hutchinsons suspect

[ChrisGeorge]

Hell all

We are offering as a preview of what Ripperologist 146 has to offer, a pdf download of the article, "Terror Australis: Whatever Happened to George Hutchinson," by Stephen Senise. Go to

http://www.ripperologist.biz/pdf/146GeorgeHutchinson.pdf

Best regards

Chris

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The magistrate wasn’t going to ask any such thing because a) Tyce wouldn’t have known where Isaacs was on the 9th, and b) Isaacs had not been charged for anything he was alleged to have done on the 9th. The court appearance related exclusively to the theft of a watch. If the question of alibis required looking into, there was the whole remand period for that.

Your suggestion that the magistrate could suddenly turn a hearing for watch theft into a murder trial is palpably ludicrous. He would absolutely not have requested an alibi for the murder of Kelly during a police court session for theft, just because some of the relevant people happened to be “gathered together”. It doesn’t work like that in real life. Again, if the magistrate had asked for an alibi, the response from the Barnet PC would have been a resounding “don’t know”.

Due to the attending Constable knowing whether Isaacs had been remanded or summonsed to court in the Barnet case, the magistrate at Worship Street can avoid the need to grant the request for a remand to Det. Record by simply asking the PC from Barnet if Isaacs had been in their custody.
It really is as simple as that.

This, of course, is all rather academic, any questions of such importance would have been posed to Barnet Police immediately, the previous day.
The request for a remand on the 7th being the result of Barnet Police not knowing where Isaacs was.

Which says…?

He speaks to the 21 day sentence issued on 12 Nov. at Barnet.

The “convention”, incidentally, is that is falls to whoever advances the original claim to provide the evidence supporting it; it is not incumbent on those requesting that evidence to prove a negative.

It is incumbent on both parties to have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter before they engage in debate. The consequence of one not being so informed is that he/she will demand proof of every statement being made.
If you knew the responsibilities of the arresting constable you would not insist he knows nothing of the prisoners fate between the arrest, and the appearance in court.
Proving, that Holloway was thee remand prison is another example of this rather one-sided debate. You could have looked that up yourself.

According to you, “four other cases that appeared at Barnet on the same day (Nov. 12th), mentioned that the prisoner was appearing in response to a summons” but that no summons was mentioned in Isaacs’s case. My conclusion – a logical one, I thought, and consistent with the evidence – was that no summons was mentioned because no summons existed.

Six cases were heard that day, four mentioned a summons, the other two made no mention of the reason they appeared.

What “inspector” are you talking about?

You are trying to make a song and dance about how long it would take to confirm an alibi, should this hypothetical alibi ever have existed.
I am trying to make it simple for you, even if Const. Tyce did not know, a quick telegraph to the station is all that would be required, the confirmation being given by the Inspector at Barnet. No lengthy investment of manhours searching cabinet after cabinet is necessary, any required paperwork will be dispatched later if requested.

The police were making inquiries in the neighbourhood about Isaacs’s possible involvement in the Farmer attack, not the Kelly murder.

Where does it say what they were investigating?

We read they "made every every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect". Why?, because "in the neighbourhood" is where he was on 9th Nov.
He was being sought initially to explain his actions after the Kelly murder - nothing has changed. Had he been elsewhere, at Barnet, their investigations would have centered in north London.

They were only “reticent” when the ends of justice demanded that they be so, and that certainly did not include concealing – for no good reason - the fact that a man had been proven innocent of a most dreadful crime.

But they didn't keep any 'proof of innocence" secret, they let the press know he was not involved.

What the actual feck are you talking about? Here is the sentence that you’re having trouble with again, and it is from the Northern Daily Telegraph, 7th December: “Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage.” In other words, the police have been looking and looking, but are so far unable to finding anything linking Isaacs to the Farmer attack. That is what that sentence means. It does not mean “the police have located a cast-iron alibi”.

Let me give you another example that demonstrates the point.
"It was subsequently ascertained that the man had been apprehended for stealing a watch".
That line was appended to the quote I gave you previously, here is the complete quote:

"Great reticence is observed regarding the affair, and at Commercial-street station the officials deny all knowledge of the arrest, although the man is understood to be detained there. It was subsequently ascertained that the man had been apprehended for stealing a watch".

Clearly, "subsequently ascertained" does not refer to the police. They had not made any investigation of Isaacs prior to his arrest at Bow-street for stealing the watch.
The watch theft had been the very reason they were able to bring him from Bow-street in the first place. "Subsequently ascertained" refers very clearly to press inquiries, not police inquiries.

Yes, the arresting constable was required to be in attendance at the police court with his prisoner – no problem here at all. He obviously appeared with Isaacs at the Barnet Petty Sessions on the 12th November. That does not, for one moment, permit us to conclude that the constable in question had any knowledge of the whereabouts of his “charge” between the arrest and the court appearance;

Well, lets just walk through this hypothetical remand procedure one step at a time.

- First, the arrest on Thursday.
- Then, detained at Barnet overnight (24 hr max) to await his appearance before a magistrate on Friday.
- On Friday, appearing before the Magistrate in the company of the arresting officer, Isaacs is remand to Holloway for the weekend.
- On Monday he is brought back to Barnet Police Court to be charged with theft.

Now, explain to me how it is that the arresting officer does not know about Isaacs being remanded in Holloway, when he is right there in court along side Isaacs on Friday?

I'm intrigued.

Have you forgotten what Trevor said, that Isaacs must have been in court first, to be remanded?
Don't you recall me saying only a magistrate can issue a remand?
If he appeared in Barnet Court on Monday as a result of being on remand (as is your view), then he MUST have been in that same court less than eight days prior WITH the arresting officer.
(The max. term for a remand being eight days)

Now, do you want to rethink this?

[harry]

Why does the arresting officer have to be in court with the accused?In what connection.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Due to the attending Constable knowing whether Isaacs had been remanded or summonsed to court in the Barnet case, the magistrate at Worship Street can avoid the need to grant the request for a remand to Det. Record by simply asking the PC from Barnet if Isaacs had been in their custody.”

No.

As I’ve already explained, H division would have been interested in Isaacs’s whereabouts on the nights of previous murders, not just Kelly’s, and they would have used the remand period to conduct investigations accordingly. The watch theft hearing was connected exclusively to that charge, and the magistrate could not legally “use” that court session as a platform for assessing Isaacs’s candidacy as a Jack the Ripper suspect. It just didn’t happen, and couldn’t have happened, regardless of how “convenient” you think it might have been for Bushby to demand ripper alibis during a court hearing for watch theft.

“It is incumbent on both parties to have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter before they engage in debate.”

If you had “sufficient knowledge of the subject matter” you wouldn’t persist in the laughable delusion that Isaacs, a homeless career thief, was sent home with a summons following his arrest for yet another theft, rather than being kept in police detention as logic, common sense, your own recruited expert, and overwhelming evidence all dictate that he would have been. You only persist in it because you think it might lend support for your infamous, frighteningly bad, and utterly impossible theory that Isaacs was Astrakhan man.

I couldn’t give a monkey’s where the remand prison was. It doesn't affect any of my observations in the slightest; I was mildly curious, that’s all. The only noteworthy observation about its identification as Holloway is that it was further away from Leman Street than Pentonville, making it even less of a doddle to access the paperwork that would have confirmed Isaacs’s imprisonment on the 9th.

“He speaks to the 21 day sentence issued on 12 Nov. at Barnet.”

How interesting, so nothing about the actual arrest? That’s rather unusual, isn’t it? One would expect the arresting officer to make some reference to his role in apprehending the prisoner, whereas one wouldn’t expect him to have any particular knowledge about his ultimate sentence. Unless, of course, the Barnet policeman who gave evidence on the 7th was not the arresting constable but a mere representative of S Division tasked simply with supplying details of Isaacs’s sentence to the court. Either way, I’m sure your next long post will quickly assuage my doubts in this regard. “It appears he was the arresting constable” was your previous statement, and I’d be interested to know if there is anything beyond this policeman’s presence in court (where “he speaks to the 21 day sentence…”) that might conveyed such an “appearance”.

“Six cases were heard that day, four mentioned a summons, the other two made no mention of the reason they appeared.”

It obviously wasn’t a “summons” in the other two cases. What your research demonstrates is that a summons was mentioned only in cases where it applied, which it definitely didn’t in Isaacs’s case. The reporter (in that case) clearly couldn’t be arsed to specify that the prisoner had been behind bars immediately following the arrest and immediately prior to that court appearance, understandably so.

“You are trying to make a song and dance about how long it would take to confirm an alibi, should this hypothetical alibi ever have existed.
I am trying to make it simple for you, even if Const. Tyce did not know, a quick telegraph to the station is all that would be required”

I’m succeeding in making a “song and a dance” about it, because it seems to be the only way of impressing upon you the futility of claiming that a “quick telegraph” was all that was required to establish an alibi for a ripper murder.

I repeat: We’re talking about the attempted procurement of an alibi for the most infamous murder the country had ever witnessed. If that didn’t require “investigation” I don’t know what does, but you seem very insistent that Ask Jeeves would have done the trick, for some reason. Bear in mind that Mary Curtain-Twitcher had claimed that Isaacs was pacing his room on the night of that murder, and H-Dvision need to be absolutely certain that she had made an error (or lied) before dismissing Isaacs as a suspect, which they eventually did. Barnet Police were not likely to get upset and offended if they discovered that the division lumbered with the Whitechapel investigation were being extra vigilant to ensure mistakes weren’t made, even if it meant the odd double-check, and paying a personal visit to the remand prison in question to consult the documentation, and wardens who might have been responsible for Isaacs there.

If H division took such steps – and they were more than likely to have done so – it would neatly and plausibly account for the very slight delay in cementing his prison alibi for the Kelly murder.

I’ll be reposting that entire paragraph whenever I see you use the phrase “quick telegraph” in this context.

“Where does it say what they were investigating?”

Here:

“The detectives at the East End made every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately. It was subsequently ascertained that the man was apprehended for stealing a watch, with which offence he has been charged. 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.”

The police were led to believe he was connected with the Farmer attack, and accordingly “made every inquiry in the neighbourhood” in an attempt to establish whether or not he was involved in that crime. As “exhaustive” as these “enquiries” reportedly were, they did not result in any evidence being located that would support a case for his involvement, which is worlds away from your evidenceless insistence that H division had already ruled out any possibility of Isaacs committing the Farmer crime because they had already learned from S Division that he was imprisoned at the time. They clearly had not. Indeed, it is quite clear that Barnet only became involved once Isaacs himself had informed H division that he had alibis for the crimes he stood flimsily accused of. If the police had known on the 6th December that Isaacs was behind bars on the 21st November, they had nothing to lose by relating as much to the press.

“Now, do you want to rethink this?”

Well, let’s see now; do I want to "rethink" my opinion that a homeless, itinerant “habitual criminal” would be released onto the streets with a piece of paper telling him to be a good boy and come back a few days later to receive a prison sentence? No, Jon, I really don’t, because there’s no way in Zeus’s bum-hole that such an impossibly ludicrous event would ever occur.

Isaacs wasn’t Astrakhan man. It’s not a possibility - not even a remote one. Be interested in Isaacs as a worthy area of study in his own right, and take pride in the fact that your own research that has shed some welcome light on this character. Just do it without the Hutch agenda.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

As I’ve already explained, H division would have been interested in Isaacs’s whereabouts on the nights of previous murders, not just Kelly’s, and they would have used the remand period to conduct investigations accordingly.

Hi Ben.
Yes, I recall you postulating to that effect, but you had not justified why.

Abberline has no cause to believe Isaacs was connected to any other murders. In fact, the police investigate each murder on its own merits.
As we know Isaacs was 'watched' in connection with the Millers Court murder, then it follows that any subsequent investigation will be solely concerned with that murder alone. Why he left Paternoster Row so abruptly, and his movements on the night in question.

How interesting, so nothing about the actual arrest? That’s rather unusual, isn’t it?

No, not unusual at all.
We have no record of what question was put to him, we only have what the recorder chose to write.
There is also no account by Det. Record concerning the request for a remand, the reason being the same. The request for remand did not concern the watch theft, so it was left out.

One would expect the arresting officer to make some reference to his role in apprehending the prisoner,...

On the contrary, a constable giving evidence will not provide a biographical account of his involvement - he will only answer to the question asked.
The recorder then only captures what he thinks is relevant.

(This is another example of someone not knowing procedure)

It obviously wasn’t a “summons” in the other two cases. What your research demonstrates is that a summons was mentioned only in cases where it applied, which it definitely didn’t in Isaacs’s case.

It had to be either summons, bail or remand.
(We can rule out warrant)

The reporter (in that case) clearly couldn’t be arsed to specify that the prisoner had been behind bars immediately following the arrest and immediately prior to that court appearance, understandably so.

He couldn't be arsed to write "bail", or "remand", but could be arsed to write a longer word like "summons"?
Care to provide some rationale to that thinking?

I’m succeeding in making a “song and a dance” about it, because it seems to be the only way of impressing upon you the futility of claiming that a “quick telegraph” was all that was required to establish an alibi for a ripper murder.

It serves no purpose for you to cut and paste an irrelevant paragraph.
A telegraph is quicker than a carriage ride, and can be answered within the hour.
One of the misunderstandings I see here is that you seem to think that because 19th century policing was heavy on paperwork, you assume it was not efficient.
They were very efficient.

... and paying a personal visit to the remand prison in question to consult the documentation, and wardens who might have been responsible for Isaacs there.

The paperwork to send Isaacs to the remand prison is kept at Barnet Police station. A telegraph request from Worship Street to Barnet will be answered by an officer pulling that paperwork - simple.

If H division took such steps – and they were more than likely to have done so – it would neatly and plausibly account for the very slight delay in cementing his prison alibi for the Kelly murder.

Not even close.
All that would be sorted out the day of his arrest, before Isaacs went to court the next day.

I’ll be reposting that entire paragraph whenever I see you use the phrase “quick telegraph” in this context.

Which will demonstrate your continued failure to understand the simplicity of the point being made.

The police were led to believe he was connected with the Farmer attack,...

Come on Ben, even you should see how false that is.
- Isaacs was reported missing by Cusins on Nov. 10th.
- Police asked Cusins to keep a lookout for him.
- Cusins saw him Dec. 5th, followed him, and reported him to Bow-street police.
- Abberline came to take Isaacs into custody.

He was apprehended as a person of interest in the Millers Court murder - nothing whatsoever to do with the Farmer case.
That storyline is just the press speculating.

The police knew Isaacs was arrested for stealing a watch, it was the press who did not know why he was arrested.
Therefore, it is the press who are investigating, not the police.
After his arrest the police investigated his involvement:
"The detectives at the East End made every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately."

So obviously Isaacs had not told them he was in police custody.

Then we read the press "subsequently ascertained" he was arrested for stealing the watch - not the police, they already knew.

Have you got it now?

Well, let’s see now; do I want to "rethink" my opinion that a homeless, itinerant “habitual criminal” would be released onto the streets...

No, rethink your assertion that the arresting officer did not know the fate of Isaacs when he was right beside him in court.

Isaacs wasn’t Astrakhan man.

You hope!

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So no evidence, then, that the Barnet policeman who was present in court on the 7th December for the watch incident had anything to do with Isaacs’s arrest a month earlier for stealing coats? I wasn't terribly optimistic, I must admit. The evidence suggests that the PC was a mere representative for S division who was supplied with the pertinent information relating to Isaacs’s sentence in the latter case. In other words, all that discussion over the extent of the “arresting officer’s” insight into a defendant’s remand or summons amounted to nothing, because all indications point to there being nobody in that 7th December court room with the knowledge available to resolve that issue.

“On the contrary, a constable giving evidence will not provide a biographical account of his involvement - he will only answer to the question asked.
The recorder then only captures what he thinks is relevant.”

Really? So he thought a boring detail like the length of Isaacs’s sentence was “relevant” enough to “record”, but didn’t fancy including information that would a) identify the Barnet PC as the arresting officer in the coat theft case, and b) inform the public about an “alibi” for the most infamous murder in history? No, is the answer to the one. Had such details emerged they would certainly have been recorded.

“He couldn't be arsed to write "bail", or "remand", but could be arsed to write a longer word like "summons"?
Care to provide some rationale to that thinking?”

There is nothing remarkable or noteworthy about a defendant remaining in prison from his arrest to his court appearance, whereas as a defendant appearing in court in response to a “summons” – which an habitual thief like Isaacs would not have done, and would never be asked to do – demonstrates a certain degree of honesty that might may have been of mild curiosity to a reporter (or a “recorder”), since it would indicate that he chose to face his punishment rather than flout the law.

“A telegraph is quicker than a carriage ride, and can be answered within the hour.”

Telegram, Jon.

The telegraph was the apparatus, whereas the actual transmissions were known as telegrams.

Since the issue of telegrams surfaced a few months ago here on the Hutchinson threads, I was prompted by curiosity to revisit the discussions in question with a view to assessing your consistency of approach to that subject, and I have to say, unfortunately, that things aren’t looking at all good for you at the moment. You stated, amongst other things, that Abberline would not have received a “telegram” at Leman Street alerting him to fact that a brand new “witness” had come forward with an extraordinary story. Indeed, you lashed out with accusations of “invention” in response to anyone who concluded, logically, that he would have first learned of Hutchinson's existence this way.

Bearing the above in mind, what’s with the complete U-turn and sudden insistence that the paperwork relating to Isaacs's “remand” or “summons” was only supplied after an initial “telegram” was provided, which you incredibly claim would have been sufficient to declare Isaacs provably innocent of all culpability in the Whitechapel murders?

“He was apprehended as a person of interest in the Millers Court murder”

No, he wasn’t.

He was never "apprehended" for any such thing. He was apprehended on more than one occasion for theft, and it was only after his arrest for one such crime that the police were able to take advantage of a remand period to investigate his potential involvement in the ripper murders – of which we now know he was clearly innocent, thanks in no small part to his prison alibi for the 9th November, which was mentioned in Lloyds Weekly on 23rd December.

"The detectives at the East End made every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately."

So obviously Isaacs had not told them he was in police custody.”

And you’re basing this assumption on what Isaacs had told them? Do you think that is how competent investigators operate; by abandoning their investigations on the say-so of the person they’re investigating?

The reality is that the police would have continued to conduct investigations in the neighbourhood – despite what Isaacs might have told them – until such time as his claims could be proved true or false.

Found any other "Isaacstrakhan" supporters, yet?

[Ben]

Abberline has no cause to believe Isaacs was connected to any other murders.

Yes, he definitely did.

He had a known criminal who lived in the epicentre of the murder zone and who threatened violence against all women over the age of 17, according to Cornelius Oaks. Abberline, not having a reputation as a negligent pillock, would have recognised an obvious advantage in using Isaacs’s convenient remand as an opportunity to investigate Oaks’s claims.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

So no evidence, then, that the Barnet policeman who was present in court on the 7th December for the watch incident had anything to do with Isaacs’s arrest a month earlier for stealing coats? I wasn't terribly optimistic, I must admit.

Towards that particular point, and whether Isaacs did appear in court on the Friday, I submitted both questions to the archivist two months ago.
I am still waiting for a reply.
Registered mail, contrary to what you may have heard, apparently does disappear.

The evidence suggests that the PC was a mere representative for S division who was supplied with the pertinent information relating to Isaacs’s sentence in the latter case.

Lack of evidence, is not evidence.
There is nothing to suggest Cst. Tyce was a mere representative.
Neither is there anything to suggest the police would send a "mere representative".

Really? So he thought a boring detail like the length of Isaacs’s sentence was “relevant” enough to “record”, but didn’t fancy including information that would a) identify the Barnet PC as the arresting officer in the coat theft case, and b) inform the public about an “alibi” for the most infamous murder in history? No, is the answer to the one. Had such details emerged they would certainly have been recorded.

Like I said, not relevant.

There is nothing remarkable or noteworthy about a defendant remaining in prison from his arrest to his court appearance,

Lloyds did not say Isaacs was "in prison", such a loose comment could have more than one interpretation.
Lloyds described it as "term of imprisonment", a very specific condition, which we "know" only commenced on 12th Nov. Which dictates that Lloyds were referring to the attack on Farmer.
Lloyds knew the difference between "in custody" and "term of imprisonment", they had never confused the terms before, no reason to think they did in this case either.

Telegram, Jon.

The telegraph was the apparatus, whereas the actual transmissions were known as telegrams.

It could also have been confirmed over the telephone, oh... excuse me, a telephone is "the apparatus", I should say "by voice" - obviously that is clearer to you.


Really Ben, are you so short of something to be "right" about that you descend to pedantry?

You stated, amongst other things, that Abberline would not have received a “telegram” at Leman Street alerting him to fact that a brand new “witness” had come forward with an extraordinary story. Indeed, you lashed out with accusations of “invention” in response to anyone who concluded, logically, that he would have first learned of Hutchinson's existence this way.

Bearing the above in mind, what’s with the complete U-turn and sudden insistence that the paperwork relating to Isaacs's “remand” or “summons” was only supplied after an initial “telegram” was provided, which you incredibly claim would have been sufficient to declare Isaacs provably innocent of all culpability in the Whitechapel murders?

I don't see the point you are laboring to make.

Bow-street police station telegraphed Leman St to advise Abberline they had Isaacs in custody for watch theft.
Telegraph was used all the time, in fact in Capturing Jack the Ripper, you can read some of the uses of the telegraph.

When you accuse me of saying something from months ago that you take issue with, can you provide the quote?

I think you are referring to this press account on how Hutchinson's story was received by Abberline:

"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police, and the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

"this mans story"....."it was forwarded to the headquarters of H Division".
"Det. Abberline (et.al) were present".

Abberline was at Leman-st. Headquarters to receive Hutchinson's statement.
(Therefore, it was written at Commercial-st. in his absence).

There is no mention of a telegram, or communication by telegraph.
The telegraph was expensive, there was no need to send three pages of statement by the expensive telegraph when Leman-st station was just a few minutes carriage ride away.

As there was no other opinion on this activity to indicate a telegraph was used, then there is no basis to suggest it - therefore, the use of the telegraph in this instance is "an invention".
How else could it be described?

No, he wasn’t.

He was never "apprehended" for any such thing. He was apprehended on more than one occasion for theft,

Isaacs was a "person of interest" at the time of his arrest.
That, is what I was saying.

When he was apprehended, he was a Person of Interest, but arrested for theft, yes. But, he was a Person of Interest in the Millers court murder.
So that is the murder that he was associated with, not the Farmer case.

And you’re basing this assumption on what Isaacs had told them?

Obviously, as he had the most to lose.
You said yourself, that if threatened with a murder charge you would make damn sure the police knew you were in their custody (if you were in Isaacs position).
Apparently, he couldn't tell them that.
He has no reason to keep it a secret, in fact he has a great deal to lose.
Conclusion - Isaacs was not in police custody.

Do you think that is how competent investigators operate; by abandoning their investigations on the say-so of the person they’re investigating?

A competent investigator will ask the accused first. If Isaacs says he was in custody, Abberline will check.
If Isaacs says he was out on the streets, Abberline will spend several days investigating his whereabouts. Which is exactly what happened.

Found any other "Isaacstrakhan" supporters, yet?

I tend to stand on my own two feet Ben, you should try it some time.

[Wickerman]

Yes, he definitely did.

He had a known criminal who lived in the epicentre of the murder zone and who threatened violence against all women over the age of 17, according to Cornelius Oaks. Abberline, not having a reputation as a negligent pillock, would have recognised an obvious advantage in using Isaacs’s convenient remand as an opportunity to investigate Oaks’s claims.

No-one fitting that description had been seen in the vicinity of the previous murders.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Towards that particular point, and whether Isaacs did appear in court on the Friday, I submitted both questions to the archivist two months ago.
I am still waiting for a reply.”

I hope a reply will be forthcoming, but until then we’ll just have to accept that there is no available evidence to support the contention that the constable responsible for arresting Isaacs in Barnet was the same officer who appeared as a witness – imparting no details about the arrest itself – at the Worship Street hearing for a separate offense on the 7th December.

“There is nothing to suggest Cst. Tyce was a mere representative.”

There is no onus upon me to prove a negative – that’s not how these things work. If you have evidence to suggest the Barnet PC in attendance was more than just a representative tasked with supplying such information as the length of Isaacs’s sentence (the null hypothesis, in this case), it is incumbent on you to provide it.

“Lloyds did not say Isaacs was "in prison", such a loose comment could have more than one interpretation.
Lloyds described it as "term of imprisonment", a very specific condition, which we "know" only commenced on 12th”

If we was remanded – and we know for a virtual certainty that he was – the prison “term” would have commenced immediately following his arrest, and was only interrupted by the brief court appearance where he received his sentence. We needn’t even assume that Lloyds were supplied with such nitty-gritty details as the distinction between a "remand" prison and an "actual" prison; not when the only relevant piece of information was that Isaacs was behind bars on the morning of the 9th. The police undoubtedly tipped Lloyds off to the effect that the suspect was in prison at the time, and the latter drew their own conclusion - one which neatly coincided with the abrupt loss of interest in Isaacs as a suspect.

“excuse me, a telephone is "the apparatus", I should say "by voice"..

No, you shouldn’t, because a telephonic transmission is not known as a “voice”; it is known as a phone call, whereas a telegraphic transmission is known as a telegram, not a telegraph. I don’t make the rules, I’m afraid, and no, that does not make me a pedant - in fact, such an accusation might be better levelled at those who argue that “imprisonment” is something hugely different from a “term of imprisonment”.

“I don't see the point you are laboring to make.

Bow-street police station telegraphed Leman St to advise Abberline they had Isaacs in custody for watch theft.
Telegraph was used all the time, in fact in Capturing Jack the Ripper, you can read some of the uses of the telegraph.”

The point I’m succeeding in making is that your treatment of press reports is as inconsistent as your arguments relating to the use of the “telegraph”. You’re quite happy to dismiss the Lloyds Weekly article as an uncorroborated press account, and yet you appear to treat “the press account on how Hutchinson's story was received by Abberline” as gospel. There was absolutely no need for the statement itself to be conveyed from one police station to another – not when a succinct telegram advising Leman Street as to the potential importance of Hutchinson’s statement was all that was required. It is worth bearing in mind the last sentence of the press report in question: “Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived” – when the “message” arrived, not the entire statement.

A telegram might have enabled Abberline to make an initial assessment of Hutchinson’s importance, and an initial assessment of the likelihood of Isaacs having a prison alibi, but he was in no position to make the final call until presented with the actual paperwork and personnel involved.

“You said yourself, that if threatened with a murder charge you would make damn sure the police knew you were in their custody (if you were in Isaacs position).
Apparently, he couldn't tell them that.”

That isn’t “apparent” at all.

I have very little doubt that Isaacs protested his innocence of the Kelly murder, citing his prison alibi, the moment he was confronted with the accusation. My point is that the police would not have declared Isaacs innocent purely on the basis of the latter’s claim. Such a claim would require investigating, and a satisfactory conclusion to that investigation – which would have encompassed his whereabouts for other murders – could not have arrived until after the 7th December, when he was placed on remand. The idea that Abberline would have relied on a telegram alibi alone is obviously nonsense, especially as Isaacs was potentially in the frame for other murders.

If the evidence of Cornelius Oaks didn’t alert Abberline to the possibility of Isaacs’s involvement in other ripper murders, he was no competent detective.

“No-one fitting that description had been seen in the vicinity of the previous murders.”

Yeah, funny that…

Nobody fitting Sadler’s description was seen in the vicinity of any murder, and yet he was still considered a potential suspect in the ripper murders, and was even paraded before Lawende in the hope that he might be identified as the much younger, unbearded suspect observed at the end of Church Passage.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I hope a reply will be forthcoming, but until then we’ll just have to accept that there is no available evidence to support the contention that the constable responsible for arresting Isaacs in Barnet was the same officer who appeared as a witness – imparting no details about the arrest itself – at the Worship Street hearing for a separate offense on the 7th December.

Hi Ben.
I don't recall claiming anything different.
It is sufficient to realize there is no other more suitable candidate to send who can speak to the court about Isaacs and his previous arrest.

You normally show a preference for what you call "logic", or "common sense", so it is surprising that "logic" and "common sense" are not now so important to you when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is no onus upon me to prove a negative – that’s not how these things work.

You proposed that Tyce was nothing more than a "representative" of Barnet police, but this opinion of yours is based on what?
That proposal requires a reason, as I know you cannot provide proof.

And, why would Barnet send a "representative" when the actual arresting constable is available?
It isn't as though you are offering a valid counter argument, it is pretty clear you are making this baseless suggestion out of desperation.

If we was remanded – and we know for a virtual certainty that he was

"Virtual" certainty?, is this the product of your "Virtual reality" in piecing together an argument?
Something is either certain - substantiated by evidence, or uncertain - the product of hearsay.
As Lloyds does not provide a source, and we have no paperwork in support of a detainment, then the proposal remains uncertain.

– the prison “term” would have commenced immediately following his arrest, and was only interrupted by the brief court appearance where he received his sentence.

A "term" is the result of a sentence. A prisoner cannot be given a term of imprisonment until he is found guilty, and only then receive his sentence.
Your vague comprehension of these requirements does your desperate argument no favours.

We needn’t even assume that Lloyds were supplied with such nitty-gritty details as the distinction between a "remand" prison and an "actual" prison; not when the only relevant piece of information was that Isaacs was behind bars on the morning of the 9th. The police undoubtedly tipped Lloyds off to the effect that the suspect was in prison at the time, and the latter drew their own conclusion - one which neatly coincided with the abrupt loss of interest in Isaacs as a suspect.

So you now choose to present the reporter as a fool in order to justify your own lack of knowledge?

It's a shame you don't choose to research Lloyds to educate yourself on when & under what conditions they always use "remand" or "term of imprisonment".
Your persistent reliance on "opinion" and your own version of "logic" does not help your case at all.

There was absolutely no need for the statement itself to be conveyed from one police station to another – not when a succinct telegram advising Leman Street as to the potential importance of Hutchinson’s statement was all that was required. It is worth bearing in mind the last sentence of the press report in question: “Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived” – when the “message” arrived, not the entire statement.

And....what was this "message"?

"... the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed"

This man's STORY was the "message", and IT (the story), was forwarded.
Glad that is clear to you now.

That isn’t “apparent” at all.

I have very little doubt that Isaacs protested his innocence of the Kelly murder, citing his prison alibi, the moment he was confronted with the accusation. My point is that the police would not have declared Isaacs innocent purely on the basis of the latter’s claim.

"Citing his prison alibi", what you are not accepting is, this alibi is not a fact.
The police had no cause to request a remand if Isaacs had protested this alibi. A quick telegram to Barnet is all that was required on Dec. 6th, to confirm his detainment.
Your refusal to comprehend this speaks more to your desperation than any plea of logic or common sense.

Yeah, funny that…

Nobody fitting Sadler’s description was seen in the vicinity of any murder, and yet he was still considered a potential suspect in the ripper murders, and was even paraded before Lawende in the hope that he might be identified as the much younger, unbearded suspect observed at the end of Church Passage.

Two and a half years later, they had no idea what Sadler had looked like in 1888. They took a long shot and failed.
Long shots Ben, you are familiar with that approach, are you not?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“It is sufficient to realize there is no other more suitable candidate to send who can speak to the court about Isaacs and his previous arrest.”

But you’ve failed to provide even a scrap of evidence to justify any such “realisation”, and the only evidence you did provide was strongly indicative that the Barnet policeman who attended the Worship Street court session had nothing to do with the actual arrest of Isaacs; otherwise we would reasonably expect a reference to that event. If you remember, I was curious as to what the policeman in question was reported to have said at this hearing, and according to you, he did nothing more than “speak (sic) to the 21 day sentence issued on 12 Nov. at Barnet”. My observation was that it didn’t require the arresting constable to “speak to the 21 day sentence”. Any Barnet Street policeman could have “spoken” to that event provided he was in possession of the relevant details.

You also told me you were expecting the matter to be clarified in a written letter from an "archivist", and when I naively expected your latest post to provide this, you can imagine my deflation at being confronted instead with the same old repetitive nonsense.

“You proposed that Tyce was nothing more than a "representative" of Barnet police, but this opinion of yours is based on what?”

Based on the lack of evidence that he was anything more than that. It’s as simple as that. While we're on the subject, can we see some evidence that the man who appeared at Worship Street was named "Tyce"? It's been bugging me for a while. Thanks in advance.

“As Lloyds does not provide a source, and we have no paperwork in support of a detainment, then the proposal remains uncertain.”

The virtual certainly is provided by you, and your discovery (at least I assume it was yours originally) of the details pertaining to Isaacs’s November arrest in Barnet for stealing two coats. He was arrested on the 8th November and sentenced on the 12th of the same month, which means he was almost certainly in custody between those days, corresponding perfectly with both the Lloyds report of 23rd December and the total abandonment of any interest in him as a ripper suspect.

But you would rather be a "theorist" than a researcher, for some unfathomable reason, and you choose to cling to the very worst "theories" regardless of what your research is actually informing you, which is such a terrible waste because it means you’re trying to nullify the good that you're achieving.

“So you now choose to present the reporter as a fool in order to justify your own lack of knowledge?”

Try to extend people the courtesy of reading their posts with due care, as opposed to misrepresenting them; that way you avoid the risk of exposing yourself to ridicule when you decry as “desperate” the arguments you haven't even bothered to digest properly. I neither stated nor implied even vaguely that the Lloyds reporter was a “fool”; I observed that the police had no need to provide any detail to the press on the nature of Isaacs's imprisonment. They need only have related the basics; that he was in prison for stealing a coat and thus incapable of committing the Kelly murder…or being Astra-silly-Khan man. Lloyds never specified that he was undergoing a “sentence” – they said he was undergoing a “term of imprisonment”. Perhaps you could explain how anyone can be imprisoned without being in there for a “term”. Does anyone play chess without playing a “game of chess”?

“This man's STORY was the "message", and IT (the story), was forwarded.
Glad that is clear to you now.”

Your hypocritical double-standards approach to the treatment of press sources was very clear to me already, actually, but thanks for the reminder.

“The police had no cause to request a remand if Isaacs had protested this alibi. A quick telegram to Barnet is all that was required on Dec. 6th, to confirm his detainment.”

For all the ripper-attributed murders? Which he would unquestionably have been in the frame for, considering the evidence of a neighbour who stated that he threatened violence to all women over the age of 17? You reckon a “quick telegram” would have served as a magic wand with which to prove his innocence of all those?

“Two and a half years later, they had no idea what Sadler had looked like in 1888”

So they thought he might have aged 20 years in the space of two and a half, is what you're suggesting? They thought that was perfectly possible, but completely eradicated any possibility of the killer wearing different clothes for different murders? Right…

“Long shots Ben, you are familiar with that approach, are you not?”

Very familiar, actually – I’ve seen it first hand here on the boards, and the worst example is that theorist who reckons that Kelly’s last clients were two entirely separate moustachioed, well-dressed men with black parcels or bags; the first being Isaacs, busting out of jail and wearing clothes and jewellery he couldn’t afford, and the second being Jack the Ripper in the guise of Druitt or somebody similar. “Long shot” is a considerable understatement in that case!

I think that'll have to be you all Isaacs'd out until such time as you can provide the requested evidence, Jon. If your next post to this thread is remotely deficient in that department, I can only assume the worst for the validity of your earlier assertions.

[caz]

Catching up…

Hi Jon,

When do you allege these discussions between S and H “Divs” occurred? You want the latter to have known yonks ago that Isaacs was in prison during the Farmer attack, and yet no reference to a prison alibi is mentioned in the 7th December press report. Why? The Northern Daily Echo reported only that “exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage”, which is very different to “a telegraph was sent, but it was proved that he was in prison at the time”. Why would the police need to make “exhaustive inquiries” if establishing an alibi could be achieved via telegraph, as you claim? Notice also that he couldn’t be connected with the Farmer attack “as far as can be ascertained”, which is a very odd thing to say in the context of a proven alibi, don’t you think?

It's almost as if they were not in communication with S division at that stage, and thus had no knowledge of any prison alibi, otherwise they would have said so, as opposed to what amounted to: "we've looked everywhere but so far cannot find any evidence linking Isaacs to the Farmer crime"

It is quite clear that the police knew nothing about Isaacs’s prison alibi for either the Kelly or Famer crimes, otherwise they had nothing remotely to lose by divulging this knowledge to the press, rather than informing them that “exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage”. Exhaustive inquiries are not required if an alibi could be established in “minutes” by telegraph, as you keep insisting, and in such a case it would have been fully "ascertained" that the man could not be “connected with that outrage”.

Hi Jon,

What the actual feck are you talking about? Here is the sentence that you’re having trouble with again, and it is from the Northern Daily Telegraph, 7th December: “Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage.” In other words, the police have been looking and looking, but are so far unable to finding anything linking Isaacs to the Farmer attack. That is what that sentence means. It does not mean “the police have located a cast-iron alibi”.

“The detectives at the East End made every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately. It was subsequently ascertained that the man was apprehended for stealing a watch, with which offence he has been charged. 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.”

Hi Ben,

I have to agree with Jon that you misinterpreted almost every aspect of the above report. A decent thesaurus, together with a better grasp of Victorian parlance and press-speak, could have helped in this regard.

They dismissed the connection out of hand Ben, for goodness sakes. They have no cause to describe the means of how they found out.
It is sufficient for them to tell the press, "Isaacs wasn't involved - now be on your way!"

Where do we read that the police said "as far as can be ascertained"?

That whole sentence reads to me like a conclusion by the press, that as far as the press were able to ascertain. In other words, the police were not altogether forthcoming with the relevant details. They were only given the basics.
Normal police communication in my opinion.

Firstly, as Jon points out, it is the press who do the ascertaining. The press ‘subsequently ascertained’ that Isaacs had been apprehended for stealing a watch; the police knew because they did the apprehending! Similarly, as far as the press can ascertain, the man has been cleared of the attack on Farmer, but they are not being told why that might be. It’s not a case of the police being thus far unable to connect Isaacs with that outrage; their ‘exhaustive’ inquiries have established that he can have no possible connection [because he was serving a prison sentence at the time].

The press are fishing for info concerning his status as a ripper suspect, but the police are fobbing them off with a brief statement on his status as an ex-suspect in the Farmer case. Something along the lines of: ‘We are no longer investigating Isaacs in connection with the recent attempted murder’ is sufficient to provide the bones for that press report. The implication is that the police had suspected his connection with that crime, and the press choose to infer from this that he wasn’t being connected ‘with the mutilations’. Either that, or it is frustrated press-speak, to squeeze in a mention of their favourite topic because the police are saying nothing about their inquiries in that direction.

As “exhaustive” as these “enquiries” reportedly were, they did not result in any evidence being located that would support a case for his involvement, which is worlds away from your evidenceless insistence that H division had already ruled out any possibility of Isaacs committing the Farmer crime because they had already learned from S Division that he was imprisoned at the time. They clearly had not. Indeed, it is quite clear that Barnet only became involved once Isaacs himself had informed H division that he had alibis for the crimes he stood flimsily accused of. If the police had known on the 6th December that Isaacs was behind bars on the 21st November, they had nothing to lose by relating as much to the press.

Nothing to gain either, Ben. It was nothing to do with the public how the police obtained an alibi – or didn’t – for anyone being investigated.

The following might help with the word “exhaustive”, which you appear to be confusing with “exhausting”:

exhausting = tiring, hard, testing, taxing, difficult, draining, punishing, crippling, fatiguing, wearying, grueling, sapping, debilitating, strenuous, arduous, laborious, enervating, backbreaking

exhaustive = thorough, detailed, complete, full, total, sweeping, comprehensive, extensive, intensive, full-scale, in-depth, far-reaching, all-inclusive, all-embracing, encyclopedic, thoroughgoing

Now apply this to your own interpretation and you may see where you were going astray before:

As “exhaustive” as these “enquiries” reportedly were, they did not result in any evidence being located that would support a case for his involvement…

As we know, a simple inquiry would have found, and did find proof positive that Isaacs could have had no involvement in the attack on Farmer. And that enquiry would have been every bit as thorough as it needed to be, without being the least bit tiring or time-consuming.

If the press get it right about East End detectives making ‘every enquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect’, that would be in relation to Isaacs’s whereabouts on the night of the Kelly murder, as a result of what Cusins and Oakes reported. And if a simple though exhaustive inquiry has found him in prison for the Farmer attack, one wonders why these detectives were tiring themselves out going round the neighbourhood, ‘looking and looking’ in vain for clues, if another simple inquiry might find him again in prison when the earlier, more serious crime was committed in Miller’s Court. The alternatives seem to be: a) he was not yet in prison then, so could have been pacing about that night at the prospect; or b) he was in prison, but the police were looking into his whereabouts for the previous murders, still open to the possibility that he was the ripper, and that someone else killed Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Jon,

If you remember, I was curious as to what the policeman in question was reported to have said at this hearing, and according to you, he did nothing more than “speak (sic) to the 21 day sentence issued on 12 Nov. at Barnet”. My observation was that it didn’t require the arresting constable to “speak to the 21 day sentence”. Any Barnet Street policeman could have “spoken” to that event provided he was in possession of the relevant details.

That’s all well and good in theory, Ben, but not any Barnet Street policeman could have spoken to the man in question being the same man who was sentenced on November 12th. It would be more logical to use the arresting officer, who could speak to having seen and arrested this man before, to prevent any claims of mistaken identity from one case to the other. Using any old policeman, who didn’t know the man from Adam, would have been plain silly unless the arresting officer had dropped down dead, become insane or ‘gone abroad’. We know of two coat-stealers named Joseph Isaacs, albeit of different ages, and we know all about the knotty problem of aliases – used for innocent or sinister purposes – so positive identification, linking the one man with more than one crime, was not always straightforward. If the whole purpose was to demonstrate for the hearing that this man, calling himself Joseph Isaacs, had ‘previous’, it only makes sense to have had the original arresting officer present as a trustworthy eye witness who could vouch for the man being the same individual in both cases.

For all the ripper-attributed murders? Which he would unquestionably have been in the frame for, considering the evidence of a neighbour who stated that he threatened violence to all women over the age of 17? You reckon a “quick telegram” would have served as a magic wand with which to prove his innocence of all those?

Carrying on this theme, how do you imagine the police were ever able to clear him of all the murders? Either they considered a rock solid alibi for Kelly would be good enough to drop Isaacs as a ripper suspect, or they didn’t. If a quick check to see if he was in prison when Kelly was killed would not have stopped them investigating him for the others, regardless of what that check revealed, what became of that investigation?

Assuming the inquiries could hardly have been exhaustive enough to clear him of any possible involvement in any of the murders, we are once again left with the trail going cold through sheer lack of any hard evidence. Oakes said he “used often to change his dress”, so that could well have been a problem. It doesn’t imply he had money to spend on different outfits; he was a thief! He would have begged, borrowed or stolen with ease if he wanted a change of appearance. Was Abberline’s initial interest in him not because his flashy appearance recalled to mind the description Hutchinson gave of the man he saw with Kelly? Seems plausible enough to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

while i belive joseph Barnett and George Hutchison to be the most likely suspects.George derscribing the man he claimed to have seen would tie in with Dr Tumbletys appearence who was known as a bit of a dandy at the time.what is known of his whereabouts at the time of the murders?As for other suspects would you also look athe nightwatchmen of the common lodging houses?

Actually there is someone who more closely resembles the man Hutchinson described, Francis Millen. There is also a man whpo moved in Little Paternosters Row a few days before Marys murder and disappeared without notice on the night it happened. Joe Issacs.

Now, if you recall Mary had confided that she had been seeing someone named Joe while she was still with Barnett, and he occasionally "treated her badly". If you ask me a jilted lover or one that believed he had been betrayed might explain a lot that happened in that room.