards
Chris |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
Thanks for that Chris.
My own thinking runs with yours, as I can think of no other murder case in the land where such a Royal Pardon has been issued, for either the perpetrator or accomplice.
However I wanted to be sure of that first.
I must disagree with you though about the 'firm evidence on which the police could base the assumption that the Whitechapel killer had an accomplice', simply because of the statement by the Secretary of State, Mr Matthews, to the House of Commons on the 23rd November 1888 where he said that 'In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases', which to me does mean that the police did indeed have important evidence implicating an accomplice, which they were obviously not prepared to make public at Kelly's inquest.
And hence the swift end to that particular farce.
So I do not think it to be 'window dressing' at all. In fact I feel it to be of enormous import.
Your comments and help greatly appreciated. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:27 pm: | |
AP and Chris,
The offering of the royal pardon was less an attempt, in my opinion, to actually catch the perpetrator and more a means for Matthews to give in to public pressure without reversing himself.
After the Nichols' murder, and continuing through the next three murders, many East End businessmen, including the MP for Whitechapel Samual Montagu, were petitioning almost daily for the offer of a reward. However, the standard policy of the Home Office since the 1870s was not to offer rewards "as they do more harm than good". Matthews adhered slavishly to this policy, until he had painted himself into a corner.
By the time of the Kelly killing, the clamor for a reward was deafening, and Matthews had been unable to coerce Warren into admitting that the Met had exhausted all of its methods and that the offering of a reward was the only thing left to try - Warren was too smart to let Matthews use him as his scapegoat, which was part of the reason why they got into the row over the Murray's Magazine article that ended with Warren saying bye-bye.
The decision to offer the royal pardon was a political one, not an indication that they had evidence pointing to an accomplice. Matthews couldn't reverse himself and offer a reward after denying it for three months, but he could offer a pardon because - technically - it was different. I think we can safely call THIS "window dressing". 
B |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 1:39 am: | |
Brian
Yes, I probably agree with you in that if one looks at the 'pardon' in isolation, or as a sop to the people who thought a reward might help, then maybe it is 'window dressing'.
However if one groups this very very grey area together with a couple of other very very grey areas in the police investigation - such as the Macnaghten Memorandum and the nonesensical business attached to the Police Seaside Home at Brighton - then just perhaps we might be looking at something that is more like a salad dressing than a window dressing. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Chris
Just a thought.
Would we actually know if such a royal pardon was granted?
Surely by its very nature such a pardon would inherently grant state witness status to any accomplice and hence his identity would be protected by the crown.
It would hardly be broadcast publicly.
Just a thought.
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 1:39 pm: | |
Hello AP and Brian:
The granting of a royal pardon may not be as unusual as you appear to believe. Compare the following, first from the Whitechapel murders then other examples, each with the relevant portions bolded by me for comparison purposes:
MURDER. - PARDON. - Whereas on November 8 or 9, in Miller-court, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, Mary Janet Kelly was murdered by some person or persons unknown: the Secretary of State will advise the grant of Her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice, not being a person who contrived or actually committed the murder, who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murder.
CHARLES WARREN, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Metropolitan Police-office, 4, Whitehall-place, S.W., Nov. 10, 1888.
Quoted in The Times (London), Monday, November 12, 1888
**************
Whitehall 29 Nov. 1848
Sir I am directed by Secretary of State Sir George Grey to acknowledge ... your letter ... relative to the burglary which was committed on the premises of Mr French ... and I am to inform you that in this case a reward of fifty pounds will be paid by the government (in addition to the reward of one hundred pounds offered on the spot) to any person who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the offender or offenders. And Sir George Grey will advise the grant of Her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the same results. I am, sir, your obedient servant H. Waddington
From Buckingham Chronicle, 2 December 1848
**************
The following letter has been received by Sir Henry S. Wilmot, Bart., by which it will be seen, that government offer a reward of £100, (in addition the reward of the same amount offered by the friends of the deceased), for the discovery and conviction of the murderer or murderers:-
Whitehall, 3d October, 1842.
Sir-I am directed by Secretary Sir James Graham to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st inst., relative to the murder of a lady named Goddard, at Stanley, about four miles from Derby, on Thursday night last;-and I am to inform you, that in this case a reward of one hundred pounds will be paid by the government (in addition to the reward of like amount offered by the friends of the deceased), to any person who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the murderer or murderers; and Sir James Graham will advise the grant of her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice, not being the actual perpetrator of the murder, who shall give such evidence as shall lead to the same result.
I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient Servant,
T. M. PHILLIPS.
To Sir Henry S. Wilmot, Bart., Chaddesden, Derby.
From DERBY MERCURY, WEDNESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 1842
**************
On the 21st of February, 1738, [a] public plunderer [highwayman] began his depredations by stopping the post-boy bringing the Bath and Bristol mails, about seven o'clock in the evening, at the end of Sunning Lane, two miles north of Reading, in Berkshire.
For the apprehension of the robber the Postmaster-General offered a reward of two hundred pounds, over and above the reward by Act of Parliament for apprehending highwaymen; or if any accomplice in the said robbery should make a discovery of the person who committed the fact, such accomplice should be entitled to the reward of two hundred pounds, and also receive his Majesty's most gracious pardon. The advertisement described the robber to be a middle-sized man, wearing a great riding-coat, with a white velvet or plush cape.
NEWGATE CALENDAR, 1738
So, my question is, Is this Royal pardon something special or is it really only saying if the accomplice turns Queen's (or King's) evidence they won't be prosecuted?
All the best
Chris |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 3:43 pm: | |
Chris (George)
Thank you for that. I was aware that such a pardon had been used prior as the other Chris pointed out such as in the case of privateers and the like, and the cases you highlight do dovetail with my thinking that prosecution would not take place in such an eventuality.
I was keen to find out the situation since 1888 as I feel that might be more of an indicator than cases previous to then.
I fear we may well be on parlous ground here anyway, as we just might not be privy to the ground rules.
By the very nature of the pardon such ground rules would not be available for public view.
Nor their consequences.
Which may have been my point in the first place. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
