hutchinsons suspect

[Scott Nelson]

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?

They got Cohen in custody during that time and wanted to make sure there was no mix-up.

[Wickerman]

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,...

Ben

I was way ahead of you and those opinions being expressed yesterday.

I had already inquired a month ago with a police historian off-list as to what the normal, and usual procedure was for such a petty crime.
Which is why I was surprised (though I shouldn't have been) that Trevor would come up with a contrary suggestion. But then, Trevor is no police historian either. Choose your sources carefully Ben
I have yet to see Trevor express an opinion that is shared by his peers on here, and you know that is always a problem.

The normal, and "very likely" (quoting my source) procedure, for such a minimal crime, was to issue the accused with a summonze.
However, as I made clear, certain considerations must be made by the arresting officer, which are different with every accused - that is something we cannot ascertain at this date.

The independent witness to him being out, likely served with a summonze, was the statement made by Mary Cusins.

Lloyds was correct in identifying the "term of imprisonment". Where they were wrong is attributing it to the Millers Court case as opposed to the George St. case. That has been detailed in the timeline quite independent of where Isaacs was.

It is very unlikely that the police spent the entire 7th-14th December period investigating his potential culpability in the Kelly murder.

Opinion again Ben, all we know is that a week passed, and they may have taken 4, 5 or 6 days, your opinion has no bearing on that.

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.

Oh how generous you can be, I wonder if I would be reading the same if I proved (beyond doubt) Isaacs was out on the 9th?

All joking aside, yes I have not finished, just a few loose ends to tie up.
Had there been something conclusive I had intended to write it up for Ripperologist, but as it stands there simply is not enough official paperwork survived on his cases at the L.M.A.

[Observer]

Blimey, Jon! I know we made that secret pact to ensure the domination of Casebook by Hutchinson threads,

You should be so lucky!

Hanratty is overshadowing the JTR discussions five posts to one.

[Sally]

Hi Jon,

Ok, this looks quite straightforward to me.

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?

When was the court record finalised? Ater the 12th, certainly. Where was the written documentation relating to Isaacs’ arrest before the court document was finalised? Do you have it?

Do you suppose that there’s a chance that for the investigating officers at the time, the timeline of events from arrest to conviction was not readily available and it took some time to establish all of the facts? He was arrested and tried in A Division territory for the coats and in H Division for the watch, after all.

The documentary evidence is:

A report in Lloyds stating that Isaacs was in prison at the time of the murder for stealing a coat

A court record stating that he was arrested on 8th November for stealing coats and convicted 4 days later.

I don’t see the problem here – they correspond very well with one another. The only error made by Lloyds seems to be forgetting to add an ‘s’ to the end of coat.

[Ben]

Jon,

Let’s try to be serious about this, just for a moment.

Your research has uncovered a near certain alibi for a ripper suspect; don’t you realise how much of a big deal that is? Who cares if it doesn’t support your original hypothesis – you have your dedication to that theory to thank, in many ways, for propelling you in the right direction to make this discovery. Why not rejoice in it? What you you prefer to be; a great theorist or a great researcher? For you to disavow your own important discovery purely because it doesn’t support that very, very poor Isaacstrakhan theory is just crazy.

“I had already inquired a month ago with a police historian off-list as to what the normal, and usual procedure was for such a petty crime.”

Oh, just the one police historian? I contacted three, actually (they’re so easy to come by, these guys!), and they each confirmed my suspicion – shared by practically everyone else – that if the police arrest a homeless, itinerant career thief, they would have been naïve in the shocking extreme to release him and expect him to be languishing at his grotty, temporary doss house waiting for his “summons” like a good boy.

As Sally points out, when we consider your wonderful research gem in conjunction with the Lloyds Weekly article (you know, the one you previously pooh-poohed before you discovered independent support for it!), the debate over “summons” verses the more logical detention-pre-sentence is all but resolved. Isaacs was clearly, beyond reasonable doubt, behind bars on 9th November, having been arrested for the offense the previous day.

“Which is why I was surprised (though I shouldn't have been) that Trevor would come up with a contrary suggestion. But then, Trevor is no police historian either.”

Yeah, that’s what you said about Bridewell too, when his experiences didn’t quite accord with the conclusion you had already jumped to. You ask a policeman, and when the policeman doesn’t respond with the answer you want, you complain that his is not a police “historian”.

“Lloyds was correct in identifying the "term of imprisonment". Where they were wrong is attributing it to the Millers Court case as opposed to the George St. case.”

No, they were not wrong.

They had already ascertained yonks ago, relatively speaking, that he was in prison when the Farmer attack was committed. It simply took a little longer to ascertain his place of detention before the sentencing took place.

Like it or not, you have made an achievement here. You have knocked a suspect off the list, the significance of which will emerge gradually, and you can probably look forward to seeing your name in the A-Z before long.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

When was the court record finalised? Ater the 12th, certainly. Where was the written documentation relating to Isaacs’ arrest before the court document was finalised? Do you have it?

Hi Sally.

Can you clarify what you mean by "finalized"?

Once the sentence was passed on the 12th, the paperwork sits for several weeks before it is filed with Middlesex Sessions.

I'm not sure what you are calling "finalized"?

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Let’s try to be serious about this, just for a moment.

Your research has uncovered a near certain alibi for a ripper suspect; don’t you realise how much of a big deal that is? Who cares if it doesn’t support your original hypothesis – you have your dedication to that theory to thank, in many ways, for propelling you in the right direction to make this discovery. Why not rejoice in it? What you you prefer to be; a great theorist or a great researcher? For you to disavow your own important discovery purely because it doesn’t support that very, very poor Isaacstrakhan theory is just crazy.

I think you are missing my point Ben.

The existing press reports are not good evidence due to the fact they still require interpretation. They may indicate this, or that, nothing is certain.

Then, as far as this recent research goes, so long as we have no definitive statement that Isaacs appeared in court in response to a summonze, or that he had been remanded, then we cannot be sure of his status on the night of Nov 8th/9th.
That is still the burning question.

I have posted the local press coverage of his appearance in Barnet because I do not have the complete depositions from that case yet.

That said, I do have the complete case records for his appearance at Worship St. (charged with watch theft), but even those records are sorely depleted, they tell us nothing. What we already know from the press coverage of that incident is far more informative.
This is often the case with original case records, they are brief in content. I remember pointing this out to you about the Kelly Inquest, that we get a better picture from press coverage.

We have no shortage of opinions on this matter of a summonze, but I am trying to go a step further, to try remove any doubt.

I appreciate your acknowledgment but if the end result is nothing better than a "maybe", then I have achieved nothing.
It was due to "maybe" that I began this exercise, I'd prefer not to end up at the same spot.

Yeah, that’s what you said about Bridewell too, when his experiences didn’t quite accord with the conclusion you had already jumped to. You ask a policeman, and when the policeman doesn’t respond with the answer you want, you complain that his is not a police “historian”.

I would appreciate you re-writing the truth about that.
What I said about Bridewell's contribution was that I believed he was giving us the benefit of today's procedure, not what was done a hundred years ago.

I think you need to do the right thing now and correct your point.

No, they were not wrong.

They had already ascertained yonks ago, relatively speaking, that he was in prison when the Farmer attack was committed. It simply took a little longer to ascertain his place of detention before the sentencing took place.

They "were" wrong, because the term of imprisonment did not begin until the 12th, regardless whether you think Isaacs was detained in custody, or not.
A mistake by Lloyds, that would be unique in their press coverage if it were true.

Like it or not, you have made an achievement here. You have knocked a suspect off the list, the significance of which will emerge gradually, and you can probably look forward to seeing your name in the A-Z before long.

Under what, 'P' for Persistence, or 'S' for Stubborn?

[Ben]

The existing press reports are not good evidence due to the fact they still require interpretation. They may indicate this, or that, nothing is certain.

What are you talking about, Jon? You have just found crucial independent support for the press reports in question. Nothing is absolutely certain, of course, but your discovery that Isaacs was arrested on the 8th for stealing coats wholly supports the report in Lloyds Weekly that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th (where he would have been remanded) for stealing a coat. It also explains the total loss of interest in Isaacs as a suspect thereafter. I can't see what further "interpretation" is required.

By all means continue the great research, but don't short-change yourself by undermining the obvious implications of your discovery.

The “burning question”, as you describe it, over whether Isaacs was kept in detention or sent home to await a “summons” after his arrest on the 8th has been all but resolved, thanks to:

a) The report in Lloyds Weekly telling us that he was in prison on the 9th for coat-stealing, as opposed to waiting patiently at home for a “summons”.

b) Trevor’s information that he would probably have been remanded to a prison awaiting his sentence (agreeing with “a)”)

c) Your police historian’s claim that the police would not have released “the accused” if they thought he was likely to abscond, or if he was of no fixed abode (there was certainly nothing “fixed” about his temporary stay in Paternoster Row). Who in the universe was more likely to abscond than dodgy, itinerant career thief and imposter Joseph Isaacs?

“We have no shortage of opinions on this matter of a summonze, but I am trying to go a step further, to try remove any doubt.”

But you’ve achieved your goal already, Jon, as there is no doubt – at least none of the reasonable variety – that no such “summonze” existed for Isaacs because he was kept in detention following his arrest. All the evidence points that way, whereas nothing supports the “summonze” option.

“What I said about Bridewell's contribution was that I believed he was giving us the benefit of today's procedure, not what was done a hundred years ago.”

I know that’s what you said, Jon, and you were wrong to say it, since Bridewell was discussing what he believed was likely to have happened in 1888, not just what occurs using “today’s procedure”. You then wrote that “a police Historian may have an idea”, which seemed to me to be an implication that former policemen did not.

“They "were" wrong, because the term of imprisonment did not begin until the 12th, regardless whether you think Isaacs was detained in custody, or not.”

Well, it’s up to you if you want to create some huge, imaginary schism between a “term of imprisonment” and being actually, physically in prison, but you’ll forgive me if I choose not to. It still amounts to the same thing, i.e. being in prison, and as all sources indicate, Isaacs was physically serving a “term of imprisonment” prior to his, err, “term of imprisonment”.

“Under what, 'P' for Persistence, or 'S' for Stubborn?”

Or alternatively, under Play to your Strengths, and yours seems to be an ability to uncover previously unknown or little-known-about press reports. Channel that persistence and stubbornness in that direction, I would!

All the bests,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben, here is a challenge for you.

Isaacs is arrested on Dec 6, as a result of the actions of Mary Cusins, a Millers Court witness, not a George St. witness.

Abberline is brought to take Isaacs into custody as the missing lodger in the Millers Court murder case, and watch thief.

So, Isaacs was arrested in connection with the Millers court case, but not the George St. case.

The Evening News (Dec 7th) report that Isaacs has been cleared of any connection with the George St. assault, “the man could in no way be connected with that outrage.”, but this condition was not applied to the Millers Court case.

This suggests that Isaacs (in order to avoid the assault charge) has told the police he was in prison at the time of the assault in George St. which Scotland Yard will no doubt verify with Barnet Police. Therefore, Isaacs is cleared of any assault charge.

But apparently, Isaacs did not tell police that he was also in custody on the night of the Millers court murder, to avoid a murder charge, why wouldn't he?

Also, as the documentation concerning the charge and detainment of Isaacs resides with the Barnet Police, why do they not confirm that he was in custody from the 8th?

Consequently, Det. Record must apply to have Isaacs placed on remand so they can investigate his whereabouts, as neither Isaacs nor the Barnet police can establish that he was in police custody at the time of the Millers court murder.

So, why are both Isaacs & Barnet police not willing, or able to state that he was in custody on the night of the Millers Court murder?
That, Ben, is your problem


In my view, neither Isaacs nor the Barnet Police are able to claim he was in custody, because he wasn't.
The solution is that simple.

[Ben]

Hanratty is overshadowing the JTR discussions five posts to one.

Nooooooo!

Are you hearing this, Jon?

We clearly have work still to do.

[Ben]

But apparently, Isaacs did not tell police that he was also in custody on the night of the Millers court murder, to avoid a murder charge, why wouldn't he?

Sorry, Jon, but nothing could be less "apparent".

What's wrong with the much better and more evidence-consistent explanation already proposed by Sally - that it simply took a little longer to verify his Miller's Court alibi than it did to ascertain his whereabouts on the night of the Farmer attack? Bear in mind that the former offense was by far the more "serious", to understate matters drastically, and required the absolute certainty of Isaacs's alternative location, i.e. a prison, to dismiss him as a suspect in the Miller's Court murder and thus "Jack the Ripper". It has already been pointed out that the coat-pinching offense (and ensuing arrest) occurred in a different division, which could easily account for a delay in ascertaining the paperwork cementing the fact that he was in prison pre-sentence and prior to his official "term of imprisonment". They were not in a position to shoot off a quick email, as we are today.

Consequently, Det. Record must apply to have Isaacs placed on remand so they can investigate his whereabouts

This didn't happen, though.

Isaacs was already on remand for stealing a watch. That fact alone was sufficient to warrant his detention from the 7th to the 14th, and there is certainly no evidence that the police used or required all those dates to investigate his potential culpability in the Miller's Court murder.

In my view, neither Isaacs nor the Barnet Police are able to claim he was in custody, because he wasn't.
The solution is that simple.

And extremely wrong, in my view, considering that it is far more likely that both Isaacs and the Barnet Police confirmed the former's 9th November imprisonment at their earliest opportunity.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, but nothing could be less "apparent".

What's wrong with the much better and more evidence-consistent explanation already proposed by Sally - that it simply took a little longer to verify his Miller's Court alibi than it did to ascertain his whereabouts on the night of the Farmer attack?

I'm not sure I understand this point, and Sally did not respond to my question.

If Issacs was in police custody at Barnet, then what was there to confirm?

All Issacs had to do was tell them, to avoid him being embroiled in a murder investigation.
Would you have told police, if you had been in their custody?
Do you think it is safe to assume that Isaacs doesn't want to go to the gallows for something he didn't do?

There was a Barnet police Constable at Worship St. court when he was being tried for stealing that watch, this was when Det. Record applied for a Remand in order to investigate his whereabouts on Nov. 9th.
The Barnet constable was right there in the room, so why couldn't Barnet Police confirm he was under lock and key on the 9th?

Bear in mind that the former offense was by far the more "serious", to understate matters drastically, and required the absolute certainty of Isaacs's alternative location, i.e. a prison, to dismiss him as a suspect in the Miller's Court murder and thus "Jack the Ripper".

Not sure what you mean by the former being more serious. Both thefts were valued at 30/-, but the former (coat theft) sentence was for 21 days, the latter (watch theft) was for 3 months - consistency was never a strong point in courts.

They were not in a position to shoot off a quick email, as we are today.

Maybe that explains why the constable from Barnet was present

Isaacs was already on remand for stealing a watch.

Where did you get that from?
It appears you are a little confused over the timeline of events.

Dec. 6th, Isaacs is arrested for the theft of the watch.
Dec 7th, He appears at Worship St, Court and the request for a Remand is granted.
He is held on Remand for one week.
Dec 14th Isaacs appears again at Worship St. for sentencing.

At no point was he placed on Remand for the watch theft. Only a Magistrate (or equivalent) can grant a Remand notice. The police cannot "Remand" someone at will. They may detain someone overnight for their court appearance the next day, but that is not a Remand.

Let me just reintroduce that comment by Trevor:

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.

Do you remember that?
First thing, Trevor should know that in order for Isaacs to be remanded to prison, he first must appear in court.
Only the Magistrate can grant a Remand.

So what Trevor is saying, in a roundabout way is, that after his arrest on the 8th, he would have been taken to Barnet Court on the 9th where a Remand may have been applied for.
But why?
The evidence was in custody, the witness was present, and Isaacs was available - so no Magistrate is going to grant a Remand when there is no need to do so. There is nothing else for the police to investigate.

IF, Isaacs had been taken to court on the 9th (per Trevor), then he would have had his case dealt with on the 9th, and sentenced on the 9th, instead of the 12th.

And extremely wrong, in my view, considering that it is far more likely that both Isaacs and the Barnet Police confirmed the former's 9th November imprisonment at their earliest opportunity.

Which clearly did not happen because the Remand was applied for on the 7th.
How could it not be more obvious that your belief is wrong?

[Ben]

I'm not sure I understand this point, and Sally did not respond to my question.

Sally and I appear to be in agreement - and she in fact beat me to the observation - that you are making an unnecessary "issue" over the fact that the discovery of Isaacs's alibi for the Farmer attack apparently predated the discovery of his imprisonment during the Kelly murder, and for some reason prefer to ignore the obvious and logical explanations for this, which are as follows:

a) The coat-stealing offense occurred within the jurisdiction of A-division, rather than H, and the facts may have taken longer to ascertain as a result.

b) The Kelly murder was far more serious in nature than the George Street offense, and accordingly warranted absolute ironclad certainty of the suspect's non-involvement before there could be any question of alerting the nearest newshound about the development.

“There was a Barnet police Constable at Worship St. court when he was being tried for stealing that watch”

So?

On what basis would you assume that one constable from Barnet was intimately familiar with every aspect of every police matter associated with that district? What if he had nothing whatever to do with Isaacs’s arrest, or at least nothing to do with the result of that arrest, as the odds favour?

“At no point was he placed on Remand for the watch theft.”

Yes, he was.

That’s precisely what he was remanded for, despite the later nonsense written in the Daily News (yep, it’s those guys again!). Isaacs appeared at Worship Street on 7th to be charged with stealing a watch – nothing else. The end result of that particular court appearance for that particular offense was this: “Mr. Bushby remanded the prisoner”…for that particular offense. Bushby wasn’t likely (and probably wasn’t legally permitted) to charge a prisoner for one offense and then remand him for another in the same court session (for that first offense).

What “offense” are we even talking about anyway? Oh yes, that’s right – walking about in his own room at night, according to one uncorroborated “ear-witness”. The idea that Isaacs would have been thrown into a remand prison on the basis of Mary Cusins’s curtain-twitching is beyond ludicrous. A prisoner is “remanded” in custody to await a court appearance, usually a sentencing; an outcome that was all but guaranteed in the case of the watch theft, where the evidence against Isaacs’s culpability was overwhelming, and indeed it did. Whereas he was never going to be hurled in the slammer to await a trial (for being Jack the Ripper, no less!) just because some busy-body claimed to have heard him “walking” in his own bedroom on the night of the Kelly murder.

Why do you suppose the police conduct surveillance on suspected criminals, Jon? Why, for instance, did the police keep Kosminski under surveillance rather than flinging him behind bars and only releasing him once they had determined whether or not he was Jack the Ripper? Why not just place anyone vaguely dodgy “on remand”? The answer is because, as Anderson famously bemoaned, the police had not the “powers” to do so.

Mary Cusins had some potentially Interesting Information which was guaranteed to attract the attention of the officers investigating the Whitechapel murders. This is clearly what happened, and the police, acting on her “evidence” (snort!), used the opportunity provided by his remand (for stealing a watch) to investigate him at leisure.

“IF, Isaacs had been taken to court on the 9th (per Trevor), then he would have had his case dealt with on the 9th, and sentenced on the 9th, instead of the 12th.”

No, Jon.

Obviously not.

How often in criminal history does that occur, I wonder? A criminal being sentenced the day after committing the alleged offense? Not very, I’d venture. How do you know John Bennett was available on the 9th to appear as a witness again Isaacs? You don’t. For all you know 12th November was the earliest Bennet could have appeared for the prosecution, which is why that date was selected. But quite aside from all that, it wasn’t quite as easy as you suggest to ride roughshod over officialdom and the proper avenues by saying “Ah, sod it, let’s get it out of the way now”. For one thing, the 12th November sitting occurred not at Worship Street but at Barnet Petty Sessions.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Sally and I appear to be in agreement - and she in fact beat me to the observation - that you are making an unnecessary "issue" over the fact that the discovery of Isaacs's alibi for the Farmer attack apparently predated the discovery of his imprisonment during the Kelly murder, and for some reason prefer to ignore the obvious and logical explanations for this,

What you have in common with Sally is a misunderstanding of the issue.

...which are as follows:

a) The coat-stealing offense occurred within the jurisdiction of A-division, rather than H, and the facts may have taken longer to ascertain as a result.

Barnet is in S Division, not A Div., the constable who appeared at Worship Street Court to provide background on Isaacs was also from S division, and I located him in the Census - David Tyce.
It appears he was the arresting constable.

There was no need to investigate anything when the constable from Barnet was in the same court room, that is why he was present.
Yet, the application for Remand was requested and approved, so clearly the Barnet police were not able to confirm the whereabouts of Isaacs, and wherever Isaacs claimed he was, it was not in police custody, or the Remand would not have been approved.
This isn't rocket science Ben.

b) The Kelly murder was far more serious in nature than the George Street offense, and accordingly warranted absolute ironclad certainty of the suspect's non-involvement before there could be any question of alerting the nearest newshound about the development.

For goodness sakes Ben, you want Isaacs to be in custody at Barnet. The police at H Division can ask Isaacs, they can ask Constable Tyce, or they can send a telegraph to Barnet - any one of these requests will not require Isaacs being held on remand. It only takes a few minutes to receive an answer regardless of the source.
There is nothing to investigate, unless of course, Isaacs was not in custody.

On what basis would you assume that one constable from Barnet was intimately familiar with every aspect of every police matter associated with that district? What if he had nothing whatever to do with Isaacs’s arrest, or at least nothing to do with the result of that arrest, as the odds favour?

Are you forgetting, I am the one with the documentation, you are the one who is guessing.
Tyce gave testimony against Isaacs, so he knows all about Isaacs.
Barnet police are not going to send a constable who cannot answer any question posed by the Magistrate.

Yes, he was.

That’s precisely what he was remanded for, despite the later nonsense written in the Daily News (yep, it’s those guys again!).

"....and it was said by police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of November 8th. For that purpose he was remanded."
Evening News, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, The Citizen, just to name a few...
Your pointless tirade against the Daily News does you no good.

Isaacs appeared at Worship Street on 7th to be charged with stealing a watch – nothing else. The end result of that particular court appearance for that particular offense was this: “Mr. Bushby remanded the prisoner”…for that particular offense.

What you said above is not correct. I have already given you the facts of the case and the charges against him. Plus the when & why of his Remand.

Bushby wasn’t likely (and probably wasn’t legally permitted) to charge a prisoner for one offense and then remand him for another in the same court session (for that first offense).

The prisoner was already charged by Det. Record.
Isaacs appeared in court the day after he was charged, so he was not in court "on remand" - only a court official, in this case a Magistrate can grant a remand.
The reason for the remand was clearly explained by Det. Record, "to investigate his whereabouts on the night of Nov. 8/9th".

And yes, Isaacs can be charged for further offenses which result from the investigation quite unconnected to the original theft of the watch.

Why do you suppose the police conduct surveillance on suspected criminals, Jon? Why, for instance, did the police keep Kosminski under surveillance rather than flinging him behind bars and only releasing him once they had determined whether or not he was Jack the Ripper? Why not just place anyone vaguely dodgy “on remand”? The answer is because, as Anderson famously bemoaned, the police had not the “powers” to do so.

Kosminski was not in custody because they had nothing to charge him with.
A Magistrate must be convinced there is a case to investigate, this is why the police cannot commit an accused on Remand themselves. It must be done by a Magistrate, that is not the case in France, which is what I think you are confused over.

How often in criminal history does that occur, I wonder? A criminal being sentenced the day after committing the alleged offense?

I answered that before when Sally asked the same question.
Isaacs was arrested on the Sunday in Dover, and appeared in Court for that offense the next day, Monday. It all depends on how busy a court is, likely, has nothing to do with it.

How do you know John Bennett was available on the 9th to appear as a witness again Isaacs? You don’t.

This may come as a surprise Ben, but witnesses are told when to appear. The wheels of Justice do not wait for witnesses to find the time to appear. The witness is handed a summons and he makes the time.
John Bennet only runs a pub, in the same town.

For one thing, the 12th November sitting occurred not at Worship Street but at Barnet Petty Sessions.

Are you loosing track of these different court appearances and their respective charges? It can be confusing.

[Michael W Richards]

Isnt it quite possible that the man that treated Mary ill on occasion was Joe Isaacs, not Joe Flemming? Isnt his move to Little Paternosters Row, and abrupt move out, just before and just after Marys killing interesting? There is an Isaacs mentioned by Louis at the Berner incident, and since Issac K states without hesitation within an hour of the crime that he was sent by Louis to go out alone and search for help, that we have a situation where an "Issacs" might also be linked with that crime in some way?

Odd that this Issacs fellow is absent when the police question the members behind a closed gate. And that no-one mentioned that the trip Isaac K says he took happened before both Louis and Morris departed on their separate ways? Issac says he saw Morris return when he was returning.

Odd that.

Cheers