Isenschmid(t) Records: Part 2

[Phil Carter]

Asylum records

Hi Phil,

You are referring to the records for Isenschmid's confinement at Grove Hall, which from the new material, we know was from Sept 12, 1888 to Feb 4, 1990, when he was transferred to Banstead.

Though the police reports call it Bow Infirmary Asylum, Fairfield Road, Bow, it was the private institution Grove Hall, operated by three generations of the Byas family, and was one of five (5) private asylums that accepted pauper patients from various jurisdictions in Greater London. With dates of closure -

Grove Hall, Bow 1905
Hoxton House, Hoxton 1911
Bethnal House, Bethnal Green 1920
Peckham House, Peckham 1950
Camberwell House, Camberwell 1955

LMA records from city Guardians showing pauper referrals to the various asylums exist. Lynn and others have checked into it, and would know a lot more, but I would be surprised if there are surviving records from any of the above asylums. These companies, although subject to state inspection, were private. As opposed to Colney Hatch, which was a state institution.

So no, Phil, I don't find it strange that we don't have those records from 88', nor see that the police could have sought out or procured said records.

And thanks again, Lynn.

Roy

Hello Roy, Lynn,

Roy,

Thank you for that input on the asylum records from 1887 to 1890.
Although this asylum was in private hands, I suggest that Inspector Abbeline and Co would indeed have been in contact with this asylum and it's records for the period mentioned, especially as Jacob Isenschmid was clearly a relevant and contemporary suspect pertaining to the first two murders. I suggest therefore that it is not unreasonable that his background would have been checked out by the police at the time, leading up to his incarceration from September 1888, therefore, his asylum records. It should also to be noted that in my original posting I used the word "perhaps", in relation to it being strange that the records from 1888 missing. I could have used "perhaps not", but didn't.
That said, I still believe this changes nothing in regards to the promotion of this man to the position of being regarded a prime suspect in relation to the first two of the C5 murders.

Lynn,

The comment about your investigation at the LMA, provides some hope for these records. I do indeed wish you luck in your investigations.
Perhaps I am far too mind, but I believe you deserve the praise for your research and your presentation and I do indeed agree, that all research into this man should be taken on the same level as any other named suspect, wherever it may lead. At this point in time however, I see no better proposition as to the identity of the killer of the two women mentioned. Like you say, the comment "it cannot be him because he was locked up when C3, C4 and C5 were killed" is no realistic counter argument for him not being considered seriously as a prime suspect for the murders of C1 and C2. Well done!

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

trying

Hello Roy. Ms. Howlett, senior archivist for LMA, informs me that some records remain from Banstead and the Islington board of governors. I am trying to pursue that line now.

Wish me luck.

Thanks.

The best.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Is it not strange that the asylum papers on this man for 1888, are missing? Perhaps. Though consider this.

Had it been a relatively recent "purloining", one look at the rest of the documentation would have caused ALL of the documents to be whipped away, because he is shown to be a realistically strong suspect. This rather tells me that the missing 1888 asylum documents were taken at the time. For if this man was a contemporary suspect, which is clear that he was, any investigating police officer worth his salt would have wanted to see the papers showing the condition of the man at that time, the time leading up to the murders. It may also explain why the papers for the subsequent years are still held. I would suspect that it was Abberline that had these asylum documents.

Hi Phil,

You are referring to the records for Isenschmid's confinement at Grove Hall, which from the new material, we know was from Sept 12, 1888 to Feb 4, 1990, when he was transferred to Banstead.

Though the police reports call it Bow Infirmary Asylum, Fairfield Road, Bow, it was the private institution Grove Hall, operated by three generations of the Byas family, and was one of five (5) private asylums that accepted pauper patients from various jurisdictions in Greater London. With dates of closure -

Grove Hall, Bow 1905
Hoxton House, Hoxton 1911
Bethnal House, Bethnal Green 1920
Peckham House, Peckham 1950
Camberwell House, Camberwell 1955

LMA records from city Guardians showing pauper referrals to the various asylums exist. Lynn and others have checked into it, and would know a lot more, but I would be surprised if there are surviving records from any of the above asylums. These companies, although subject to state inspection, were private. As opposed to Colney Hatch, which was a state institution.

So no, Phil, I don't find it strange that we don't have those records from 88', nor see that the police could have sought out or procured said records.

And thanks again, Lynn.

Roy

[lynn cates]

reply

Hello TNB and Phil.

TNB, thanks for locating that. The notion of a copycat killer should always be seen through a jaundiced eye. La Bianca was originally thought to be a copycat of Tate. That was wrong. On the other hand, some murders are thought to be by the same hand. This too occasionally proves fallacious. I prefer to start without assumptions and see what leads where.

My point with Isenschmid is that he should be examined like all other suspects. If he is innocent and if genuine evidence supports this, then let his candidacy die a natural death just like Cream, Ostrog and Deeming. But let's hope the counter evidence is substantial and not on the order of "well, he was in the asylum when Liz, Kate and MJ were killed."

Phil, you are FAR too kind. I would welcome any counter arguments against Isenschmid and, given our Ripper cadre of intelligent investigators, I feel confident that any genuine problem will be brought to light. I recall the euphoria about Mann, only to have the brakes applied for rather obvious reasons.

Right now, I am trying to reconstruct a natural scenario whereby Polly and Jacob meet at the horse slaughter yard between Buck's Row and Whitechapel rd. But why would Polly turn north off the beaten track?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Prime suspect

Hello tnb, Lynn, Hunter, all,

It seems to me that in all fairness, after the research that Lynn Cates has so marvellously presented to us, and Chris has so kindly transcribed for us, that we really should now take Jacob Isenschmid into serious consideration as to being a prime suspect for one, if not both, of the first two of the C5 murders.

In comparing Jacob Isenschmid to Kosminski, for example, as a suspect for a killer, there is an wealth of evidence against Jacob Isenschmid in terms of behaviour alone. Multiple threats, including "threatening to murder every one" " threatening to murder 4 women" attempted murder including his wife, "he attempted to strangle her and would have done so had not a neighbour rescued her", recurrent mania since 1887, apparent hereditary mental disturbance or insanity, and the additional background of being a butcher. Crucially, he was "missing" on the night of the Chapman murder, and he is named by two doctors to be the likely murderer, all in addition to the Mrs Fiddymont identificational testimony, that fits very well indeed.

All of this knocks down the Kosminski suspect firmly into the shade by comparison. In additition, whether we like it or not, the idea of the one lone serial killer should now be seriously re-considered by all.

Personally, I have always said that when considering any suspect, I am open to persuasion, but not easily persuaded. The evidence against Jacob Isenschmid is persuasive. I am yet to see a better suspect presented before us for both the Nicholls and Chapman murders. He is, imho, a prime suspect.

One or two small thoughts stray across the mind. Is it not strange that the asylum papers on this man for 1888, are missing? Perhaps. Though consider this.

Had it been a relatively recent "purloining", one look at the rest of the documentation would have caused ALL of the documents to be whipped away, because he is shown to be a realistically strong suspect. This rather tells me that the missing 1888 asylum documents were taken at the time. For if this man was a contemporary suspect, which is clear that he was, any investigating police officer worth his salt would have wanted to see the papers showing the condition of the man at that time, the time leading up to the murders. It may also explain why the papers for the subsequent years are still held. I would suspect that it was Abberline that had these asylum documents.

Additionally, in the name of light speculation, let us, for the sake of fancy if you will, accept the suspect Jacob Isenschmid as the possible killer of Nicholls and Chapman.
That leaves Stride, Eddowes and Kelly of the C5. Elizabeth Stride is possibly the most hotly contended victim when wondering if the same killer is responsible for all of the murders. After her, under the same terms, comes Mary Kelly.

Comparisons for Eddowes and Kelly, mutilation wise, are closer than Stride and Eddowes, and Stride and Kelly. However, we are now thinking in a different way, as a lone killer for all 5 victims, is not possible under this theory. Are we now talking in terms of a lone killer for the remaining three victims of the C5?, or a single killer for Stride, and a killer of the remaining two victims? Or another variation perhaps? Kelly has been suggested as well as a "different" victim. And if so, that leaves Stride and Eddowes as a pair or not. These possibilities are intruiging.

I suggest that he evidence found by Lynn Cates against Jacob Isenschmid now give us a completely different set of possibilities. Ripperology may well have turned an important and different corner thanks to Lynn Cates' digging around.

Do we now realise why "Jack the Ripper" was infact, as Anderson said, a myth? He was an invention in name, and thanks to MacNaughten's clearly influenced proclaimation based on a comment by a doctor that only ever saw one of the victims, can JTR's combined actions now be questioned and perhaps seen to be a myth also?

The possibilities are indeed intruiging. Especially the role, if any, of Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog, in any of this. It questions MacNaughten's three suspects, and questions Anderson's proclaimation of his "ascertained fact". It questions Abberline's Chapman idea, and it questions any suspect that links all 5 of the C5 together. This cannot be lightly ignored. These documents are of immense value to us all.

Ripperology may have turned a very important corner with this newly discovered, well-researched material into Jacob Isenschmid by Lynn Cates, and should I suggest, in all fairness, be seriously considered, by all.

best wishes

Phil

[tnb]

This is the dissertation I mentioned above, by Dan Norder.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-heartless.html

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello TNB. Excellent points! I think you are dead on about JI being a template for future JTR suspects. In particular, I believe Abberline and Thicke would have been deeply impressed in their future investigations. (And it wasn't for nearly a quarter of a century that the Chapman (SK) sociopath archetype seemed to gain ascendancy in FA's thought processes.)

Regarding the similarities: yes, they abound. (To see this we might all have a go at Gareth William's excellent dissertation.) Still, one gets the feeling that there are subtle differences. (And, indeed, many serial killers--PROVEN, not assumed, to be such--have committed murders more widely disparate than these.)

Here are a few differences:

1. C1 & C2--2 cuts to the throat (first, bleed the sheep, then try to decapitate); C4, only 1.

2. C1 & C2, dress lifted; C4, dress torn.

3. Facial mutilation--in particular, the nose of Kate. ("Keep your nose where it belongs!")

4. A real butcher (JI) taking out Annie's intestines allowed not a single rupture; a jack leg imitator cuts through and gets faecal material about.

5. Baxter, in his summary of the Stride killing, put it best--she had none of the skillful mutilations of C1 & C2; nor any of the unskilful ones of C4--possibly the work of an imitator. (paraphrase mine.)

Again, all I am seeking here is a fair hearing of the facts. If JI has a genuine alibi, I'll be the first to ditch him. But the Sugden dismissal leaves one dissatisfied.

All the best.
LC

[tnb]

Lynn, Phil, Cris et al - like many people I expect I have been watching this thread with great interest for the last couple of days. Time to add my tuppence I think.

Do we think it might be possible that, having ruled Isenchmidt out (rightly or wrongly) owing to their belief in a single killer, the police nevertheless took him as the template for their profile, ie 'not him but someone like him'? It could explain the preponderance of 'lunatics' amongst contemporary opinion as pointed out by Cris, and could it also throw a bit of light on how Kosminski came under the spotlight, as 'the next best lunatic' if you will? Certainly, if 'Kosminski was the suspect, etc' the police must have been hopping mad at having another potential ID be a no-go, after Isenchmidt's earlier.

IF we are to accept Isenchmidt as the killer of Nicholls and Chapman - and I think the gorilla has to be taken seriously now - then how would we propose to explain the similarities in Eddowes' (in particular) murder? It is surely too much of a leap for pure coincidence; are we perhaps going down the copycat road? I seem to remember there was a dissertation on here a while back, cannot for the life of me remember who by, which proposed that all the later mutilations could have been taken from newspaper reports of the earlier killings, including erroneous ones arising from mistakes such as Kelly's heart (IF it was removed). If so, then clearly we are not dealing with a sane, meek individual who one day read of a murder and thought 'good idea' but someone with likely proven form for violence who was influenced to change their MO. Which may bring Tabram back into it after all...?

Purely speculative at this point.

Fantastic find Lynn, which goes without saying.

[lynn cates]

objectivity

Hello Hunter. Excellent post. All I want to see is one or two people with open minds looking objectively at Isenschmid. If he did not kill Polly and Annie, very well. But to say he is innocent because the "other 3" were killed while he was incarcerated is poor procedure in my mind.

Thanks.

LC

[Hunter]

It seems that the whole theory of there being more then one killer was squashed from the start. Strange, considering they INCLUDED Tabram to start with, a totally different type of murder when compared with Nicholls and Chapman.

Hi Phil,

Many, at least early on, included Tabram because her murder was brutal - overkill if you will - and unusual, even by East End standards. They simply didn't know what they were dealing with. And then there's two more murders in rapid succession - all done with a knife, against a prostitute, with no apparent motive, in the same area, in the early morning hours. Modern police would likely make the same connection until the case was fleshed out. Of course, this one never was.

We know that Ludwig, who profiled similar to Isenschmid, went through a line up with inconclusive results. As Lynn stated, the medicos stopped the same from happening with Isenschmid and its a shame that it happened... and then the police files are incomplete too. He may not have been the murderer of Chapman. The police, all along got caught up in a 'lunatic' theory that could have been incorrect. But, some of the details, as Lynn has highlighted makes any rational person, even if they believe in a single serial killer, take pause and notice that Isenschmid could be the proverbial 1000 lb gorilla in the room.

Of all the contemporary suspects under investigation during the murders, this was the one the police liked the best... until there were more killings. Was it incorrect profiling on their part... or did they really have their man and then let the continuation of the murders change their opinion?

Some of the prime suspects they came up with in the end were 'lunatics' that had something happen to them - incarceration, suicide- etc.- soon after they thought the murders had stopped. And that was stated, by men like Anderson, Macnaghten and Cox as one of the reasons these men were picked.

[lynn cates]

definitive word

Hello Phil. I know that feeling. I've spent many an hour reading about a good suspect and then throwing him overboard because he didn't have an opportunity to kill all 5. After all, Dr. Bond (who saw one of them) and Sir MLM (who was only 6 months removed from the case) said it must be so. Definitive word.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn,

It seems that the whole theory of there being more then one killer was squashed from the start. Strange, considering they INCLUDED Tabram to start with, a totally different type of murder when compared with Nicholls and Chapman.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

sequel

Hello Hunter. Dr. Julius Mickle, attending physician at Grove Hall lunatic asylum, pronounced Mr. Isenschmid too ill to be put into an identity parade for Mrs. Fiddymont et al. (You have most likely already read Mickle's statement to the police concerning JI's being Leather Apron.)

Yes, once the "double event" happened, it seems JI fell through the cracks. (See Sugden on this score.)

The best.
LC

[Hunter]

Great stuff,

Does anyone know if the attempted ID ever took place or did it all come to a halt when the double murders happened? I can't find anything in the police files after the end of September.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn,

I have never thought of that. That is very thought provoking indeed. Association is often misinterpreted. I don't think you have misinterpreted this, and it is quite plausible.
Your presentation is excellent. I think this could be a very important find indeed.

best wishes

Phil