hutchinsons suspect

[Ben]

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.

Interesting stuff, Jon, but don't be reticent about providing the actual sources, especially if you feel they support your interesting contention that the arresting constable (evidence that Tyce was the man in question would be both interesting and helpful) was intimately acquainted with all details of Isaacs's fate following that arrest.

Yet, the application for Remand was requested and approved, so clearly the Barnet police were not able to confirm the whereabouts of Isaacs

No.

None of that even slightly follows.

The "remand" - assuming you're referring to the one issued on the 7th December - had nothing to do with the supposedly unknown "whereabouts" of Isaacs, but rather with his known behaviour in connection with the watch-stealing incident. It is for this offense that he was remanded, whereas the other ripper-related speculations being levelled against him were far too flimsy in nature to get anywhere close to fulfilling the criteria to warrant a "remand" – “pacing the room” doesn’t quite cut it.

“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.”

Please be a bit more imaginative, Jon. “A few minutes” to prove a person’s alibi? In 1888? With the aid of a magic wand or a crystal ball, perhaps. Yes, they “can” ask Isaacs, and they probably did, with the response being “I was in prison at the time”. “Oh really?”, the policeman replies, raising a sceptical eyebrow, “we’ll just have to see about that”. The policeman then seeks confirmation from PC Tyce, who responds with “Remand? Alibi? Ooh, I really wouldn’t know anything about that, sir, I’m just the fella who nabbed him. I know Isaacs is thief because I’ve encountered him before”. The policeman, still without an answer, then sends a telegraph to Barnet where enquiries are set a foot, and eventually – after checking with the relevant authorities and obtaining confirmation from the remand prison – it is confirmed that Isaacs was indeed behind bars on the morning of the 9th, just as he claimed.

Then, at some point, and only when the police feel inclined to inform the press of the development, it was revealed to the public that Isaacs was no longer being considered a suspect. He remained in a remand prison until the 14th December, however, because the revelation that he was not Jack the Ripper would not have abrogated the necessity for punishment in the watch-stealing case, for which he was guilty, and for which he was remanded in the first instance on the 7th.

“Evening News, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, The Citizen, just to name a few...”

All the true greats, in other words. Good to see the Morning Advertiser in there too.

“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"

No, it wasn’t.

You’re doing that thing you do again; wrapping one of your own statements in quotation marks and creating the misleading impression that you’re quoting from an original source. It he appeared in court on the 7th in connection with the watch-stealing offense, any “remand” issued during that court session will be in connection with that offense – the offense for which he was charged. This is precisely what happened that day – he was remanded for stealing a watch, and the police used the opportunity created by his detention to quiz him connection with the Whitechapel murders.

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

He was absolutely not “charged” with committing the Kelly murder, Jon, and it is just crazy to insist otherwise. The police had nothing on Isaacs to warrant a “charge” or a “remand”; they had only the means with which to grill him during his detention for an entirely separate offence, which is what happened. It would be a gross and hilarious understatement to say that walking about in one’s own room on the night of the murder was inadequate grounds for charging a flimsily suspected individual. A defendant is remanded to await a trial, and there was to be no trial for the crime of nocturnal room-pacing.

“Kosminski was not in custody because they had nothing to charge him with.”

Well, he didn’t steal a watch and thus enable the police to question him in detention at their leisure, if that's what you mean, but in terms of actual evidence, are you seriously suggesting they had more on Isaacs than they did on Kosminski? Let’s see, we have Kosminski: alleged to have been positively identified as the man seen in Eddowes’s company ten minutes before the latter’s mutilated body was discovered; then we have Isaacs, who, err, walked around in his own room, according to one witness who claimed to have heard him doing so. Which of the two do you reckon would warrant the suspicions of a half-competent magistrate?

“Isaacs was arrested on the Sunday in Dover, and appeared in Court for that offense the next day, Monday”

Really? So no question of being sent home – whatever “home” that might have been! - to await a “summons” then? He was kept in detention until that court appearance, as we might reasonably expect occurred in the immediate aftermath of the coat-stealing offense.

But I digress.

You ask why Isaacs didn’t have his case “dealt” with on the 9th instead of the 12th, as though that was my problem, rather than yours, which it is. For some reason, the 12th was selected as the sentencing date, as opposed to the 9th, which was when - according to you - it should have happened because all the relevant personnel and evidence was available. That’s too bad for your argument that there was no “need” to issue a remand; clearly there was a need because there was a lapse of four days between the arrest and the sentencing. However you propose to get out of that one, I can assure you that the following won’t work: “Ah ****, the courts are too full so we’ll have to wait until the 12th! Oh well, let’s let him go, and hope he doesn’t run away, which is a likely and easy thing for him to do”.

So don't try it.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The "remand" - assuming you're referring to the one issued on the 7th December - had nothing to do with the supposedly unknown "whereabouts" of Isaacs, but rather with his known behaviour in connection with the watch-stealing incident. It is for this offense that he was remanded,...

Considering there was nothing outstanding in the watch theft case to hold him on, and considering we are told quite clearly in black and white what the remand was for, I would like to see from you exactly what your evidence is for an alternate remand.

Show us what this evidence is.

Please be a bit more imaginative, Jon. “A few minutes” to prove a person’s alibi? In 1888?

The paperwork to hold a prisoner in custody resides at the Barnet Police station. Even a telegraph from Leman St. to Barnet in request for confirmation of their custody papers need only take a few minutes.
Confirmation will already have been provided on his day of arrest, the 6th, if it existed, which is why the press learned Isaacs was not a suspect for the Farmer assault.

This is how it was done Ben, quick, clear and precise. All this was known before he went to court on the 7th.
So why were Leman St. unable to obtain confirmation of Isaacs whereabouts on the 9th, considering this should have been confirmed by Barnet at the same time as the Farmer confirmation?

... It he appeared in court on the 7th in connection with the watch-stealing offense, any “remand” issued during that court session will be in connection with that offense – the offense for which he was charged.

Not at all, the police had all they required to pursue that charge, the accused, the witnesses, the evidence. That case was ready for trial.
He was remanded for the reason already given.
As always Ben, you are at liberty to invent any cok-n-bull story you choose.

He was absolutely not “charged” with committing the Kelly murder, Jon, and it is just crazy to insist otherwise.

At what point did I say he was "charged" in connection with the murders?
He was "Remanded" in connection with the murders, not "charged".

... in terms of actual evidence, are you seriously suggesting they had more on Isaacs than they did on Kosminski? Let’s see, we have Kosminski: alleged to have been positively identified as the man seen in Eddowes’s company ten minutes before the latter’s mutilated body was discovered;

Remind me, what month and year were the police claiming this "alleged" sighting took place?
Remind me again, what criminal allegations were actually made against Kozminski in connection with the murders?
Yes, they did have more on Isaacs, and it was not all inaccurate and poorly detailed memoirs.

Really? So no question of being sent home – whatever “home” that might have been! - to await a “summons” then? He was kept in detention until that court appearance, as we might reasonably expect occurred in the immediate aftermath of the coat-stealing offense.

The need to guess your way through most of these arguments must be getting embarrassing. You are now comparing apples and oranges.
The case at Dover was one of a serious felony. The police do not issue a summons for serious felonies.
Impersonating a Scotland Yard Detective does not compare with the theft of two coats.

But I digress.

But at least you learned something else.

You ask why Isaacs didn’t have his case “dealt” with on the 9th instead of the 12th, as though that was my problem,

It is your problem, Barnet Police Court did not sit on Fridays, so a "Remand" until Monday was impossible.

[Wickerman]

.... Barnet Police Court did not sit on Fridays...

Lets just hold off on that point for now, I've had another thought about an archival request for that week (5th-9th), I just may get two answers for the price of one.

[Ben]

“Considering there was nothing outstanding in the watch theft case to hold him on, and considering we are told quite clearly in black and white what the remand was for, I would like to see from you exactly what your evidence is for an alternate remand.”

What do you mean “alternative”?

Isaacs was charged at Worship Street with stealing a watch, and the fact that the remand was issued at that same court appearance tells us that it was inextricably and obviously connected with that offense, or at the very least, the “remand” would not have been possible without it. Imagine if the watch theft hadn’t occurred at all. Imagine if nosy Mary Cusins had simply pointed him out to police in the street. What would you have expected to happen then? “Is this him? Thanks Mary! Now then, what’s this we hear about you walking around your room on the night of the murder? Only prostitute-eviserators pace their rooms at night-time, as everyone knows, and you only incriminate yourself further by not staying in the area afterwards. We’re taking you to court, where we will make sure that the magistrate puts you on remand”.

Is that what would have happened, do you reckon, if the watch theft had never occurred?

Bushby was undoubtedly mindful of the fact that Detective Record had referred to “some matters alleged against the prisoner, which it was desired to inquire into”, and issued the remand in the full expectation that the police would investigate those “matters”. But I’m afraid that’s the closest you’re going to get to establishing any sort of link between the 7th December “remand” the Kelly murder. The remand was officially issued in connection with the theft of the watch, without which (and with only laughably flimsy evidence “linking” Isaacs with the murders), a “remand” was absolutely impossible. The other purpose of the remand was to prevent him doing a runner and escaping punishment for the watch theft.

Do please note those words attributed to Detective Record: “some matters alleged against the prisoner” (bearing in mind he was only a “prisoner” on account of the watch theft). That’s all they had, and Record acknowledged as much in his very accurate description of the nature of the evidence against Isaacs. Well, it wasn’t "evidence" at all; it was just Mary Cusins making Isaacs look bad and alleging “some matters” against him, albeit matters that a competent police force “desired to inquire into”.

If we’re to reach any sort of compromise it might be an idea to put aside the legal jargon – which you seem to be very bamboozled by anyway – and try to agree on the subtext behind the outcome of the 7th December court appearance. If there was an opportunity to settle the case, sentencing and all, on that very day, I can see that the police may have wished not to make use of it, but instead push that sentencing date back a few days while they investigated his potential involvement in the other ripper murders (plural); and Busby, in recognising that necessity, granted that remand knowing that the remand period would have been “used” by the police for that purpose. That, however, does not alter the fact that the remand was still officially made in connection with the watch theft, and would not have been possible without it.

“The paperwork to hold a prisoner in custody resides at the Barnet Police station….Confirmation will already have been provided on his day of arrest, the 6th, if it existed….This is how it was done Ben, quick, clear and precise. All this was known before he went to court on the 7th.”

These are all just your pronouncements, Jon, whereas what I’m looking for is actual evidence. Until this evidence is provided – of, for instance, a neat little drawer of all Petty Sessions records, complete with locations of prisons for remanded offenders and time periods spent there, all attended to by a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed registrar who waited patiently and eagerly for any telegraph that might arrive – you have no way of knowing why the confirmation of Isaacs’s non-involvement in the Farmer attack arrived before the confirmation of his non-involvement in the ripper murders. That’s murders, plural, and might offer a clue in that regard.

“At what point did I say he was "charged" in connection with the murders?
He was "Remanded" in connection with the murders, not "charged".”

Hmmm, and how often does that happen, I wonder? Appearing in court to be “remanded” when not even a “charge” had been made? Keyword-search the Casebook press section again, and see what you come up with.

“The need to guess your way through most of these arguments must be getting embarrassing.”

As “embarrassing” as your blatant attempt to deny the irrefutable results of your own research just because you couldn’t bear the reality that it meant the end of “Isaacstrakhan”? I doubt it.

As for his arrest in Dover, “serious felony” my bum. Murder is a “serious felony”. Doing a crap impersonation of a policeman is definitely not.

“Remind me again, what criminal allegations were actually made against Kozminski in connection with the murders?”

That he was Jack the Ripper, perhaps? That he was positively identified by a genuine eyewitness as the man most likely to have been the murder? I’m talking here about allegations, of course, and you consider that less incriminating that the allegation that Isaacs walked around in own room at night?

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

What do you mean “alternative”?

Isaacs was charged at Worship Street with stealing a watch, and the fact that the remand was issued at that same court appearance tells us that it was inextricably and obviously connected with that offense, or at the very least, the “remand” would not have been possible without it.

If we are trying to be precise here, Isaacs was charged at Bow Street on the 6th, and held in custody overnight to appear at Worship Street Court on the 7th.
He was being sought in connection with the Whitechapel Murders, as the missing lodger who's conduct was questionable and disappeared immediately after the murder.
The fact he stole a watch while being under surveillance was a case of good fortune for the police. As a result of the above a connection between the murders and Isaacs was already established, therefore the Remand is quite legitimate.

It appears from your expressed view that you believe any request for a Remand must only be in connection with the charge already made.
That is not the case.
Other quite unrelated charges may result from the investigation conducted while the accused is held on Remand.

Bushby was undoubtedly mindful of the fact that Detective Record had referred to “some matters alleged against the prisoner, which it was desired to inquire into”, and issued the remand in the full expectation that the police would investigate those “matters”. But I’m afraid that’s the closest you’re going to get to establishing any sort of link between the 7th December “remand” the Kelly murder.

The connection was already made, as I have quoted several times.

The remand was officially issued in connection with the theft of the watch, without which (and with only laughably flimsy evidence “linking” Isaacs with the murders), a “remand” was absolutely impossible. The other purpose of the remand was to prevent him doing a runner and escaping punishment for the watch theft.

The Remand is "officially issued" in connection with any suspicions alleged against Isaacs.
The Remand was to enable the police to verify his whereabouts on Nov. 8/9. Promoted, in part no doubt by his alleged strange behaviour and alleged attitude towards women.

Do please note those words attributed to Detective Record: “some matters alleged against the prisoner” (bearing in mind he was only a “prisoner” on account of the watch theft).

These same "matters" had already been referred to before he appeared in court - see daily papers on the 7th.
What the police wanted was an extension of time to investigate any connection with the Whitechapel murders. That is the reason the Remand was applied for on the 7th.
Police inquiries began after Abberline brought him back to Whitechapel, and they needed more time.

Which is why we read, after the 14th:
"The prisoner had been sought for by the police in consequence of a report regarding his movements on the night of the murder of Mary Janet Kelly, in Dorset-street, Spitalfields, and it was said by police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to his doings on the night in question. For that purpose he was remanded..."

We couldn't wish for anything more clearer than that.

If we’re to reach any sort of compromise it might be an idea to put aside the legal jargon – which you seem to be very bamboozled by anyway – and try to agree on the subtext behind the outcome of the 7th December court appearance.

I recognise the ploy, when you feel like your out of your depth, accuse the other guy of being bamboozled

If there was an opportunity to settle the case, sentencing and all, on that very day, I can see that the police may have wished not to make use of it, but instead push that sentencing date back a few days while they investigated his potential involvement in the other ripper murders (plural); and Busby, in recognising that necessity, granted that remand knowing that the remand period would have been “used” by the police for that purpose. That, however, does not alter the fact that the remand was still officially made in connection with the watch theft, and would not have been possible without it.

Seeing as you appear to have come around to accepting the reason for the remand, please explain what relevance that last line in bold has to the argument.
Where do you get the idea that a request for remand, and the subsequent investigation, must be limited to an already existing charge made on the accused?
Or at least, that is what you appear to be claiming.

Hmmm, and how often does that happen, I wonder? Appearing in court to be “remanded” when not even a “charge” had been made? Keyword-search the Casebook press section again, and see what you come up with.

The legality of the process is not determined by the frequency.

As “embarrassing” as your blatant attempt to deny the irrefutable results of your own research just because you couldn’t bear the reality that it meant the end of “Isaacstrakhan”? I doubt it.

This, from someone who's habit is to draw conclusions from assumptions?
My research, so far, has not established the whereabouts of Isaacs on the night of the 8/9th Nov. This is what I have claimed all along.

However, you are the one who wants to jump to a conclusion based on guesswork.

Which sounds like the more embarrassing scenario?

[Ben]

If we are trying to be precise here, Isaacs was charged at Bow Street on the 6th, and held in custody overnight to appear at Worship Street Court on the 7th.
He was being sought in connection with the Whitechapel Murders, as the missing lodger who's conduct was questionable and disappeared immediately after the murder.
The fact he stole a watch while being under surveillance was a case of good fortune for the police. As a result of the above a connection between the murders and Isaacs was already established, therefore the Remand is quite legitimate.

This is more like it, Jon - I agree.

It was indeed a "case of good fortune for the police" that Isaacs committed the watch theft, without which there would not have been a hope in hell of placing him "on remand". A remand is typically only granted after the offender had been charged, and with the full expectation that a trial and sentencing will follow. If your press trawls have uncovered evidence of remands being issued in the absence of either of these things, I would be fascinated to see it. Otherwise, I’m afraid that a remand can only be issued in connection with a charge, or to put it more accurately, a remand is impossible to issue in the absence of a charge.

Joseph Isaacs was officially remanded in connection with the watch theft – that is absolutely ungainsayable. We know this because without the watch theft there would be no possibility of remanding him. The police merely used the opportunity presented by the “remand” to investigate Cusins’s claims, which ultimately amounted to little more than the gossip and curtain-twitching of an eavesdropper, and wouldn’t have been anywhere near sufficient – in isolation – to get Isaacs banged up “on remand”. Might his case have been dealt with earlier if it wasn’t for these curtain-twitchings? Yes, of course, and I don’t doubt that the decision was prompted by the “matters” the police “desired to look into”, but such a period of detention could only have been enforced on the back of an existing charge.

“The Remand is "officially issued" in connection with any suspicions alleged against Isaacs.”

No it wasn’t, otherwise the police could walk the streets and go “Look, that man’s wearing a leather apron - take him to court and remand him. Look, there’s that man who lives in the next street to the victim and stays up late – take him to court and remand him. Look, he’s wearing a hat…” Etc etc.

As with your one-minute alibi-by-telegraph, it just wasn’t that simple.

“What the police wanted was an extension of time to investigate any connection with the Whitechapel murders. That is the reason the Remand was applied for on the 7th.”

Not an “extension" of time - just time. There hadn’t been any opportunity to investigate a potential connection prior to the 7th. The remand provided the police with some time for that purpose, and I rather suspect that the police would have sought alibis for the previous murders too – not that this would have been particularly easy. The fact that there was a “fullest inquiry” reinforces my observation that a minute’s back-and-forth exchange of telegraphs would not have cut it.

“Where do you get the idea that a request for remand, and the subsequent investigation, must be limited to an already existing charge made on the accused?”

I hope my opening two paragraphs are explanatory in that regard. A remand cannot be issued in the absence of a charge, at least not as far as I’m aware. It is something that occurs post-charge, but pre-sentence. If Mr. Bushby were to expound his reason for issuing a remand, he would have said something like: “I’m remanding this prisoner for the crime for which he was charged, and I’m doing so because - even though the watch theft is all cleared-up and we can sentence him today if we feel like it - I know the police wish to investigate some claims levelled against him in connection with the Whitechapel murders.”

“The legality of the process is not determined by the frequency.”

Any evidence of remands without charges? Suspected terrorists maybe?

“My research, so far, has not established the whereabouts of Isaacs on the night of the 8/9th Nov. This is what I have claimed all along.”

Your research, so far, has established the probable whereabouts of Isaacs on the night of the 8/9th Nov, which was in a remand prison, and not ensconced in a room with a soon-to-be-butchered-by-someone-else prostitute, wearing expensive clothes and accessories that he couldn’t afford.

If you entered into the spirit of researching Isaacs as an interesting individual in his own right, rather than as Hutchinson’s salvation (which he definitely isn’t), you may find yourself less tempted to deny the irrefutable implications of your own discoveries.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

This is more like it, Jon - I agree.

Did I write anything new in that paragraph?
I have been making the same point all along. Why you have been insisting "there is no remand without a charge", is difficult to understand.
I never claimed he hadn't been charged, he had, the previous day.
The significance of your point is lost.
We have always known he was charged at Bow Street station on the 6th. We know he was remanded on 7th Dec., we know why he was remanded.
Which takes us directly to your next response....

Joseph Isaacs was officially remanded in connection with the watch theft – that is absolutely ungainsayable.

Ah, it all depends on what "in connection" means.
Given that you accept the watch theft case was complete, ready for sentencing in other words, then any subsequent application for a remand in connection with THAT case is redundant.
Therefore, the reason must lie elsewhere, just as the press declared, it was to pursue inquiries concerning his whereabouts on the night of the Kelly murder.
Therefore, "in connection" in this case means in connection with the murder, not the theft.

The police merely used the opportunity presented by the “remand” to investigate Cusins’s claims, ...

Right, so that's the "connection".
They had no cause to request a remand for anything else! - so the cause, IS the connection.

(phew!)

Not an “extension" of time - just time. There hadn’t been any opportunity to investigate a potential connection prior to the 7th.

Why?
They only had to send a telegraph.

The fact that there was a “fullest inquiry” reinforces my observation that a minute’s back-and-forth exchange of telegraphs would not have cut it.

What it reinforces is the probability that the police could not obtain any confirmation from Barnet (the telegraph) that Isaacs had been in their custody.
This, I suspect, is the true cause for the application of remand.

I hope my opening two paragraphs are explanatory in that regard. A remand cannot be issued in the absence of a charge, at least not as far as I’m aware.

But he WAS charged, your argument has no basis in what we have been discussing.

Your research, so far, has established the probable whereabouts of Isaacs on the night of the 8/9th Nov, which was in a remand prison,

To be on remand over the weekend he MUST appear before a magistrate (or equal) on the Friday (or late Thursday), which to date we have no evidence of.

Incidentally, I think I have located an account of that particular courts proceedings for the week of Nov. 5th to 9th. These requests tend to take two to three weeks to obtain, so we can get back to this later.

If you entered into the spirit of researching Isaacs as an interesting individual in his own right, rather than as Hutchinson’s salvation (which he definitely isn’t), you may find yourself less tempted to deny the irrefutable implications of your own discoveries.

As your opinion in bold demonstrates, you buy into your own assumptions all too readily. Rather than reach for any conceivable interpretation with a view to defending your criticism of Hutchinson, perhaps you can just accept what is not not yet proven.

Two legitimate alternatives exist which have a bearing on Isaac's whereabouts in the days after he was charged (9th/10th/11th).
Either one is possible - just accept that for now, and lets see what else turns up in the forthcoming weeks.

I have obtained the original court records from the L.M.A. for both the coat theft at Barnet, and the watch theft at Worship Street. Nothing of value has survived among the paperwork. So now I am searching elsewhere.

[Ben]

“I never claimed he hadn't been charged, he had, the previous day.”

But not for murder most horrid, Jon.

He could only have been remanded in connection with the Kelly murder if he was charged with committing that murder, and that obviously didn’t happen. Instead, he was remanded for stealing a watch – the offence for which he was actually charged – and the police evidently used that period of detention to investigate the flimsy accusations that had been levelled at him by nosy neighbours.

“Given that you accept the watch theft case was complete, ready for sentencing in other words, then any subsequent application for a remand in connection with THAT case is redundant.”

Put it this way: if the watch theft had never occurred, there was no possibility of placing Isaacs on remand to investigate his potential involvement in the Kelly murder. For that to happen, the police would have needed to charge him with having committing that murder, and as we know full well, they didn’t have a pot to piss in. It was therefore extremely fortunate for the police that silly Isaacs went back to his thieving ways following his incarceration and was quickly caught, as this enabled them use the “remand” facility to investigate whatever needed to be investigate viz a viz his potential involvement. The magistrate wasn’t obliged to explain his reasoning for granting a remand when it was clear that the watch case was all but resolved, but officially - and within the confines of what was legally permissible - Isaacs was remanded for stealing a watch; the offense for which he had been charged.

“What it reinforces is the probability that the police could not obtain any confirmation from Barnet (the telegraph) that Isaacs had been in their custody.”

You have an extraordinary faith in the efficiency and speed of the “telegraph”. It wasn’t like google, Jon. They didn’t just type words into a search engine and receive an immediate response following the click of a mouse. It required an actual person to sift through actual records on actual paper in actual drawers, and the likelihood of all documentation being in the same convenient location was slim. Realistically, it would have taken a considerable time to locate and confirm the relevant information.

“To be on remand over the weekend he MUST appear before a magistrate (or equal) on the Friday (or late Thursday), which to date we have no evidence of.”

From which you conclude…?

What?

That the police sent Isaacs on his merry way, albeit with the stern caution: “Now then you, we can’t seem to find the magistrate at the moment. I think it’s his weekly opera night or something, so we’ll just set you free, a career criminal, to go wherever you wish. But remember! You must come back here in a few days so we can punish you severely. Don’t even think about moving lodgings and slipping the net and evading justice – which you could easily do, and probably will – or else I will get so…cross!”

No, I’m sorry. Reality has to come into play here, and there is no conceivable circumstances under which an itinerant career criminal would have been set free in the hope that he would return sheepishly, and with trousers down, a few days later.

“Two legitimate alternatives exist which have a bearing on Isaac's whereabouts in the days after he was charged (9th/10th/11th).
Either one is possible - just accept that for now, and lets see what else turns up in the forthcoming weeks.”

Either one is possible, but only one is probable as it has all the evidence pointing in its favour, whereas the other is painfully remote even as a vague possibility.

But yes, I’m happy to accept that and see what further research uncovers. Until then, that’s probably us finished with the endless quote-counterpoint discussion over legalities!

Good luck with the research.

Ben

[Wickerman]

But not for murder most horrid, Jon.

He could only have been remanded in connection with the Kelly murder if he was charged with committing that murder, and that obviously didn’t happen. Instead, he was remanded for stealing a watch – the offence for which he was actually charged – and the police evidently used that period of detention to investigate the flimsy accusations that had been levelled at him by nosy neighbours.

If I recall, my point was that Isaacs was remanded on the 7th Dec. so that the police could fully investigate his whereabouts on the 9th. Nov.
I don't see what you write above as changing that in any way.

The magistrate wasn’t obliged to explain his reasoning for granting a remand when it was clear that the watch case was all but resolved, but officially - and within the confines of what was legally permissible - Isaacs was remanded for stealing a watch; the offense for which he had been charged.

So you are saying the legal grounds for granting the remand were not the same as the grounds the police used for making the request?
Is that your point?
If so, I agree.

You have an extraordinary faith in the efficiency and speed of the “telegraph”. It wasn’t like google, Jon. They didn’t just type words into a search engine and receive an immediate response following the click of a mouse. It required an actual person to sift through actual records on actual paper in actual drawers, and the likelihood of all documentation being in the same convenient location was slim. Realistically, it would have taken a considerable time to locate and confirm the relevant information.

This isn't a search of national records Ben, we are only talking about the Barnet Police files. And, Isaacs records were four weeks old, not years back.
You are trying to exaggerate the procedure because you can't admit to its simplicity.
All this is beside the point, I already explained to you that Constable Tyce, from the Barnet Police, was present at the Worship St. court where Isaacs was being charged with watch theft. There was a legal reason for this, happily it is explained in the Police code.

When a prisoner is arrested for a serious offence, every effort should be made to ascertain his former character, and if any previous convictions are recorded against him.

There are seven points of consideration given occupying just over a full page, but a couple of brief points will suffice.

6. The Magistrate should always be informed of a previous conviction, and if they then direct its proof it will be necessary to produce -
(a) A witness who was present at the former trial, or who saw the prisoner when undergoing imprisonment for the previous offence...

7. A certificate of the previous conviction is invariably required before the sentence of a convict on license or person under police supervision for a breach of the Prevention of Crime Acts.
The Police Code 1889, pp 137/8.

Constable Tyce is present to inform the court of any & all details pertaining to his arrest & imprisonment as judged by the Barnet Police Court four week earlier.

H Division knew ALL about Isaacs; when arrested, what for, whether detained or not, his sentence & for how long, and where he was imprisoned.

Yet.....they still requested a remand so as to investigate his precise whereabouts on the morning of the 9th Nov.

Clearly, Isaacs was not in Barnet Police custody on that date.

No, I’m sorry. Reality has to come into play here, and there is no conceivable circumstances under which an itinerant career criminal would have been set free in the hope that he would return sheepishly, and with trousers down, a few days later.

You don't appear to be aware that the police wrote up summonses for people with no known whereabouts. The procedure was to deliver it, or mail it to the last known address.
Which makes your claim that they wouldn't issue a summons to someone "who might abscond" rather redundant.
They issued a summons to people who have already absconded - ie, with no known whereabouts.
Your objection is irrelevant.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
A nearby resident claimed that a man called Lawrence, called on Kelly, some time previous, but asked this woman, to take in a summons for him, when it arrived,,the informant claimed he was a drover, who was often gone for weeks, and she believed it was the dead woman's husband..
Nothing is ever mentioned on Casebook about this mysterious man.. and as Wickerman states,,the summons would be sent to the last known address, which must have been given as the informants,otherwise she would not have been in receipt of it.?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

“If I recall, my point was that Isaacs was remanded on the 7th Dec. so that the police could fully investigate his whereabouts on the 9th. Nov.”

Ever so close, Jon.

But if you’ll forgive the pedantry, Isaacs was remanded on the 7th Dec, and the police used that remand period (for stealing a watch) as an opportunity to investigate his whereabouts on the 9th Nov.

Let’s leave it there.

“This isn't a search of national records Ben, we are only talking about the Barnet Police files. And, Isaacs records were four weeks old, not years back.
You are trying to exaggerate the procedure because you can't admit to its simplicity.”

On the contrary, you are grossly exaggerating its supposed “simplicity", and no, we’re not “only talking about the Barnet Police files”; we’re talking about the files at whatever remand prison Isaacs was sent to, which would have confirmed, absolutely, whether he was behind bars at the relevant time or let loose, inexplicably and implausibly, to escape justice with ease. As I’ve already explained, your suggestion that it was such a doddle to extract the information from Barnet police station (a minute’s exchange of “telegraphs”, according to you) is hopelessly unimaginative and unrealistic. To reason thusly is to downplay the magnitude of the ripper investigation, which called not for convenience and simplicity but for thoroughness.

Yes, it might have been quickly ascertained that Isaacs was already carrying out his sentence when the Farmer attack was committed, but it was of considerably less importance than "the mutilations", which the police accepted were unrelated. It might have taken a bit longer – not a lot, just a bit – to ascertain his whereabouts after his arrest but prior to his sentencing. We might imagine that the police, being thorough, would have made personal visits to the remand prison. Supererogatory, perhaps? Yes, but again, the circumstances called for it. Modern-day alibis are not cemented via text messages, just as 1888 alibis weren’t resolved by telegraph.

“Constable Tyce is present to inform the court of any & all details pertaining to his arrest & imprisonment as judged by the Barnet Police Court four week earlier.”

No, Jon.

Police constable Tyce wasn’t remotely expected to know the man’s entire criminal history, length of imprisonment etc. He was a PC, not Isaacs’s official biographer, and it wasn’t his lookout to acquaint himself with such details as time spent in a remand prison. He would probably have identified himself as the copper who collared him, and disclosed the detail – if known – that he had been in similar trouble before. If Worship Street had been familiar with every aspect of Isaacs’s criminal history, it is even more ludicrous to contemplate the idea of him being released into the big wide world to await a “summons”…like he was going to pay a smidgeon of attention to that!

“H Division knew ALL about Isaacs; when arrested, what for, whether detained or not, his sentence & for how long, and where he was imprisoned.”

You’ve produced no evidence to support this statement. The actual evidence suggests that they were not acquainted with this information until about the 7th December, when they made it their business to investigate Isaacs’s potential culpability in the Kelly murder.

“You don't appear to be aware that the police wrote up summonses for people with no known whereabouts. The procedure was to deliver it, or mail it to the last known address.”

For known repeat offenders and habitual thieves with no fixed abode? Got any evidence that the authorities were that cataclysmically thick and incompetent? Bet you haven’t. Why don’t you listen to that “police historian” whose expertise you recruited, and who told you that a “summons” would not be offered to anyone “likely to abscond”. Was there anyone more likely to abscond than dodgy old Joe “Pick-a-pocket-or-twelve” Isaacs? No, there wasn’t. Isaacs was held on remand over the 9th November, just like the evidence says, and because there is no realistic (possible?) alternative.

Which means he wasn’t Astrakhan man.

Which means he cannot come to the rescue of Hutchinson’s widely doubted credibility.

But I’ll try again: I’m happy to accept that and see what further research uncovers. Until then, that’s probably us finished with the endless quote-counterpoint discussion over legalities!

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ben, you are still trying to avoid the issue by resorting to exaggeration.

The magistrate at Worship Street will require an account of Isaacs previous convictions prior to sentencing. This would be obtained from the Habitual Criminals Register, but this record is only updated periodically, so anything within say that last month or thereabouts will need the presence of a witness to convey to the magistrate what Isaacs has been convicted for that has not yet been recorded.
How far the magistrate chooses to go back is his decision but certainly anything in November will be required to be laid before him.

Isaacs was wanted in connection with the Whitechapel murders, the police asked Mary Cusins to keep an eye out for him, so we know he was of concern to police.
Fortunately Isaacs gets himself arrested for theft while on the 'wanted' list, so yes Isaacs was charged in connection with the crime he was arrested for, but placed on remand in order for the police to investigate his whereabouts on the night of Kelly's murder.

Anyone in Isaacs position, and I dare say yourself included, if presented with the possibility of being charged with murder, and/or the second possibility of being charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Farmer case), Isaacs, yourself, myself & everyone with a pulse is going to admit to being in police custody on those two occasions if this was truly the case.

Evidently, as a result of police inquiries Constable Tyce was required to appear at Worship Street to present to the magistrate the facts concerning the whereabouts of Joseph Isaacs.
He was certainly in prison at the time of the attack on Annie Farmer, but the police were left with the duty to investigate where he was on the night of November 9th.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Constable Tyce was not able to tell the magistrate that Isaacs was in their custody on Nov. 9th.

All the paperwork concerning Isaacs trial at Barnet Police Court still resided at that court on Dec. 7th (when Isaacs appeared at Worship Street).
There is no difficulty involved in picking up one month old records to read the forms to the magistrate.
The most natural police witness to present the accounts of Joseph Isaacs would be the arresting officer, this is the role Constable Tyce fulfilled at Worship St.

It is nothing short of preposterous to suggest that the Barnet Police (in the form of Const. Tyce) could not answer the question on Dec. 7th as to whether Joseph Isaacs was in their custody on Nov. 9th.
The subsequent police investigation into the whereabouts of Joseph Isaacs on Nov. 9th indicates that he was not in Barnet Police custody.

[Scott Nelson]

Isaacs (in Leman St. Police station on Dec 6th) may have had had some interaction with David Cohen, who was brought in on the following day.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

A police constable was neither a registrar nor a criminal historian. PC Tyce - assuming you’ve identified the right person - was probably the policeman responsible for arresting Isaacs in the coat-pinching case, and appeared at the watch-pinching case to testify to that fact. He was very unlikely to have had any further involvement in Isaacs’s fate, and certainly would not have been acquainted with such details as the location of the remand prison Isaacs was sent to following the arrest. It was, quite simply, not his department.

Isaacs appeared at Worship Street in connection with his theft of a watch, remember – and Tyce’s presence in the same room could only have been in connection with that offence, not the Whitechapel murders, for which he was not being charged. Isaacs’s “whereabouts” were therefore of no concern to the magistrate, and it would have been hideously inappropriate, if not illegal, to use that court appearance – for mere theft – as an opportunity to ascertain a possible alibi for murder of Mary Kelly. Tyce would only have been able to provide the detail that Isaacs had been arrested for a similar offence in the past few weeks, since it had a direct bearing on the offense for which he was actually being charged, unlike his “whereabouts”, which was only relevant to the murder investigation, and which Tyce wouldn’t have known anything about anyway.

Tyce would have been restricted to saying something like: “He’s done this sort of thing before, because I was the one who arrested him in Barnet”, and it would have been the beginning and the end of his insight into the subject of Isaacs. In the extremely unlikely event that was in possession of further information relating to his “whereabouts” on the night of the Kelly murder, a court session for watch-theft was quite the wrong platform to air it. The evidence has to be relevant to the charge.

You accuse me of “avoiding the issue”, but it is you who seeks to obfuscate with irrelevancies about a police constable and his supposed knowledge of details he clearly had no knowledge of. The real issue, of course, is that Isaacs was kept in custody following his arrest for stealing two coats. The alternative explanation – that the police were so eye-wateringly cretinous as to release a known habitual thief, and to then expect him to wait at a lodging house for a summons to arrive – is not even a possibility, as far as I’m concerned.

Isaacs was in police custody when Mary Kelly was murdered, which means that he was neither her murderer nor the ludicrous "Astrakhan man". If you want to find ways to make Hutchinson look good and honest, you will therefore need to look beyond Isaacs, because there is no longer any possibility of him helping you out in that regard.

All the best,.
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

A police constable was neither a registrar nor a criminal historian. PC Tyce - assuming you’ve identified the right person - was probably the policeman responsible for arresting Isaacs in the coat-pinching case, and appeared at the watch-pinching case to testify to that fact.

Exactly, Tyce's role at Worship St was along the same lines as Sgt. Record, in who's custody Isaacs was brought that day in December.
Tyce & Record played the same role at their respective station houses, both responsible for Isaacs and in charge of his case.

He was very unlikely to have had any further involvement in Isaacs’s fate, and certainly would not have been acquainted with such details as the location of the remand prison Isaacs was sent to following the arrest. It was, quite simply, not his department.

And, in your view, what 'department' would that be exactly?

The arresting officer will stay with his charge throughout the paperwork process. Whether that was to write up and hand him a summons, or to place him in his cell overnight to wait for an immediate court appearance for bail or remand the next day.

Regardless, this process will be resolved, likely within the hour, so Const. Tyce knows the fate of Joseph Isaacs whether he was issued with a summons and sent on his way, or detained in police custody.

Constables appearing in court as witnesses was a regular part of police work, not only did Tyce know what was expected of him, also his Inspector knew what would be expected so he is certainly not going to send someone to represent Barnet Police who cannot provide all the answers the Magistrate is likely to ask.
You may forget, these people did this on a weekly basis, sometimes daily, it was second nature to them. They were not stupid.

...The alternative explanation – that the police were so eye-wateringly cretinous as to release a known habitual thief, and to then expect him to wait at a lodging house for a summons to arrive – is not even a possibility, as far as I’m concerned.

Regardless how you view it, that was the process.
Had it been as you believe then H Div. would have no cause to investigate his whereabouts. S Div. knew where he was, in their cells.
The story as it played out indicates no-one knew where Isaacs was on the morning Kelly was murdered.