Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

[Ben]

The evidence is provided in the words of those who actually saw the prisoner. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, there is no "certainly" associated to any 30 yr old Jew donning a moustache.

Of course there is.

If it was "certain" that Isaacs was a "30 yr old Jew donning a moustache", and "certain" that Hutchinson described a man fitting that description, we have sufficient material with which to justify the "certainly" observation. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Isaacs ever wore an Astrakhan coat, as I am prepared to tell you "ad nauseam". Yes, I will "deny" and "dismiss" where I recognise that denials and dismissals are appropriate, as they are in this case. And since you'll be deprived of the opportunity to win a war of repetition on this subject, I would suggest being more receptive to my advice, in future, when I caution against going round in circles on the same ghastly tedious points all the bloody time. Sally has observed that we're off topic and getting nowhere, and she makes a good point.

Hutchinson described his suspect as having been 5'6", not 5'4", the former being about an average height for the period. Isaacs being of supposedly "short" stature is therefore irrelevant.

Coupled with his height, the fact Isaacs was known to flaunt a fake gold watch chain, and the press who saw him wearing the astrachan coat.

Nope, no evidence at all of Isaacs ever wearing or owning an Astrakhan coat.

Of all the published suspect descriptions concerned in the Whitechapel murder case, not one solitary living person has ever been so closely identified with one of these descriptions, as Joseph Isaacs can be with the Hutchinson suspect.

Nope, nonsense again.

You're forgetting the individuals who can actually be shown to have worn Astrakhan coats, such as foreigner Anton Pischa. You're also forgetting that superficial facial similarity with a published description is rendered horridly meaningless if (a) the published description was completely discredited, as we know it was, or (b) a police investigation determined that the suspected individual could not possibly have been the character seen by the witness, even if that witness was taken seriously.

The suggestion Isaacs had problems with the mature female sex is not strange for the times, neither does it warrant a four-man escourt of a manacled prisoner.

Problems with the mature female sex?

Are you even slightly serious?

We're not talking about first date anxiety or a floppy willy here. Isaacs was accused of threatening violence to all women over 17, and when this allegation is coupled with equally incriminating claims regarding his place of residence and his alleged departure from the area shortly after the murder, you have all the ingredients for a serious ripper suspect worth pursuing. Nothing else was required to justify the police interest in Isaacs - the very, very short-lived police interest in Isaacs, that is.

Now for crying out loud, have the maturity and life experience to recognise that we're progressing no further with this infernal Isaacs nonsense and leave the damned thing alone.

[Wickerman]

If you remember, Jon, my objection to the suggested Astrakhan-Isaacs comparison was purely in reaction to the claim that they wore the same clothing. There is absolutely no evidence for this,

The evidence is provided in the words of those who actually saw the prisoner. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, there is no "certainly" associated to any 30 yr old Jew donning a moustache.
To be certain we know that the overall appearance must match in all respects.

"whose appearance certainly answered to the published description"

The certainty is attached to his physical features AND, him wearing the Astrachan trimmed coat.

Deny, dismiss, as is your want, but the written record remains uncontested.

It is not only his age, about 30, his ethnicity, his moustache, but also his height at 5ft 4in. Isaacs was of short stature.
Quite consistent with Hutchinson's claim: "I stooped down and looked him in the face."

I’ve acknowledged that they were the same apparent ethnicity and age, and both may have worn a moustache, but this was the likely full extent of any “similarity”.

Coupled with his height, the fact Isaacs was known to flaunt a fake gold watch chain, and the press who saw him wearing the astrachan coat.

Of all the published suspect descriptions concerned in the Whitechapel murder case, not one solitary living person has ever been so closely identified with one of these descriptions, as Joseph Isaacs can be with the Hutchinson suspect.

As I’ve already explained, there was already plenty of material to warrant a serious interest in Isaacs.

Not at all, the police were used to dealing with unfounded accusations stemming from disgruntled citizens.
The suggestion Isaacs had problems with the mature female sex is not strange for the times, neither does it warrant a four-man escourt of a manacled prisoner.

Abberline was very obviously in high hopes he had at long last found Hutchinson's suspect - "a very big thing!".

[Ben]

“You now acknowledge that all your previous condemnations of 'my silly'? comparison between Isaacs and Astrachan are not of my own creation.”

If you remember, Jon, my objection to the suggested Astrakhan-Isaacs comparison was purely in reaction to the claim that they wore the same clothing. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and it is very unlikely (and no, you’re not about to start a repetitive discussion over that again!). I’ve acknowledged that they were the same apparent ethnicity and age, and that both may have worn a moustache, but this was likely the full extent of any “similarity”.

"It is further stated that the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.” "

Whether those were the actual words used is debatable, though the overall impression was certainly that Abberline believed Isaacs was the long sought suspect described by Hutchinson.

No, not remotely.

As I’ve already explained, there was already plenty of material to warrant a serious interest in Isaacs. Never mind that most of the allegations concerning his alleged credentials as a ripper suspect turned out to be nonsense, the fact that he was reported at that time to have threatened violence against women, to have lived within a stone’s throw of Miller’s Court, and to have left the area immediately after the Kelly murder, would have been of obvious interest to the police. It was in response to these claims that Abberline et al may have been enthusiastic, albeit initially. Nothing to do with Astrakhan or Hutchinson.

“If you do contest that this was your view then I would feel obliged to relocate the phrase. Though "overwhelmingly likely" conveys the same interpretation”

I would be the first to contest it on Garry’s behalf, and I’ll save you the bother of trying to “relocate the phrase”. Garry has never once used the phrase “unquestionably correct” about anything on Casebook. It’s really rather fortunate that we have keyword and keyphrase search facilities on this website to expose false allegations, such as this one. You ought to be aware of the obvious distinction between “unquestionably correct” and “overwhelmingly correct”. The former is an expression of certainty, while the latter is not. So, much like your uncalled for attack on Sally, an apology is owed to Garry here.

[Wickerman]

I did, Jon? Well, I've just followed the link you provided and can find no such statement. Perhaps you'd care to locate it and provide another link.

Yes Garry, you did.
Do you contest this is/was your view on the matter? If you do contest that this was your view then I would feel obliged to relocate the phrase. Though "overwhelmingly likely" conveys the same interpretation.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=187969&postcount=257

As for your mocking condemnation of Sally, I seem to recollect your certainty that Hutchinson could have availed himself of a free night at the Victoria Home .......

I don't contest this, but neither do I recall it. As this is also your recollection (as your above comment was with me), then I guess we can allow for a slight inaccuracy in the precise wording.

You're not always wrong, Jon, but you're not always right either.

Agreed, though I do know and are able to adequately express the difference between a "possibility" and an "established fact". And never attempt to disguise one for the other, which is a distinct contributing factor to the tone of many threads.
And no, I am not hinting at yourself.

Casebook would be a nicer place were there more amicable disagreements and fewer personal attacks.

Yes, wouldn't it just.

[Garry Wroe]

I do give you credit though, you sold your hypothesis well enough for Garry to buy into it. If I recall Garry described it, "unquestionably correct", good job we did not take that interpretation too seriously, hey?

I did, Jon? Well, I've just followed the link you provided and can find no such statement. Perhaps you'd care to locate it and provide another link.

As for your mocking condemnation of Sally, I seem to recollect your certainty that Hutchinson could have availed himself of a free night at the Victoria Home at any time of his choosing. When others disagreed you responded with the same contempt you've just directed at Sally. Then it emerged that you were wrong. Cue deafening silence on the subject.

You're not always wrong, Jon, but you're not always right either. Casebook would be a nicer place were there more amicable disagreements and fewer personal attacks.

Just a thought.

[Wickerman]

.... and the alleged physical similarity with Astrakhan man was a press observation only.

Ah, well that is a step in the right direction.
You now acknowledge that all your previous condemnations of 'my silly'? comparison between Isaacs and Astrachan are not of my own creation.

- The comparison between Isaacs and the Hutchinson suspect was first publicly voiced, in so far as we are aware, in Dec. 1888.

- The connection was the result of the press making a visual comparison between the overall physical appearance of Joseph Isaacs, and the published description of the Hutchinson suspect.

There is certainly no evidence that the police were interested in him for that reason.

I beg to differ.
As we are told:
"It is further stated that the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing.” "

Whether those were the actual words used is debatable, though the overall impression was certainly that Abberline believed Isaacs was the long sought suspect described by Hutchinson.

Obviously he wasn't guilty there either, because his thieving ways provided him with another separate (i.e. unrelated to the first) prison alibi in that case too.

You may as well concede, as with Sally, that this claim by you remains to be established.

[Ben]

Ben, you have acknowledged yourself that Hutchinson saw only one other man in Dorset St., not another couple. Therefore, it must be the same couple.

Not possible, Jon. The couple in question passed along Dorset Street (i.e. past the Miller's Court entrance) when the wideawake man was already stationed opposite Miller's Court, whereas according to Hutchinson's discredited account, his couple were already inside the court by the time he arrived "opposite Miller's Court". They were not possibly the same couple, and there is no reliable, non-discredited evidence of Kelly being outdoors with a man after 11:45pm that night, anyway.

And according to the residents of Paternoster Row he paced his room on the night of Nov. 9th, and had made threats against females over 17 years old.
In this quarter of Whitechapel such activity and accusations are not out of the ordinary, so why the particularly aggressive response by police?

I don't agree that the police response was "particularly aggressive". I see their reaction as being commensurate with the severity of what Isaacs was being accused of, i.e. living a stone's throw from the Kelly crime scene, threatening violence against women, and disappearing after the murder. Once these investigations were carried out, and the the police discovered that a very large mountain was being made out of a molehill, it was simply a case of investigating the comparatively minor crimes for which he was guilty, i.e. theft.

The 23rd December Lloyds article assures us that the rumours about him disappearing after the last murder and "pacing the floor" (in true serial killer fashion?!?) were revealed to be bogus, and the alleged physical similarity with Astrakhan man was a press observation only. There is certainly no evidence that the police were interested in him for that reason.

The situation deduced by the press was certainly an over-the-top reaction to the capture of a common thief.

Yes!

And, one can easily see that Abberline was arresting Isaacs due to suspicions about him being the man seen by Hutchinson.

No!

You just confirmed my point that the source used by Lloyds was the Northern Daily Telegraph, its the same caveat only worded differently. They got the wrong crime!

No. Absolutely not a chance. Look, it is once again perfectly straightforward. The NDT article tells us that he was "connected, not with the mutilations". Why? Because his prison alibi for the Kelly murder had ruled him out for the latest "mutilation" murder. Having alibi'd him for Kelly, the police still wondered if he may have been responsible for the Farmer attack. Obviously he wasn't guilty there either, because his thieving ways provided him with another separate (i.e. unrelated to the first) prison alibi in that case too. But there is no confusion here, just two different alibis courtesy of two different thefts for two completely different items.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You mean a bit like “it’s the same couple, Ben” – an assertion that has been proven false, as opposed to being merely “unproven”.

Ben, you have acknowledged yourself that Hutchinson saw only one other man in Dorset St., not another couple. Therefore, it must be the same couple.
Not an unreasonable conclusion.

In the present case, however, and in light of the fact that Isaacs was dismissed by the police both as Astrakhan...

Now this is the kind of assertion I was talking about.

Isaacs is only a petty thief, confidence trickster and poser, yes?
And according to the residents of Paternoster Row he paced his room on the morning of Nov. 9th, and had made threats against females over 17 years old.
In this quarter of Whitechapel such activity and accusations are not out of the ordinary, so why the particularly aggressive response by police?

On receiving a telegram concerning the arrest of Isaacs from Bow st....

- Detective inspector Abberline immediately proceeded to Bow-street and subsequently brought away the prisoner in a cab, which was strongly escorted.

- He was manacled and placed in a cab, which was mounted by four policemen, and driven off towards Whitechapel.

- While on the one hand he is reputed to have stolen a watch, there is reason to believe that his arrest is in connection with circumstances other than that. He corresponds with the description of the supposed Whitechapel murderer.

- After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered to the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat.

The situation deduced by the press was certainly an over-the-top reaction to the capture of a common thief. And, one can easily see that Abberline was arresting Isaacs due to suspicions about him being the man seen by Hutchinson.

A very obvious conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.

You’re wrong about the 23rd December Lloyds report being “unreferenced”. It was made clear at the very start of the article that the police were the source for the detail concerning Isaacs’ alibi:

“The police are still without any clue to the perpetrators of the recent crimes. It is stated that there is no ground for suspicion against the Polish jew Joseph Isaacs”.

Good job Ben!
That is precisely the same source I pointed out to you in the first place.
Read the whole thing:
"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields. Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage."

You just confirmed my point that the source used by Lloyds was the Northern Daily Telegraph, its the same caveat only worded differently. They got the wrong crime!

[Ben]

Well, Jon, there’s very little I can add to Sally’s sensible points, but I’ll have a go.

Assertions require to be proven.

You mean a bit like “it’s the same couple, Ben” – an assertion that has been proven false, as opposed to being merely “unproven”. In the present case, however, and in light of the fact that Isaacs was dismissed by the police both as Astrakhan and Jack the Ripper, I think we’ll stick with the bleedin’ obvious where Mary Cusins is concerned. You’re still not getting to grips with this chronology business, are you? You do understand that Lloyds’ revelation about Isaacs being in prison during the Kelly murder appeared considerably later that the press reports on Cusins’ comments? And you do recognise that the former revelation is the last we ever hear of Isaacs in the press, and that there was never any squeak of a challenge to this press article? What this represents is the culmination of the brief delving into Joseph Isaacs as a possible suspect, and it is fairly typical of what occurs during the course of an investigation when avenues get explored, with some turning out to be duds, like this one.

You’re wrong about the 23rd December Lloyds report being “unreferenced”. It was made clear at the very start of the article that the police were the source for the detail concerning Isaacs’ alibi:

“The police are still without any clue to the perpetrators of the recent crimes. It is stated that there is no ground for suspicion against the Polish jew Joseph Isaacs”.

I’d take the police over a nosy neighbour any day.

“we can safely deposit that particular story to the bin.”

Don’t “we” me. You do precisely what you want, but don’t think you’re in any way influential in getting others to follow your highly questionable example.

“But you know this already, because the press article informs the reader that Isaacs was detained specifically so Scotland Yard can pursue investigations into his whereabouts on Nov. 9th.”

Yes, I realise that, but after it was quickly established that Isaacs had a prison alibi for the Kelly murder, the police reverted the focus to the crime for which he was actually guilty, as it turned out – the theft of a watch. Believe it or not, the latter required investigating properly and at length, as befitting a proper justice system, rather than assuming that the witnesses must be telling the truth and the suspect must be guilty. His lengthy detection had purely to do with the watch crime for which he was guilty, and absolutely nothing with to do with sustained interest in him as a suspect for the Kelly murder, less still as a candidate for the identity of Astra-silly-khan.

“This is why it is so easy to take our arguments apart.”

Yes, it is.

Very easy.

Big of you to concede as much.

But straight back on topic we go, having exhausted this Isaacs business as far as the current evidence allows.

[Wickerman]

Yes, but there is conflicting evidence here, in the form of the Lloyd's article, which places him in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. Now, I've heard the various attempts to explain that away, and as it stands I find them lacking. There is another, in that Lloyds may have been confusing their Isaacs, but even that doesn't work very well, since that particular Isaacs was no longer in prison at the time.

Not knowing the source used by Lloyds makes any guesswork more difficult.
A legitimate source should have been identified, convictions were not a privacy issue.

We do have one Joseph Isaacs AKA 'Amos', age 46 who was arrested in Sept. for burglary, including the theft of a coat, and he may still have been in prison throughout November, however, this event occurred in 1887.

But also our own Joseph Isaacs was arrested & charged in Sept. for the theft of a clarionet, and given three months. So he would still have been in prison in November. Alas, this also occurred 1887.

So we are back to the source used by Lloyds, did they merely get the year wrong?
Needless to say, potential solutions do exist, but none really satisfactory.
But neither is Lloyds publishing two conflicting reports satisfactory.

Obviously, somebody was mistaken - whether Cousins and Oakes or Lloyds.

Agreed, and erroneous stories published by the press are a well established fact. Couple that with the fact the 'in prison' version provides no source....

[Sally]

How do you mean 'glossed over'?
If we have no idea, no indication, then what is there to discuss?
Isaacs could have been arrested anytime on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Only if you choose to accuse Cusins of lying would anyone attempt to argue that he may have been arrested earlier.
As it stands there is no need and certainly no cause, because Fri-Sun is a large enough time-window for his arrest.

Yes, but there is conflicting evidence here, in the form of the Lloyd's article, which places him in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. Now, I've heard the various attempts to explain that away, and as it stands I find them lacking. There is another, in that Lloyds may have been confusing their Isaacs, but even that doesn't work very well, since that particular Isaacs was no longer in prison at the time.

Thus, I would rather find out for myself - it ought to be possible, in theory. As I said, we shall see.

Do you see the weak thread this would create? - ie; it might not have been Isaacs because, he might have been in jail on Thursday because he might have been arrested earlier. Might-might-might...

Whereas, on the other hand we have his landlady saying he was in is room Thursday night, searched for by police over the weekend, and appeared in court on Monday. Notice the lack of any 'might' ?

Yes, and we also have his landlady saying that he said odd things and her sidekick saying he had been heard to threaten violence against every woman over the age of seventeen. These people had obviously decided that Isaacs was a bad sort - they had in fact decided that he was probably Jack the Ripper. I think it's fair to suggest that they may not have been the most reliable of informants under such circumstances.

Obviously, somebody was mistaken - whether Cousins and Oakes or Lloyds.

As the existence of Astrachan is part and parcel of any credibility issues concerning Hutchinson, I think we can proceed.

And there it is, the crux of the matter. Of course, if you can demonstrate that Isaacs even could have been Astrachan then your claim for Hutchinson's honesty is bolstered. On the other hand, if I can demonstrate that he could not have been, because he was in prison, then it isn't, is it?

I really can't say anything further on the matter at this time, so we'll just have to leave it there for the time being. I'm sure we'll come back to Isaacs at a later date.

[Wickerman]

Well, firstly I'm sorry if you think that was a 'Grandstanding' comment - it was actually more of a flippant aside - and there was no 'etc'.

Understood, not a problem.

Secondly, there was no 'side-swipe' at you - perhaps you should consider broadening your horizons?

I passed through the 'broader horizons' phase years ago, these days I have adopted specific interests in the Whitechapel murder case. Which is one reason I see no need to post on every topic raised, if you had any idea how many times some of those topics have been discussed since 1998

I note, while we're here, that it is generally you who introduces personal criticism into these 'debates'.

You reap what you sow, my dear.

You have, on several occasions, glossed over the fact that you don't know when he was arrested prior to his conviction on November 12th by suggesting that Isaacs was arrested 'over the weekend'; when in fact you have no idea when he was arrested.

How do you mean 'glossed over'?
If we have no idea, no indication, then what is there to discuss?
Isaacs could have been arrested anytime on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Only if you choose to accuse Cusins of lying would anyone attempt to argue that he may have been arrested earlier.
As it stands there is no need and certainly no cause, because Fri-Sun is a large enough time-window for his arrest.

Do you see the weak thread this would create? - ie; it might not have been Isaacs because, he might have been in jail on Thursday because he might have been arrested earlier. Might-might-might...

Whereas, on the other hand we have his landlady saying he was in is room Thursday night, searched for by police over the weekend, and appeared in court on Monday. Notice the lack of any 'might' ?

Presenting a plausible hypothesis based on what we have is preferable to building one on guesswork. Especially when portions of that guesswork directly conflict with what we do have.

While no certainty can be adopted after so long a passage of time the path of least resistance indicates the article from Lloyds, unreferenced as it was, is highly suspect.

I agree, there is some confusion over this incident; with Mary Cousins stating that Isaacs disappeared shortly after the Kelly murder and Lloyds telling us that he was in prison for stealing a coat at the time.

It shouldn't be difficult for anyone with walk-in access to the LMA.

Even what you do have, you've misunderstood to a greater or lesser degree.

Please clarify that last comment, exactly what have I misunderstood concerning Isaacs?

As the existence of Astrachan is part and parcel of any credibility issues concerning Hutchinson, I think we can proceed.

You haven't, to use your own analagy, joined up the dots propersly. If you had, you'd see a very different picture emerge.

So you have already established a 'proper sequence'? - please explain.

I have provided 'one' sequence, which is what I DID explain to Ben, and that other sequences 'may' be valid.
You did read all of what I explained, did you not?

[Sally]

Oh, my dear Sally, I didn't know you cared.

I'm always interested to hear the views of others, Jon, whether or not I agree.

Well, well.
First you make a typical 'Grandstanding' comment (wait until you hear what I have to say, etc.), intended to take a side-swipe at 'yours-truly', then you complain because you get your fingers burned.
Maybe you should try a more mellow introductory line, because the one you chose indicated you were looking for, er, conflict

Well, firstly I'm sorry if you think that was a 'Grandstanding' comment - it was actually more of a flippant aside - and there was no 'etc'.

Secondly, there was no 'side-swipe' at you - perhaps you should consider broadening your horizons? Whilst you may enjoy these petty little squabbles on Casebook; I'd hazard a guess that most people have bigger concerns. I note, while we're here, that it is generally you who introduces personal criticism into these 'debates'. I suggest that you'd have a better response from others if you kept personal criticism out of the equation.

Isaacs was remanded Dec 7th, I thought we were talking about him being in prison on Nov. 9th?

I was discussing the earlier incident, yes - not his arrest in December. Was that a test?

You have, on several occasions, glossed over the fact that you don't know when he was arrested prior to his conviction on November 12th by suggesting that Isaacs was arrested 'over the weekend'; when in fact you have no idea when he was arrested.

I hope you understand the point I was making now?

I agree, there is some confusion over this incident; with Mary Cousins stating that Isaacs disappeared shortly after the Kelly murder and Lloyds telling us that he was in prison for stealing a coat at the time.

The only way to resolve that confusion is to resolve it, if that proves possible. We shall see.

If you wouldn't mind archiving your own posts, oh and make the same suggestion to your confederates, it would save me considerable time reminding you, collectively, of an occasional lapse in judgement.

I've had no 'lapse in judgement' thank you. And you should certainly feel under no obligation to 'remind' anybody of their failings.

You have constructed an edifice for your 'Isaacstrakhan' theory based on very little information. Even what you do have, you've misunderstood to a greater or lesser degree. You haven't, to use your own analagy, joined up the dots propersly. If you had, you'd see a very different picture emerge.

Now, I think this Hutchinson thread has been derailed quite enough already, don't you?

[Wickerman]

Jon! How lovely to find a post from you this morning! And there I was thinking you had me on ‘ignore’…

Oh, my dear Sally, I didn't know you cared.

I’m sure the thought never crossed your mind for an instant, Jon. Ah well….

Dammit!, you saw through me...

Well I’m not telling you, since all you do is insult me.

Well, well.
First you make a typical 'Grandstanding' comment (wait until you hear what I have to say, etc.), intended to take a side-swipe at 'yours-truly', then you complain because you get your fingers burned.
Maybe you should try a more mellow introductory line, because the one you chose indicated you were looking for, er, conflict

On remand. Do you know what that means?

Why do you ask?
Isaacs was remanded Dec 7th, I thought we were talking about him being in prison on Nov. 9th?

He was convicted on 12th November – not arrested. You have no idea when he was arrested – don’t pretend you do.

I said nothing about when he was arrested, so if you would kindly show me where you think I did..

By the way, just in case it turns out that you are wrong, I've made a note of your last post to me - just so we can re-visit it later on. I'm sure one of us will enjoy that.

If you wouldn't mind archiving your own posts, oh and make the same suggestion to your confederates, it would save me considerable time reminding you, collectively, of an occasional lapse in judgement.

[Wickerman]

Your distinction is a meaningless and inaccurate one. If there is a difference between the two reports, it is because the former was based on fag-ends picked up from a nosy neighbour who wanted a thieving Jew out of the equation,

Ok, so you have set yourself up with three challenges all by yourself.
"...because the former was based..." - thats one assertion.
"...who wanted a thieving Jew..." - thats a second assertion.
Assertions require to be proven.

whereas the latter was based on investigations conducted by the newspaper themselves,

And here you insert another assertion:
"...latter was based..."

This is why it is so easy to take our arguments apart. You make C-L-A-I-M-S that are totally unsubstantiated.

First you have no idea what the relationship was between Mary Cusins and Joseph Isaacs, and second, you have no idea what the origin of the 'unreferenced' story was seeing as how Lloyds failed to clue the reader in to where they obtained their information.
Remember, convictions were public knowledge, there was difficulty in obtaining a recent list of convicted persons. They were also published in the press.

So, IF Lloyds had obtained their story from an official source, they had every reason to indicate such, if for no other reason than to add a degree of credibility.
Sadly, because they failed to do so, and as we frequently read in conjectural articles from the Echo, and from the Star, we can safely deposit that particular story to the bin.
Along with all the rest of those similarly unreferenced articles.

... but his arrest for stealing a gold watch still warranted further investigation and detention, which is clearly what happened, and that is why he was held for longer.

No so.
The police already had the thief, the witnesses, the prosecutor and the watch.
Nothing to investigate further.

But you know this already, because the press article informs the reader that Isaacs was detained specifically so Scotland Yard can pursue investigations into his whereabouts on Nov. 9th.

Lets not try to re-write history just to suit your theory/hypothesis.