hutchinsons suspect

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Wasn’t it you who found a reference to a coat-stealing Joseph Isaacs, but were put off because the age wasn’t quite right? I can’t quite recall the details, but what was your reasoning for dismissing this as being the Isaacs we’re interested in, thus confirming the Lloyds Weekly article? Two coat-stealing men named Joseph Isaacs operating within a year of each other seems a very unlikely coincidence. If you were put off by the fact that the offense occurred in 1887 – as I recall it was - don’t be. As I said before, you don’t have any information as to when the “term of imprisonment” commenced, nor how long it lasted. Unless you’ve conducted further research that I don’t know about – in which case, I’m all ears – I don’t see why this particular Joseph Isaacs’s coat-stealing offense can’t have been the same incident referred to in Lloyds Weekly.

“- Dec. 14th, after the conclusion of those inquiries, Isaacs is finally sentenced for the charge made against him.”

For the theft, yes, but what you omitted to mention that it was on this date that Detective-Sergeant Record, H Division, informed the press that there was “no further charge against the prisoner”. In other words, the police were no longer considering Isaacs as a potential suspect in the Kelly murder. Why? Well, not because they had identified him as Astrakhan man and proved him innocent thanks to an absolutely impossible alibi, but because it was discovered that he had been in prison at the time of the murder. What surprises me is your unwillingness or inability to get your head around the concept of a career criminal like Isaacs committing more than one theft, being imprisoned as a result of both, and consequently being unable to commit two different crimes against a woman on two different dates.

“As we know Isaacs was sentenced on the 12th November to 21 days hard labor for stealing the coats”

Wait a moment – “stealing the coats”?

You might have to jar my memory here, Jon. If the offence for which he was imprisoned during the Farmer attack was for stealing “the coats”, then surely this was the “term of imprisonment” being referred to in Lloyds Weekly? If his was sentenced on the 12th, then he would obviously have been in police custody on the 9th awaiting that sentence. Bloody hell, it was far less complicated than I ever imagined. Now I understand all that fuss you’re making over the distinction between “held in custody” and “term of imprisonment”, but that really is a non-issue. It doesn’t matter if Lloyds were unclear as to what stage of his police confinement Isaacs happened to be at on 9th November – the relevant point is that they had ascertained that he was in police detention, and thus unable to commit the Kelly murder.

“The coats”...tsk, tsk, however did I miss that!

Sally, can you confirm this, if you're about?

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Hey Ben,

Just in passing, the coat-stealing Isaacs of 1887 wasn't the man being proposed by Jon (and him alone) as Hutchinson's suspect. They were distinctly separate individuals.

[Ben]

Cheers, Sally!

And this "term of imprisonment" that began on the 12th November, was it for coat-stealing as Jon claims?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Wasn’t it you who found a reference to a coat-stealing Joseph Isaacs, but were put off because the age wasn’t quite right?

Yes, it was that incident that has clouded the research. Quite obviously I had to prepare for the possibility that there were two Joseph Isaacs in a similar line of 'work'.

I finally established that indeed there were two men with the same name. I located their court & trial records which put them in separate prison's on the same dates - so there were two Joseph Isaacs, one being 46 yrs old (AKA Amos), the other being 29 (The watch thief) - this was in 1887.
I think I explained to you though that the older Isaacs had been under arrest for coat stealing in 1887, among other charges.

As I said before, you don’t have any information as to when the “term of imprisonment” commenced, nor how long it lasted. Unless you’ve conducted further research that I don’t know about – in which case, I’m all ears – I don’t see why this particular Joseph Isaacs’s coat-stealing offense can’t have been the same incident referred to in Lloyds Weekly.

Yes, I have obtained the court records.

For the theft, yes, but what you omitted to mention that it was on this date that Detective-Sergeant Record, H Division, informed the press that there was “no further charge against the prisoner”. In other words, the police were no longer considering Isaacs as a potential suspect in the Kelly murder. Why? Well, not because they had identified him as Astrakhan man and proved him innocent thanks to an absolutely impossible alibi, but because it was discovered that he had been in prison at the time of the murder.

I thought I made it clear.
The police knew on Dec 6th that he had been in prison from Nov 12th to Dec 3rd.
His court case was on Dec. 7th.
It was at this appearance that Det. Record requested his Remand as:
"there were some matters alleged against the Prisoner which it was desired to inquire into"

It only transpired after his 2nd court appearance, Dec 14th, that the reason he had been on remand was published in the press:
" and it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8. For that purpose he was remanded, but Detective Sergeant Record, H Division, said that so far there was no further charge against the prisoner."

So only then do we find out why Det. Record had him remanded.

Like I said, the police already knew before he went to court that he had been in prison from Nov 12th - Dec 3rd.
If you believe it was for the Millers Court murder, you are left with the problem of explaining why it was requested that he be held on Remand for a further week (Dec 7th - Dec 14th) while they investigate his whereabouts on Nov. 8/9th.

According to you, they already knew he was in prison.
But your quote contradicts you..

"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields. Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage."
Dec. 7th.

"That outrage" is clearly a reference to the latter point, not the former.
He could in no way be connected with the outrage against that woman in George Street.

[Ben]

Yes, it was that incident that has clouded the research. Quite obviously I had to prepare for the possibility that there were two Joseph Isaacs in a similar line of 'work'.

I finally established that indeed there were two men with the same name. I located their court & trial records which put them in separate prison's on the same dates - so there were two Joseph Isaacs, one being 46 yrs old (AKA Amos), the other being 29 (The watch thief) - this was in 1887.
I think I explained to you though that the older Isaacs had been under arrest for coat stealing in 1887, among other charges.

Thanks, Jon - that's that one put to bed then.

But what I'm most interested in now is ascertaining the offense for which our Joseph Isaacs was convicted in late 1888, resulting in the prison term that commenced on the 12th November. If it was for "stealing the coats" as you claim in post #43, then I submit that Lloyds Weekly are entirely vindicated. Never mind any fuss over the distinction between "held in custody" and "term of imprisonment"; the only relevant point here is that Isaacs would have been "held in custody", i.e. in police detention, on the 9th November awaiting his sentencing on the 12th, which means he could not have been sauntering the streets in flashy clothes far beyond his financial means and spending a long time in the room of a soon-to-be-butchered prostitute.

Like I said, the police already knew before he went to court that he had been in prison from Nov 12th - Dec 3rd.
If you believe it was for the Millers Court murder, you are left with the problem of explaining why it was requested that he be held on Remand for a further week (Dec 7th - Dec 14th) while they investigate his whereabouts on Nov. 8/9th.

He would have been on remand anyway on account of the watch theft. The police simply used the opportunity of his police detention to investigate his possible involvement in the Kelly murder, and then after it transpired that he had been in police custody on the 9th November, awaiting sentencing for an earlier offense, the police dismissed him as a potential ripper but kept him in custody to await sentencing for the watch theft. What else were they going to do - send him home? It wasn't as if not being Jack the Ripper abrogated the necessity for punishment for the lesser crime of stealing a watch.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

But what I'm most interested in now is ascertaining the offense for which our Joseph Isaacs was convicted in late 1888, resulting in the prison term that commenced on the 12th November. If it was for "stealing the coats" as you claim in post #43, then I submit that Lloyds Weekly are entirely vindicated. Never mind any fuss over the distinction between "held in custody" and "term of imprisonment"; the only relevant point here is that Isaacs would have been "held in custody", i.e. in police detention, on the 9th November awaiting his sentencing on the 12th, which means he could not have been sauntering the streets in flashy clothes far beyond his financial means and spending a long time in the room of a soon-to-be-butchered prostitute.

Ah yes, therein lies the issue Ben, as I'm sure you and I have both remarked upon more than once during these Isaacstrachan discussions.

Isaacs may well have begun yet another prison term on 12th November but of course, he wasn't arrested and tried on the same day. When was he arrested? You know, I don't think we know.

Jon would like it to be 'over the weekend' [from my previously bookmarked posts...] but I don't think he can prove that, because I don't think the proof is to be had.

Ultimately, what we have is a contemporary press report which tells us that he was not at liberty on 9th November. As you say, it hardly matters whether he was in prison or awaiting trial in custody - the effect is the same.

The 'other' Joseph Isaacs, incidentally, was born in c.1839. His first convictions were as a teenager, continuing until up to his death; he had a string of aliases longer than your arm; convictions across the country; and specialised in housebreaking. There is some evidence that he was involved in illegal boxing operations. As far as I know, he wasn't Jewish.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks, Jon - that's that one put to bed then.

But what I'm most interested in now is ascertaining the offense for which our Joseph Isaacs was convicted in late 1888, resulting in the prison term that commenced on the 12th November. If it was for "stealing the coats" as you claim in post #43, then I submit that Lloyds Weekly are entirely vindicated. Never mind any fuss over the distinction between "held in custody" and "term of imprisonment"; the only relevant point here is that Isaacs would have been "held in custody", i.e. in police detention, on the 9th November awaiting his sentencing on the 12th, which means he could not have been sauntering the streets in flashy clothes far beyond his financial means and spending a long time in the room of a soon-to-be-butchered prostitute.

Just a small formality. The police would not have held him in custody in a police station between Nov 9th-12th. He would have been remanded to a prison and then produced back to the court who originally remanded him in custody.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ben]

Ultimately, what we have is a contemporary press report which tells us that he was not at liberty on 9th November. As you say, it hardly matters whether he was in prison or awaiting trial in custody - the effect is the same

Exactly, Sally.

I chastise myself in many ways for having failed to spot this earlier; I must have been muddling my coats with my watches! It's looking more and more likely that the coat theft alluded to in Lloyds Weekly ultimately provided him with an alibi for both the Kelly murder and the Farmer attack. I'm afraid Jon will have quite a job arguing that a person who was sentenced on the 12th was completely at liberty three days earlier.

Thanks for the additional information on t'other bloke!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

The police would not have held him in custody in a police station between Nov 9th-12th. He would have been remanded to a prison and then produced back to the court who originally remanded him in custody.

I appreciate the info, Trevor. Even better!

Which means Lloyds weren't exactly inaccurate to use the term "imprisonment".

[Wickerman]

Just a small formality. The police would not have held him in custody in a police station between Nov 9th-12th. He would have been remanded to a prison and then produced back to the court who originally remanded him in custody.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor.
Isn't theft of a coat (in this case, 2 coats) a misdemeanor? No burglary involved, no violence, just a snatch and run scenario.

Why wouldn't he have been issued with a summonze to appear in court?

[Wickerman]

... Never mind any fuss over the distinction between "held in custody" and "term of imprisonment"; the only relevant point here is that Isaacs would have been "held in custody", i.e. in police detention,...

From what I have learned off-list, the decision to hold someone charged with a misdemeanor, whether to hold him in custody or issue a summonze and let go, rests with the officer at the station. It is purely his determination.

Reasons to hold someone might be:
- If the accused displayed threatening behaviour towards or likely to interfere with the witness.
- If the police had reason to believe the accused would abscond (ie; he has no fixed address).
(At this time he resided at Paternoster Row.)

The officer making the charge will determine the appropriate procedure.

Given that Mary Cusins heard him pacing his room, its pretty well clear which procedure was followed.

[Wickerman]

Isaacs may well have begun yet another prison term on 12th November but of course, he wasn't arrested and tried on the same day. When was he arrested? You know, I don't think we know.

I do have the court records, I know when he was arrested. Joseph Isaacs was arrested on the 8th November in Barnet, after removing two coats from an Inn where he had just spent the night.
The issue of where he spent the night of 8th/9th is still to be resolved, and it may never be.

I sought a more experienced opinion off-list about a month ago to try determine what the procedure would have been, and what his crime was classed as, either misdemeanor or felony.

Nothing is really 100% clear. For a misdemeanor the accused was typically issued a summonze to appear in court. Whereas with a felony it is more likely he would be detained. However, even some lessor felonies allowed the issuance of a summonze instead of detainment.

To add to the confusion, his next escapade, the watch theft was described as a felony, the cost of the watch was 30/-. Likewise, the total sum of the two coats was also 30/- shillings.
In neither case was there a burglary, nor violence.
So, was his Barnet theft a misdemeanor, or a felony, and if a felony, then likely a Lessor Felony?

One witness to the Barnet theft, a policeman, appeared at his Worship St. court trial (for the watch theft) and described his previous Barnet theft as a felony, but was he correct?

I still have a few lines of inquiry to pursue, but there doesn't appear to be anything earth shattering to reveal at this point. Nothing really concrete, one way or the other, either.

In other words, no firm answers.
Misdemeanor, or felony?
Issued a Summonze, or held in custody?

The only firm results I have unearthed is that the research done by Charles Van Onselen on Joseph Isaacs, which he did for his book The Fox and the Flies, is riddled with errors.

[Sally]

Hi Jon

Well, that's interesting. I have to say though, that considering the report in Lloyds, it looks very much as though Isaacs spent those days and nights leading to his trial and conviction in custody. Doesn't the court record corroborate the report in Lloyds? I'd say so.

I'm also bound to say, much as it pains me to cast aspersions on the character of a man dead for some time now, that had he been summoned and not detained, he'd have been on the first train out of Dodge. Slippery as a bucket of eels, that one.

The only firm results I have unearthed is that the research done by Charles Van Onselen on Joseph Isaacs, which he did for his book The Fox and the Flies, is riddled with errors.

What, you mean he wasn't Joseph Silver?? Well, no, but strangely enough, there's a funny story there - you know what they say, truth is stranger than fiction.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Well, that's interesting. I have to say though, that considering the report in Lloyds, it looks very much as though Isaacs spent those days and nights leading to his trial and conviction in custody. Doesn't the court record corroborate the report in Lloyds? I'd say so.

Hi Sally.
The problem is, I searched Lloyds, and they consistently use "held/detained in custody" when they were referring to an accused person still being investigated, and before his court appearance.

It doesn't sit right to suddenly argue that they made a mistake this time only.
That's like special pleading, especially when Cusins claims he was in his room that night.

So then I searched for "term of imprisonment", once again its use by Lloyds was consistent - they knew the difference.

All that aside, we do have the press reporting that Isaacs "could in no way be connected" with the Farmer assault, in the publication before his court appearance dated Dec. 7th. (it was at this hearing that he was Remanded).

Therefore, the police knew he was in prison, and his term ran from 12th Nov. - 3rd Dec., so why are they now detaining him from the 7th to the 14th Dec. to trace his whereabouts on the night on the 8th/9th November?

This can only mean he was not detained at the time of Kelly's murder.

Surely they cannot 'know' he was in prison from Nov. 12th, but then 'not know' he had been held in custody prior to his appearance in court.
You don't put someone on Remand so you can ask the desk Sergeant if he had been in custody - that doesn't make any sense either.
They obviously had some searching inquiries to make that would take several days.

I'm also bound to say, much as it pains me to cast aspersions on the character of a man dead for some time now, that had he been summoned and not detained, he'd have been on the first train out of Dodge. Slippery as a bucket of eels, that one.

But that is true about most of his class, yet summonses were issued for that very crime.

What, you mean he wasn't Joseph Silver?? Well, no, but strangely enough, there's a funny story there - you know what they say, truth is stranger than fiction.

No, I don't mean that.
Van Onselen made several claims about Isaacs that are found to be incorrect.

[Ben]

Thanks for the information, Jon.

Arrested on the 8th, you say?

In which case, I submit that the conclusion that Isaacs was in police confinement on the 9th November is more or less inescapable. There remains an exceptionally slim possibility that he wasn't detained between the arrest and the sentencing, but it would have been quite the dopey police force to have allowed him to wander free - a known itinerant - and potentially slip the net entirely, and besides which, the Lloyds Weekly article serves as independent corroboration that he was in detention at that time for stealing coats.

Just a couple of other points.

It is very unlikely that the police spent the entire 7th-14th December period investigating his potential culpability in the Kelly murder. Once they had resolved that issue, i.e. fairly quickly, he would still have been held on remand for the offense of stealing a watch, which is why he spent the days leading up to the entry of his guilty plea in custody. Also, there is nothing remotely unusual about the Famer and Kelly alibis not being procured simultaneously. As Trevor points out, he would have been "remanded to a prison" prior to his 12th November sentencing, and there is no guarantee it was the same prison he ended up in between the 12th November and 3rd December. There are various reasons why it might have taken slightly longer to ascertain his "remanded" period before he commenced the "term of imprisonment" proper.

Obviously further research is in order, but as things currently stand, I'd say congratulations are in order, Jon, for clearing up a 100-year-old mystery. It is no mean feat to establish a near certain alibi for a suspect all these years after the event, especially after several books have inferred his possible guilt. We were all worried for a while that the Lloyds Weekly article lacked corroboration, but you went and found it in the form of an arrest record for Isaacs for the very theft of stealing a coat.

Hats off to you for that, or coats if you prefer!

All the best,
Ben