hutchinsons suspect

[Ben]

“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.”

I’m afraid you’re pronouncing without evidence again, Jon.

Where is the evidence that an arresting PC will always “stay with his charge throughout the paperwork process”? That’s about as likely as a cod fisherman always remaining with his cod until the Sainsbury’s checkout “process”. Where is the evidence that the Barnet policeman who was present in court for the watch theft case was the same policeman who arrested Isaacs for the coat theft? I’ve explored the possibility of them being the same, but you’ve somehow mutated it into a fact, which it clearly isn’t. You’re now even suggesting that it fell to the arresting police constable to “write up and hand him a summons”, which is obviously nonsense. There is absolutely no reason – none at all – to think that the police constable who appeared at Worship Street knew where Isaacs was in the early hours of the 9th November.

“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.”

But the magistrate was absolutely not “likely to ask” about Isaacs’s whereabouts on the night on the Kelly murder because he had not been charged with committing that murder, or any other, for that matter. The policeman in question was there to assist as a witness in the watch theft case, and nothing more. If the magistrate wished to call him to the stand in order to ascertain Isaacs’s whereabouts on the night of a ripper-attributed murder, he would first need to charge Isaacs with committing that murder.

“...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.”

No, it most certainly and emphatically is not "the process", and I’m frankly disturbed that you can entertain such a preposterous notion just to keep the impossible “Isaasctrakhan” absurdity alive. Isaacs was in police custody at the time the Kelly murder was committed, and there is no escaping that reality. Lloyds Weekly reported as much on 23rd November, which neatly explains the sudden loss of interest in him as a suspect.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

23rd November

December, rather.

[Wickerman]

I’m afraid you’re pronouncing without evidence again, Jon.

Where is the evidence that an arresting PC will always “stay with his charge throughout the paperwork process”?

The arresting officer will sign the paperwork, the whole process may take an hour thereabouts.
In this case both the prosecutor John Bennett & accused Joseph Isaacs were in the same station at the same time, the formalities were straight forward as Isaacs did not claim innocence.

There is absolutely no reason – none at all – to think that the police constable who appeared at Worship Street knew where Isaacs was in the early hours of the 9th November.

Oh dear oh dear, the very fact that Tyce appeared at Worship Street Police Court means his presence was requested, likely the result of a summons.
(My mistake previously for suggesting he was sent by an Inspector)
We are not going to argue that Tyce just stepped in out of the rain now are we.

Isaacs informs H Div. police that he was arrested at Barnet and he is then asked the name of the arresting officer. A summons is then issued to Barnet Police Station for the attendance of Constable Tyce.

The presence of Const. Tyce indicates to us that the magistrate at Worship Street knew of his involvement with the accused.
The only way the magistrate will know is if H Div. told him, which in turn means Isaacs told H Div.
All roads lead back to Isaacs as the source of his arrest at Barnet Police station.

The press rather quickly learned that Isaacs had been in prison at the time of the attack on Annie Farmer, but they did not learn where Isaacs was at the time of the murder of Mary Kelly.
Had it been known then we would have read that in the papers too, but because this was not known H Div. police had to make inquiries, but between the time of Isaacs arrest on Dec. 6th and his court appearance the next day, there was no time to investigate. Hence, the request for a remand.
All very logical.

No need for an investigation if Isaacs had told them he was in Barnet Police custody, which he obviously did not.

Now tell me Ben, had you been searched for in connection with this Millers Court murder, would you tell the police you were in their custody as the perfect alibi?

This is a one word, one syllable, answer.

[Ben]

In this case both the prosecutor John Bennett & accused Joseph Isaacs were in the same station at the same time, the formalities were straight forward as Isaacs did not claim innocence.

The "formalities" associated with delivering Isaacs into custody following his arrest were probably quite "straightforward", yes, but the police constable responsible for making that arrest was very unlikely to have had anything to do with the no-brainer decision as to whether to send him home (!) or to a remand prison, where a known thief can't so easily run away to escape justice.

Oh dear oh dear, the very fact that Tyce appeared at Worship Street Police Court means his presence was requested, likely the result of a summons.
(My mistake previously for suggesting he was sent by an Inspector

What are you "oh dear"-ing for, Jon? I'm not disputing the above. I'm disputing your suggestion that the presence of the Barnet PC in question had anything to do with the murder of Mary Kelly - a crime for which Isaacs had not been charged. The PC was there as a witness in the watch theft case, and his contribution to the proceedings probably amounted to little more than an acknowledgement that Isaacs was the same man he arrested in Barnet in the coat case. It would have been a relevant contribution that helped establish Isaacs's credentials as a wrongun, as opposed to a one-off offender.

The press rather quickly learned that Isaacs had been in prison at the time of the attack on Annie Farmer

Yep, and it took just a little bit longer to verify his Miller's Court alibi, but that followed. Bear in mind that this offense was by far the more "serious" of the two, 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.

No need for an investigation if Isaacs had told them he was in Barnet Police custody, which he obviously did not.

Yes, there is a need for an investigation, because the nature of the crimes necessitated it, rather than the firing off of a quick email.

Now tell me Ben, had you been searched for in connection with this Millers Court murder, would you tell the police you were in their custody as the perfect alibi?

Yes, I would; just as Isaacs did, because he was.

Regards.
Ben

[Wickerman]

The PC was there as a witness in the watch theft case, and his contribution to the proceedings probably amounted to little more than an acknowledgement that Isaacs was the same man he arrested in Barnet in the coat case. It would have been a relevant contribution that helped establish Isaacs's credentials as a wrongun, as opposed to a one-off offender.

Yes, and as he is the best one to provide such background, I find it strange that you think Tyce is also not able to satisfy H Div.'s concern as to whether Isaacs was issued with a summons (signed by Tyce), or placed in the cells (paperwork required by Tyce) to await a court appearance the next day.
Tyce is bound to remember which paperwork he signed.

Yep, and it took just a little bit longer to verify his Miller's Court alibi, but that followed.

Det. Record may ask Tyce or his Inspector to confirm whether Isaacs was detained on the 9th, no investigation is required.
Barnet Police station is barely 10 miles distant, a carriage ride away.
Telegraph is the more efficient, either way H Div. are only looking for confirmation from another police division - no investigation is involved.
H Div. are not going to investigate a trusted source, like S Div.

Yes, I would; just as Isaacs did, because he was.

Indeed you would, so Isaacs would have told H Div. if he was in their custody, avoiding any need for an investigation.
Yet, we do have an investigation to locate his whereabouts, and we also have a reliable witness in Mrs Cusins who stated that Isaacs was in his room.
Both being mutually supportive that Isaacs was out on the streets on the night in question.

[Ben]

“I find it strange that you think Tyce is also not able to satisfy H Div.'s concern as to whether Isaacs was issued with a summons (signed by Tyce), or placed in the cells (paperwork required by Tyce) to await a court appearance the next day.”

Not nearly as strange as your very unlikely assertion that the police constable responsible for Isaacs’s arrest “remained” with him during what you describe as the “paperwork process”, and was even present during the non-decision whether to remand him or send him home to await a laughable “summons”. You’re now even suggesting that the PC himself would have signed the court summons if one had been issued! I don’t pretend to be an expert on police procedure (and I trust you make no pretensions in that direction either), but I recognise a truly improbable claim when I see one, which is why any evidence for the prolonged involvement of the arresting constable during the “paperwork process” would be welcome here.

“Det. Record may ask Tyce or his Inspector to confirm whether Isaacs was detained on the 9th, no investigation is required.”

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.

“Indeed you would, so Isaacs would have told H Div. if he was in their custody, avoiding any need for an investigation.”

So Isaacs’s mere say-so would abrogate the need for an investigation? Don’t think so somehow.

“Yet, we do have an investigation to locate his whereabouts, and we also have a reliable witness in Mrs Cusins who stated that Isaacs was in his room.
Both being mutually supportive that Isaacs was out on the streets on the night in question.”

I’m afraid this is very irritating nonsense. The fact that Isaacs would not have been sent home following his coat-theft arrest, coupled with the 23rd December Lloyds Weekly article stating that he was in prison at the time of the murder for coat theft, serve as mutually supportive evidence in favour of Isaacs being in prison. Only a criminally negligent police force would release Isaacs, a known career thief, back onto the streets to resume his career thievery, and it definitely didn’t happen in this case.

But happy to keep going round and round in circles with this one.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Not nearly as strange as your very unlikely assertion that the police constable responsible for Isaacs’s arrest “remained” with him during what you describe as the “paperwork process”, and was even present during the non-decision whether to remand him or send him home to await a laughable “summons”. You’re now even suggesting that the PC himself would have signed the court summons if one had been issued!

Yes, the man making the charge is the arresting officer, so Isaacs can't be passed to some other constable who knows nothing about it to do the paperwork.

Ok, here's the procedure so we are clear what I am saying.

The arresting officer brings Isaacs to the Barnet Police station, the first step is to sign him in on the register, or enter his name for him, either way.
Every visitor who is not directly attached to the station must sign in on the register.

Then Isaacs will be taken to the charge room by the arresting officer. It is here the charge is made out and signed.

The decision whether to hold him or issue a summons will be made, likely by a senior officer.
At this point that senior officer is not likely to know of any past record of Isaacs, so the decision will be made based on the details of this case and his demeanor.

Should they decide to issue a summons Isaacs will have to wait while someone from the station contacts the chief clerk of the court to obtain a time & date when Isaacs is to appear. This will be written on the summons.
Then Isaacs will be given the summons and sent on his way.

Should they decide to hold him he will be taken to a room and searched, all his possessions will be logged and taken away to be held until he leaves. Then he is placed in the cells for the allowed time to await his appearance before a magistrate "at the earliest opportunity".
Which could be that afternoon (Thursday), or sometime on Friday.
Only a magistrate has the authority to place the prisoner on remand for the weekend.
(This is what Trevor was alluding to)

After Isaacs being let go with a summons, or at the point he is placed in the cells (to await his appearance before the magistrate), this is when the arresting officer will take some time to make out a report of the incident being well aware he may have to use this in court.
After concluding his report the arresting officer is free to resume his duties.

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, ....

Isaacs is threatened with being implicated in the murder if he has no alibi, at which point (no doubt) he insists he was in police custody (your preference), at the time of the murder.
He is asked for the name of the arresting officer, and a quick telegraph to Barnet police station to confirm Isaacs claim is all that is necessary.
On receiving confirmation H Div. may request Barnet to send along a copy of the paperwork for their files.
All done and concluded within the hour - no investigation necessary.


However, in the real world, H Div. already knew from S Div. about Isaacs being in prison at the time of the attack on Farmer, so they also would have learned from S Div. when Isaacs was arrested, and whether he was held in custody prior to being sentenced in court on the Monday.
All this would have been discussed at the same time between S Div. and H Div.

The fact that H Div. felt it necessary to conduct an investigation indicates to us the starkly obvious conclusion that Barnet had no idea where Isaacs was over that weekend.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

By “evidence” I really meant actual sources, not just you saying “here’s the procedure” and describing what you insist must have occurred. Just to clarify, I was specifically looking for evidence of arresting police constables being involved in the decision-making process over whether to remand the suspects they had arrested or send them on their merry, thieving way. Logic and common sense obviously dictates that they would have neither involvement in that process, or any knowledge of its outcome; not being senior enough in rank to be on that need-to-know basis. They were merely the officers responsible for arresting their suspects.

The arresting officer will have to file out an “arrest report”, yes, but that’s the beginning and the end of his “paperwork”. He certainly doesn’t have anything to do with signing a court summons (if applicable, which it isn’t here), and nor is he required to acquaint himself with details of the suspect’s remand period and location. The constable in question didn’t even need to be in the same building as Isaacs when the decision to remand him (or issue a summons!) was made. If he was requested to appear as a witness in the watch theft case, it would purely have been to confirm the fact that Isaacs had been arrested for theft on a previous occasion.

If you have evidence to counter these obvious realities, I’m all ears.

“He is asked for the name of the arresting officer, and a quick telegraph to Barnet police station to confirm Isaacs claim is all that is necessary.”

But the arresting officer isn’t going to know anything about any alibi for any murder because he had no involvement in the remanding of Isaacs, as I’ve already explained. I don’t doubt that there was something written down at Barnet Police station to the effect that Isaacs had been remanded, and this probably was provided on request from H Division. But against this was Curtain-Twitcher’s “evidence” that Isaacs was pacing his room in Paternoster Row like a scary potential murderer on the 9th, and it required more than a “telegraph” (not to be confused with a Magic Wand)) to quell those false rumours to the satisfaction of anyone seeking to rule out suspects in a serial murder enquiry. It requires, at the very least, a visit to the remand prison in question just in case a mistake was made somewhere – it wasn’t likely, but it was possible.

You overlook another point: there were other murders besides Kelly, and it might have occurred to Abberline to interview Isaacs about these, especially in light of Cornelius Oaks’s allegation that he had threatened violence to all women over the age of 17. Even if it was ascertained fairly quickly that Isaacs was in a remand prison on the morning of the 9th, it would have been a clever move to at least attempt to ascertain his whereabouts on the nights of previous murders, especially as the police were able to use that “remand” time presented by the convenient watch theft.

“However, in the real world, H Div. already knew from S Div. about Isaacs being in prison at the time of the attack on Farmer, so they also would have learned from S Div. when Isaacs was arrested, and whether he was held in custody prior to being sentenced in court on the Monday.
All this would have been discussed at the same time between S Div. and H Div.”

And what “time” was this? 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"

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

By “evidence” I really meant actual sources, not just you saying “here’s the procedure” and describing what you insist must have occurred.

Hi Ben.
I was not actually responding to your objection to lack of evidence. I had noticed you make a couple of interpretations of what I wrote that I had not intended. You also made a comment about Isaacs being sent home to wait for the summons. This was Thursday, the court appearance was Monday, there was no time to wait for the Royal Mail.
I wanted to clarify what my position was. Also I was not being exhaustive, I made no mention of the role of the inspector or the duty sergeant. Neither did I suggest this was the same procedure for all arrests, which it most certainly would not have been.
Isaacs was placid & harmless, more apologetic than anything.
Had he been a violent murderer arrested in cuffs then the procedure would have been quite different.

Logic and common sense obviously dictates that they would have neither involvement in that process, or any knowledge of its outcome; not being senior enough in rank to be on that need-to-know basis. They were merely the officers responsible for arresting their suspects.

But, the arresting officer is the one who is the police witness at Barnet Court. He is expected to know anything that the magistrate may ask.
Police witnesses appear in court every day as a matter of their common duty. There is never an assembly of officers from all departments - just the one.
What I have not read from you is the reason you think "logic and common sense" would dictate otherwise.

If he was requested to appear as a witness in the watch theft case, it would purely have been to confirm the fact that Isaacs had been arrested for theft on a previous occasion.

And the best officer to fulfill that role is the same officer who appeared at the Barnet Police court when he was sentenced for the coat thefts - this being the arresting officer.
I don't recall you explaining why such an officer would not know if Isaacs had been summonsed or remanded.

Incidentally, four other cases that appeared at Barnet on the same day (Nov. 12th), mentioned that the prisoner was appearing in response to a summons.
Sadly, and possibly due to the length of the entry, the reporter omitted to mention this in the case of Isaacs.
He could have appeared as a result of a remand, or a summons, as neither were mentioned we find ourselves here...

So it was likely stated in court on Nov. 12th., as with the other cases.
Now you seem to be suggesting that by Dec. 7th this officer would not have known?

If you have evidence to counter these obvious realities, I’m all ears.

You have not explained why you believe your assumptions are "obvious".

But the arresting officer isn’t going to know anything about any alibi for any murder because he had no involvement in the remanding of Isaacs, as I’ve already explained. I don’t doubt that there was something written down at Barnet Police station to the effect that Isaacs had been remanded, and this probably was provided on request from H Division.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So H Div. ask Const. Tyce, and he (if he didn't know) passed the request on to his superior, who responds to H Div.

How much time did that take - a matter of minutes?
Hence, no investigation required.

It requires, at the very least, a visit to the remand prison in question just in case a mistake was made somewhere – it wasn’t likely, but it was possible.

At the time I think the remand prison was Pentonville, at Barnsbury in Islington, just minutes away.

And what “time” was this? When do you allege these discussions between S and H “Divs” occurred?

Given that Isaacs was arrested for the watch theft on Dec. 6th, and appeared at Worship Street Police Court on the 7th.
And, that even the press had learned about Isaacs being out of circulation for the attack on Farmer in time to publish on the 7th.
It suggests the police were aware of this fact later in the day of the 6th.

Therefore, they had confirmed this important point by the evening of Dec. 6th. So it beggars belief that H Div. did not discuss the whole story of Isaacs arrest and detainment or summons, all at the same time.
That is the "time" I refer to.

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 tell the press about a telegraph?
It is sufficient for them to dismiss the association out of hand, in typical police fashion, no explanations are necessary.
The best the reporter could write was: ".... the man could in no way be connected with that outrage."
Doesn't that say it all.
Another example of the police not being open with the press.

Why would the police need to make “exhaustive inquiries” if establishing an alibi could be achieved via telegraph, as you claim?

An alibi can only be confirmed by telegraph, if that alibi exists.
The "exhaustive inquiries" were necessary because that potential alibi did not exist.
Hence, H Div. had to check Isaacs own story of where he had been that night.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“But, the arresting officer is the one who is the police witness at Barnet Court. He is expected to know anything that the magistrate may ask.”

Yes, and the magistrate was not going to ask anything about alibis for Jack the Ripper murders because that was not the crime for which Isaacs had been charged. The magistrate would only have asked for information that might have had a bearing on the watch theft, and frankly, it would not have amounted to very much. “Is this the man you arrested for stealing two coats? Yes. So he’s stolen stuff before? Yes.” There didn’t need to be an “assembly of officers from all departments” to impart this basic piece of information, which was all the magistrate was likely to be interested in. The Barnet PC was unlikely to have provided any more information than that because it would not have been relevant to the charge of watch theft.

We’ve talked about this constable an awful lot, but I’d be interested in seeing the original reference to his presence in court. I don’t doubt that it exists; I would just be interested to read the actual wording.

“I don't recall you explaining why such an officer would not know if Isaacs had been summonsed or remanded.”

I recall explaining that since it wasn’t the arresting police constable’s business to know such things, it is very unlikely that he made it his business..

“Incidentally, four other cases that appeared at Barnet on the same day (Nov. 12th), mentioned that the prisoner was appearing in response to a summons.
Sadly, and possibly due to the length of the entry, the reporter omitted to mention this in the case of Isaacs.”

He “omitted to mention” it, no doubt, because he knew it was completely untrue in Isaacs’s case. The type of offences and misdemeanours in the other four cases were probably of a nature that warranted the issuing of a summons, unlike the theft committed by well-known dodgy career criminal Joseph Isaacs, for whom a “summons” would have been an unthinkably and impossibly ludicrous mistake. You’re doing that thing you do again when you research a subject and discover that the results of that research support a polar opposite conclusion from the one you hoped for; you claim it illustrates something else entirely.

What you’ve really found here, though, is more support for the reality that Isaacs remained incarcerated following his arrest for coat-nicking.

“Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So H Div. ask Const. Tyce, and he (if he didn't know) passed the request on to his superior, who responds to H Div.

How much time did that take - a matter of minutes?”

No, nothing like a “matter of minutes” - don’t be silly. I repeat: It wasn’t like google. 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. The question of alibis would not have come up until after Isaacs was remanded for watch theft; when Abberline presumably wished to quiz him over his whereabouts for other murders.

“At the time I think the remand prison was Pentonville, at Barnsbury in Islington, just minutes away.”

Errr…no.

The distance between Leman Street and Pentonville prison is four miles, and with 1888 transport the two locations would not have been “just minutes away” from each other.

“And, that even the press had learned about Isaacs being out of circulation for the attack on Farmer in time to publish on the 7th.”

No they hadn,t Jon.

This is precisely the point I tackled in my previous point. 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”. It is extremely clear that H-division had no opportunity to look into the question of Isaacs’s alibis until after the 7th December court appearance was done and dusted, at which point they used the period of “remand” – for watch theft – to investigate Isaacs’s whereabouts at their leisure, secure in the knowledge that he wasn’t going anywhere.

“Why would the police tell the press about a telegraph?
It is sufficient for them to dismiss the association out of hand, in typical police fashion, no explanations are necessary”

Why wouldn’t the police tell the press about a telegraph? Joseph Isaacs stood accused of being Jack the Ripper, and the police had nothing to lose from declaring Isaacs innocent of that charge if they had proof to that effect. The police are typically reticent about supplying the press with information if that they think the latter will interfere with their work to the detriment of justice, and nothing of the sort applied to the revelation that a suspect had been proven innocent.

“The best the reporter could write was: ".... the man could in no way be connected with that outrage."
Doesn't that say it all.”

No, because you’ve excluded the relevant bit: “as far as can be ascertained, the man could in no way be connected with that outrage”, which means that so far – and despite “exhaustive inquiries” – they could not find anything linking Isaacs with Farmer. This would be a nonsensical thing to say if the police were in possession of a proven alibi. The logical assumption, therefore, is that they weren’t at that stage.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Yes, and the magistrate was not going to ask anything about alibis for Jack the Ripper murders because that was not the crime for which Isaacs had been charged.

Hi Ben.
The Magistrate doesn't need to enquire about alibi's. He only needs to ask Tyce where Isaacs was on the 9th. You are making hard work of a very simple matter.

Look, do you seriously believe the Magistrate is going to authorize a remand without knowing what that remand was for?

He knows the request by Det. Record has nothing to do with the watch theft, that case is settled. Det. Record has to explain why he needs the Remand.
As soon as Record explains his request, to investigate Isaacs whereabouts on 9th Nov., the Magistrate only needs to turn to Const. Tyce and ask him if he can enlighten Det. Record while they are all gathered here together.

That is merely a matter of common sense.
These people are professionals Ben, they will talk to each other to solve a common problem.

We’ve talked about this constable an awful lot, but I’d be interested in seeing the original reference to his presence in court. I don’t doubt that it exists; I would just be interested to read the actual wording.

One of the existing documents I obtained from the London Metropolitan Archives on the Worship Street Court case for the watch theft is a brief statement by Const. Tyce.

I recall explaining that since it wasn’t the arresting police constable’s business to know such things, it is very unlikely that he made it his business.

Ah, so not evidence then. Just opinion.
So why are you asking me for evidence?
Isn't the convention to respond in kind?
Opinion is countered with opinion, while evidence is countered by evidence?

He “omitted to mention” it, no doubt, because he knew it was completely untrue in Isaacs’s case.

And here is me giving you a little more credit than that.
The press coverage does not mention Remand, Summons, Warrant nor Bail.
So what was the legal instrument that caused his arrival before the Magistrate?

According to you none of the above because (in your opinion) all of them must have been "completely untrue", as he didn't mention any of them.
Oh, brother!

What you’ve really found here, though, is more support for the reality that Isaacs remained incarcerated following his arrest for coat-nicking.

Thats typical Ben double-talk.
The reporter didn't mention summons because it was untrue, but he also didn't mention Remand because it was true?
Sillyness.

No, nothing like a “matter of minutes” - don’t be silly.....
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.

Confirmation is verbal Ben, just an inspector saying, "Yes, he was......"(etc).
The location of the paperwork is what follows to send to H Div.

Realistically, it would have taken a considerable time to locate and confirm the relevant information. The question of alibis would not have come up until after Isaacs was remanded for watch theft; when Abberline presumably wished to quiz him over his whereabouts for other murders.

Like I pointed out previously, all this talk about Tyce is beside the point.
The enquiry to S Div. appears to have taken place late on Dec. 6th, the day before Isaacs appeared in court.

Why do you think the press observed the police making inquiries "in the neighborhood"?
"The detectives at the East End are making every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately..."
Not, because Isaacs was safely behind bars in police custody.

The distance between Leman Street and Pentonville prison is four miles, and with 1888 transport the two locations would not have been “just minutes away” from each other.

How long do you think it would take by carriage to travel four miles from Leman St. to Pentonville?
30 minutes, 45, 60?
A matter of minutes.

This is precisely the point I tackled in my previous point. 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”.

Ah, so the police reticence, which is quite usual in these cases, is understood by you as proof they knew nothing.
In other words, the police should have told the press what they knew.
Oh boy, you still have a lot to learn.

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”.

So, "in no way" is not the same as "fully ascertained" (your phrase)?
Anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language would disagree with that nonsense.

Why wouldn’t the police tell the press about a telegraph?

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!"

No, because you’ve excluded the relevant bit: “as far as can be ascertained, the man could in no way be connected with that outrage”, which means that so far – and despite “exhaustive inquiries” – they could not find anything linking Isaacs with Farmer.

Where do you see quotation marks?
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.

After Isaacs was arrested we read this:
"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."
The police have no reservations about lying to the press Ben.

[Wickerman]

How long do you think it would take by carriage to travel four miles from Leman St. to Pentonville?
30 minutes, 45, 60?
A matter of minutes.

My mistake, the remand prison was Holloway not Pentonville, another 1/2 mile or so up the road?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben, your point about the arresting officer.

.... and nor is he required to acquaint himself with details of the suspect’s remand period and location. The constable in question didn’t even need to be in the same building as Isaacs when the decision to remand him (or issue a summons!) was made. If he was requested to appear as a witness in the watch theft case, it would purely have been to confirm the fact that Isaacs had been arrested for theft on a previous occasion.

If you have evidence to counter these obvious realities, I’m all ears.

I just wanted to address this from a different perspective.

The responsibilities of the arresting officer is spelled out here:

"The Metropolitan Police instruction book for candidates and constables states that 'a constable who has apprehended a person must attend the police court the next morning, clean and properly dressed, with his prisoner and be quite ready when his case is called'."
Capturing Jack the Ripper, Bell, 2014, p.83.

The variable in the above is obviously "the next morning", as that all depends on the court schedule.
What we can take from this instruction is that it is the arresting officer who must appear in court with his prisoner at the earliest opportunity.
Specifically talking here about the coat theft and Isaacs appearance at Barnet Police Court.

- Had Isaacs been issued with a summons, the constable will be informed to expect his charge turning up on his own recognisance at the appointed time.

- Had Isaacs been held on Remand, and at Holloway, the constable would be required to appear at Holloway with paperwork in order to receive the prisoner into his custody, and escort him to Barnet Police Court.

- We do know Isaacs appearance was not the result of a Warrant, and I can't imagine who would bail him out for the weekend - so those two options are not under consideration.

The arresting officer arrives at Barnet Police court fully aware that his prisoner was either on Remand or issued with a Summons. The associated paperwork be it Summons or Remand is handed in to the Clerk of the Court.

Now, if we step forward a month to the Worship Street Police Court, and Isaacs is now in the custody of Det. Record.

The one constable from Barnet who is best equipped to speak about Joseph Isaacs at Worship Street Police Court is the arresting officer. Constable David Tyce is the constable from Barnet who appears at Worship Street.

This is what indicates to me that Const. Tyce was able to say quite categorically whether Isaacs was Remanded or under Summons on 9th Nov.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The Magistrate doesn't need to enquire about alibi's. He only needs to ask Tyce where Isaacs was on the 9th.”

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”.

The remand in question was officially granted in connection with the watch theft, although the magistrate would have known full well that the police intended to use it as an opportunity to investigate Curtain-Twitcher’s claims.

“One of the existing documents I obtained from the London Metropolitan Archives on the Worship Street Court case for the watch theft is a brief statement by Const. Tyce.”

Which says…?

“Ah, so not evidence then. Just opinion.
So why are you asking me for evidence?
Isn't the convention to respond in kind?
Opinion is countered with opinion, while evidence is countered by evidence?”

So just to clarify, then, you have no evidence that the constable who arrested Isaacs had any knowledge regarding his subsequent treatment, i.e. a remand versus a summons? Didn’t think you had. 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.

“According to you none of the above because (in your opinion) all of them must have been "completely untrue", as he didn't mention any of them.”

What do you mean “according to me”? I’m simply relying on you’ve been telling me about the sources in question, which you’re not providing. 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. Evidently, if a case involved a summons the “press coverage” made note of it. Your research demonstrates that very well, so embrace it.

“Confirmation is verbal Ben, just an inspector saying, "Yes, he was......"(etc).
The location of the paperwork is what follows to send to H Div.”

What “inspector” are you talking about? Where is the evidence that H division was in communication with an "inspector" – prior to Isaacs’s court appearance on the 7th – who was able to provide conclusive proof as to whether or not he was incarcerated on the morning of the 9th? The location of the paperwork is not merely “what follows”; it is what is absolutely required to absolve a person of culpability in a ripper murder.

“Like I pointed out previously, all this talk about Tyce is beside the point.
The enquiry to S Div. appears to have taken place late on Dec. 6th, the day before Isaacs appeared in court.

Why do you think the press observed the police making inquiries "in the neighborhood"?
"The detectives at the East End are making every inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the suspect, who is well known in the locality, although he is stated to have been absent lately..."
Not, because Isaacs was safely behind bars in police custody.”

You’ve got this exhaustingly wrong again. The police were making inquiries in the neighbourhood about Isaacs’s possible involvement in the Farmer attack, not the Kelly murder. This brings me back to my previous point: why would the police be making those inquiries (re Isaacs/Farmer) if they had already been in contact with S division and ascertained from them that Isaacs was in prison at the time (which we know for a fact he was)? H division evidently did not know that “Isaacs was safely behind bars” at the time of the Farmer incident, which means they were evidently not in contact with S division at that time, and were accordingly clueless as to Isaacs’s whereabouts at the time of the Kelly murder. All the evidence points in the direction of the police not knowing about Isaacs’s alibis – for both crimes – until after magistrate Bushby had granted the remand on the 7th December.

“How long do you think it would take by carriage to travel four miles from Leman St. to Pentonville?
30 minutes, 45, 60?”

Probably something in that region, yes, but most people don’t use the expression “just minutes away” to describe a location that is 30, 45, or 60 minutes away. How do you know which prison Isaacs would have been sent to, had he been remanded?

“Ah, so the police reticence, which is quite usual in these cases, is understood by you as proof they knew nothing.”

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. Surely you can see the sense in that, even on your planet where all policemen hate all journalists, and vice versa, all the time.

“So, "in no way" is not the same as "fully ascertained" (your phrase)?
Anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language would disagree with that nonsense.”

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 Metropolitan Police instruction book for candidates and constables states that 'a constable who has apprehended a person must attend the police court the next morning, clean and properly dressed, with his prisoner and be quite ready when his case is called'."
Capturing Jack the Ripper, Bell, 2014, p.83…”

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; whether languishing behind bars or dressing up in clothes he couldn’t afford and accosting soon-to-be-murdered ripper victims.

The PC was required, for obvious reasons, to be in court with his charge at the time of the latter's court appearance; he was not required, for equally obvious reasons, to be a taxi service for that charge. Turning up at Holloway with "paperwork" you can forget. Even in the extremely unlikely event that the PC knew whether Isaacs had been remanded or summonsed, there was still an obvious incentive to use the remand period to investigate his whereabouts on the nights of previous murders. Even if Tyce had confirmed that Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder (which he obviously was, because the alternative is impossible), there were still other matters (i.e. other murders) that were worth looking into.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

How do you know which prison Isaacs would have been sent to, had he been remanded?

Here, let me do your homework for you.
On the subject of the Metropolitan Police securing the identification of prisoners.

"Were it not for the assistance of the prison warders - all remand cases from London being concentrated in one large prison - and the special police arrangements to be described later, it would be impossible in London to secure the identification of more than a very small proportion of the local criminals." (pg. 6)

"The most characteristic, and as it would appear, the most effective method is the inspection of remand prisoners in Holloway. To this prison are sent all persons committed for trial or remanded by magistrates within the Metropolitan Police district, and here three times a week come the warders from the gaols at Wormwood scrubs, Pentonville, Wandsworth and Chelmsford and detective officers from the twenty-two Metropolitan Police divisions, an inspector from New Scotland Yard, and six officers from the City of London Police to view the unconvicted prisoners at the hour of exercise.
In this way a prisoner who's identity is unknown by the constable by whom he has been arrested will often be recognised, either by a warder who has known him in prison, or by a police constable who has had him in custody on some previous charge." (pg. 10)
Identification of Habitual Criminals, 1894.

Turning up at Holloway with "paperwork" you can forget.

Well, if you had purchased The Police Code you would see a facsimile of the release form.

I'll try address other points later.