Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:35 pm |        |
In an effort to start an entirely new thread, as well as help me with my research, I'm going to throw an idea out there.
I've been looking into the circumstances which surrounded Sir Charles' resignation from the Commissionership of the Met. The extant documents appear to favor the view that Sir Charles finally had had enough with Henry Matthews meddling and resigned over the issue of internal control over policy procedure and quit in frustration.
I am of the opinion that Matthews continually badgered Warren with "suggestions" on how to capture the Ripper that Warren finally pushed back with his articles in the local magazines questioning Matthews statutory authority, throwing down his gauntlet in effect.
What do you all think? Did the Ripper murders play a part in Sir Charles' resignation? Or was the timing simply an unfortunate coincidence?
B |
Author: Stan Russo
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 07:33 pm | |
Brian,
Warren's resignation on November 8th was due to a written reprimanding he received at the hands of Henry Matthews. Matthews severely reprimanded Warren for publishing an article in Murray's Magazine titled 'The Police of the Metropolis'. Officers were forbidden to publish articles on police procedure while still in office, unless the article was cleared with the Home Office.
It was a strict no-no (unless you were Robert Anderson smearing the name of Charles Stewart Parnell in The Times In 1887). Warren felt disgraced by Matthews'reprimanding, so he tenured his resignation one day before the murder in Miller's Court. Hope this helps.
STAN |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 08:34 pm | |
| I can't help wondering what the situation would have been if Jack the Ripper had "unmistakenly" continued his killing for another four times or so. Rick |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 11:00 pm | |
Stan,
I knew the actual events - the Murray's article, etc. My real question is do you think that was the only reason?
I think the Murray's article was less a strict no-no being violated, or Warren being humilitated, and more of a "straw the broke the camels back" type deal. Warren was sick of Matthew's uneducated meddling, so he threatened to resign. Matthew's called his bluff and accepted it.
I can't think it's unsimilar to what happened between Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart on the 3rd day at Gettysburg. Stuart had galavanted around, and left Lee in a lurch. Lee repremanded him, and Stuart offered his resignation, which Lee - of course - didn't take.
Was the whole thing really a miscalculation on Warrens part in his on-going war against Home Office meddling in the Met's affairs? Did he expect Matthews to not let him leave with a killer on the loose in Whitechapel? Is there any way to answer these questions?
Just an idea. I'm kinda brainstorming here. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 04:01 pm | |
Hi, Brian:
I would suggest that Warren writing such an article would in 1888 have been viewed as a real breach of rules, not just simply the straw that broke the camel's back. However, Warren had not caught the Ripper, his suggestion to use bloodhounds had fallen flat, etc., so perhaps it was clear that Warren had to go.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 02:00 am | |
Brian-
Personally I tend toward the view that it was Warren who finally became fed up with the Home Office, rather than the other way around. When one considers that his investigative efforts were consistently hampered by Matthews and Lushington (for example, he was not even consulted before the HO took its negative stand on the reward question, and his advocacy of a pardon offer was ignored until after he was out of office) whilst he and his department were hung out to dry in the press, it is hardly surprising that Sir Charles bristled at being reprimanded for attempting to publicly defend himself and his men.
The matter of the bloodhounds should serve as a case in point. It should be noted that it was the Home Office mandarins, not Warren, who first suggested their use. Once Sir Charles had made the necessary enquiries and tested the dogs' efficacy- just exactly as the Home Secretary had asked- the money boys at HO dithered over releasing the necessary funds for so long that the disgusted owner finally repossessed his mutts and went home. And so once again Warren was pilloried in the media for a debacle that was not of his making.
In light of all this one is moved to wonder whether the Home Secretary's true motivation in attempting to muzzle Warren was a fear that he might reveal the true source of the blunders and foot-dragging that hindered the Ripper investigation.
AAA88 |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:34 pm | |
Jesse,
I think there is a bigger story here than the paper record details. It doens't seem in character for a strict military man like Warren to abandon his post in such a time and situation.
Guess I'll keep poking around it.
B |
