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

[Wickerman]

You've referred to long-buried exchanges from years ago that I've had with other members once too often, and I think it's about time you stopped.

I have noticed Ben, that on occasion you tend to run away with the idea that you have a notable following, and you often choose your words carefully as if to present your view as a majority view.

In such situations it is often necessary to bring you back to reality, that regardless how many 'also-rans' may agree with this or that comment made by your good self. The movers & shakers of Ripperological studies have not bought what you are selling.
And, until that day dawns, I'm afraid you are still nearer the fringe than the top of the mountain.

I'm not talking about late witnesses coming forward. I'm talking about witnesses who wait a considerable degree of time and only come forward as soon as the opportunity to be grilled in a public arena had passed. You claimed there are examples of this happening, so I'm all ears.

Thats what you are talking about, witnesses coming forward late, by hours, by days, by weeks, or in some cases never, but being hunted down by police.
Its a Rose by any other name Ben, no matter what colour you choose to claim it is, it is still only a Rose.

That is what Mrs. Kennedy C-L-A-I-M-E-D.

That does not make it true, which is fortunate, because it isn't.

All witnesses make claims Ben, and because Kennedy was interviewed by police, mentioned in separate accounts across different press releases, we can treat her account with the same trust as we do any other witness.

The above is merely what she told reporters in the immediate aftermath of Kelly's murder,

You're speculating again Ben!

...shortly before she was exposed as a plagiariser of Sarah Lewis' evidence and booted off the scene, leaving only the original, genuine witness to provide a police statement and inquest evidence.

She was never exposed by anyone, another speculation on your part.

It's very obvious that the "being detained in the court" was simply another detail she picked up from Lewis in one of the lodging houses where gossip ran rampant.

What is obvious Ben is that these details irk you so much that you try desperately to make excuses up in your own mind, once again without anything so vulgar as a fact to support your C-l-a-i-m.

They had identified the phenomenon of "parrotting". What they had yet to establish was who was responsible.

Oh, I caused Ben to change his story!
Ok, so now the Star mentioned the parrotters claiming to hear the cry of 'murder', but published Prater & Kennedy as original source material. But now you say they were wrong?
Why?, because you still refuse to accept that two women could be headed for the same address, 30 minutes apart. And, that these two women knew each other well enough to have spent Wednesday evening together, hence the similar story.
And now you add to this your C-l-a-i-m, that in your opinion, Mrs Kennedy was not trapped in Millers Court.

Contrary to everything that is written.

Her evidence continued to be considered valuable,....

Never mind deflecting your initial point, Sarah Lewis vanished from sight just as surely as Mrs Kennedy. So, the fact Kennedy was not heard from again has no bearing on the viability of her statement.

[Sally]

Hi Mike,

Quite possibly an interesting contender for Hutch's Astrakan Man...

Except, of course, that there exists (at least) a contemporary newspaper report which puts him in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. There have been various attempts to discount this evidence via the suggestion that Lloyds was confusing the Kelly murder with the Annie Farmer attack - but that isn't a very satisfying premise, really. The short article in Lloyds is highly specific - Isaacs was in prison for stealing a coat. Unless we're willing to entertain the idea that Lloyds not only confused the victims but the spoils of Isaacs' thievery as well; it's a bit of a spanner in the works for the 'Isaacstrakhan' (thanks for that, Ben!) theory.

and the beauty of him is that we know he moved into digs a short walk from Marys place earlier in the week and disappeared he night of Marys murder...leaving I believe a violin bow among other things behind in his room.

Well, that's what Mary Cousins said, at least. But as I've said before, whether Lloyds was correct (and we may get proof of that yet) or not, he was evidentally somewhere else on the night of Kelly's death which enabled him to produce an ironclad alibi. Almost certainly, on that basis alone, he was not Astrakhan.

The "Joe" Mary referred to may have been assumed to be Joe Flemming by those who she told, and many others since then,....but it may have been a different Joe. And there was an "Issacs" mentioned at Berner Street, who most assume was Issac Kozebrodski, but close study reveals that Issac K stated he was sent out alone for help within 1 hour of the murder....so he wasnt the "Issac[s]" that many assume left with Diemshitz.

Tenuous, but interesting.

What fascinates me is the way in which an entire mythology can develop around a man about whom we currently know very little:

So far, Isaacs has been touted as Astrakhan Man; possibly the last person to see Mary Kelly alive; the 'Other Joe', who was reported to ill-treat Mary Kelly (and let us not forget here the claim made by Corneliue Oake that Isaacs had threatened violence against every woman over the age of seventeen); the 'Isaac' of Berner Street; and even Joseph Lis; in which case he emigrated and started a cigar business in between his many crimes.

I doubt he merits such rampant speculation.

[Ben]

In such situations it is often necessary to bring you back to reality, that regardless how many 'also-rans' may agree with this or that comment made by your good self. The movers & shakers of Ripperological studies have not bought what you are selling.

That's just about the most arrogant, haugty, offensive remark I've ever heard on a Hutchinson thread, and that's saying something. How dare you dismiss perfectly decent and thoroughly well-informed contributors as "also-rans" just because they happen to agree with my views. At least I have some adherents to my views, unlike you. As flattered as I am that you've conferred such great importance upon my contributions, "The movers and shakers of Ripperological studies" (about the wankiest phrase I've heard for a long time) are not hanging on to my every word, and nor are they continually monitoring the painful, repetitive spew that often passes for "debate" on Hutchinson threads. Nor, for the most part, do they even contribute to message board discussions.

Hence, the idea of the ripperological elite forming a chorus of disagreement with me is hilarious - truly truly hilarious, and rather flattering to think I can command such attention - but wrong.

Messrs. Begg, Fido, Sugden and Rumbelow (to name a few at random) would no doubt qualify as "movers and shakers", but I'd venture a guess that half of them don't even know who I am, let alone what I'm "selling". Which is nothing, incidentally. Hutchinson's discrediting is a reality, and thus of no interest to me to sell. That doesn't mean I don't consider it necessary to shout down the fussy, obstreperous prostestations to the contrary whenever I see them. At the moment, I've having fun with yours.

I have, in the past, disagreed with published authors over my thoughts on Hutchinson, but then some of those authors have their own suspect preferences which enjoy less popular support than Hutchinson as a suspect. Not that they're even "my" thoughts, strictly speaking. Hutchinson has been considered suspicious long before I've ever heard of him, and he was discredited in mid-November 1888.

If you're eager to recruit the bigger boys to have a go at me, why don't you drop them a PM and then we can have some real fun? All it tells me is that you recognise what a poor job you're doing of debating this issue with me, and desperately need the "help" of the "movers and shakers". But nobody's up for it. Only you are, and that's because it is necessary for you to battle the issue of Hutchinson with me in order to sustain your thoroughly controversial views on the Kelly murder.

And, until that day dawns, I'm afraid you are still nearer the fringe than the top of the mountain

Which puts you where exactly? Mate, If I'm on the "fringe" with Hutchinson, then you're in some weird, weird galaxy, far, far away with your "Isaacstrakhan", your "Mrs. Kennedy" and your "Daily News".

Thats what you are talking about, witnesses coming forward late, by hours, by days, by weeks, or in some cases never, but being hunted down by police.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about witnesses who live in the very location of their alleged eyewitness observation, rendering impossible any consideration that they "missed" news of the victims's death, and who only come forward after the public inquest closed. Unless you can produce evidence for other innocent, non-lying people doing that, you are wasting your time reminding me of the irrelevant detail that sometimes witnesses come forward late.

All witnesses make claims Ben, and because Kennedy was interviewed by police, mentioned in separate accounts across different press releases, we can treat her account with the same trust as we do any other witness.

You still have absolutely no idea how the issue of provenance affects our treatment of witness accounts, do you? So before breathing another sigh of relief that you have no professional involvement in law enforcement, it is necessary to educate you once again. If we are faced with one witness (a) who we know for certain gave both a police account and inquest evidence versus another witnesses (b) whose name only appeared in the press, without any evidence - beyond that witness' say so - that they ever had any contact with the police, then logic and overwhelming common sense obliges us to give greater credence to (a) and virtually none at all to (b).

There is no evidence that Kennedy was ever interviewed by the police. She only claimed she was.

Do you not understand the difference?

What is obvious Ben is that these details irk you so much that you try desperately to make excuses up in your own mind, once again without anything so vulgar as a fact to support your C-l-a-i-m.

Irks me? No. The only thing that irks me is annoying repetition. The only person constantly bringing up Kennedy and attempting to revive her as a truthful and important witness is you. Always you, and only you. She was laughed off the stage in 1888 when she was revealed to have been a plagiariser of Lewis' account - and in that respect, I have the support of Philip Sugden, one of your "movers and shakers" - and she was was discarded before the inquest, her antics having been exposed.

Ok, so now the Star mentioned the parrotters claiming to hear the cry of 'murder', but published Prater & Kennedy as original source material. But now you say they were wrong?

Either digest what I'm saying properly or ask nicely for clarification. If you're incapable of doing either of those things, don't post in future. The Star became aware that the account in question was being parrotted by "half a dozen" women. However, without knowing the original source, they were only aware of the reality that several women were repeating the same story. This issue was clarified only when Sarah Lewis made herself known to the public at the inquest. Prior to that, she had honoured her agreement not to discuss her experiences with the press, neatly accounting for the fact that the Star were oblivious to her existence, despite her being the original genuine source for the story being parrotted.

because you still refuse to accept that two women could be headed for the same address, 30 minutes apart. And, that these two women knew each other well enough to have spent Wednesday evening together, hence the similar story.

The idea that these were two separate, genuine women whose accounts were unbelievably similar is nightmarishly implausible for the obvious reason that they could not have failed to encounter each other in the same tiny bedroom, no. 2, which was the same size as Kelly's! "Hey Sarah, I've just walked here in the small hours, in the pissing rain, passing a scary man who accosted me on Wednesday, and now here I am at the Keylers. What - you as well? Snap! What are the odds!?"

Just...no.

Sarah Lewis vanished from sight just as surely as Mrs Kennedy.

Kennedy disappeared before the inquest. Had she been taken seriously, and had she really claimed to have seen Kelly at 3.00am, she would certainly have appeared there. Lewis was an inquest witness.

[Wickerman]

Just wait until you see what I have to say about Isaacs..

Is then followed by...

Except, of course, that there exists (at least) a contemporary newspaper report which puts him in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. There have been various attempts to discount this evidence via the suggestion that Lloyds was confusing the Kelly murder with the Annie Farmer attack - but that isn't a very satisfying premise, really. The short article in Lloyds is highly specific - Isaacs was in prison for stealing a coat. Unless we're willing to entertain the idea that Lloyds not only confused the victims but the spoils of Isaacs' thievery as well;...

And...

Well, that's what Mary Cousins said, at least. But as I've said before, whether Lloyds was correct (and we may get proof of that yet) or not, he was evidentally somewhere else on the night of Kelly's death which enabled him to produce an ironclad alibi. Almost certainly, on that basis alone, he was not Astrakhan...

But Sally, our 'wait' was a bit of an anti-climax seeing as how all those points have been debated already.
And here's me thinking Sally has found something of interest... what a let down

Much like your "most reasonable candidate" for Sarah Lewis, if you recall

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=176630&postcount=333

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?
Ben of course bought into it too if I am not mistaken, but that is no surprise.

So now you have turned this highly tuned perceptive gift of yours on Joseph Isaacs...
But what have you turned up?



What we do have is documented proof Isaacs was in prison 'from' the 12th Nov.
What we also have is one 'referenced' news article by Lloyds placing Isaacs in his room on the 9th, via Mary Cusins, and one 'unreferenced' news article suggesting he was in prison.
Given what we 'do have', it is not unreasonable to expect any nay-sayers to provide an equal amount of proof in support of their claim that he was in prison on the 9th.
This is what I was anticipating from you (sigh!)

We also have the press sharing this theory with the reader:

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.

Whether this was the result of speculation by the press, or that the police did truly believe Isaacs was the attacker of Annie Farmer, it is quite easy to see how confusion could result in Lloyds making an erroneous claim

Wouldn't it have been so simple for Lloyds to have referenced Scotland Yard, or the Met. if (IF) that article had truly been the result of legitimate research on behalf of Lloyd?

Instead, they procure some half confused and partly inaccurate account which, unlike the Cusins account, was not repeated by anyone. This is understandable as the press repeated the Cusins account because it was true, but perhaps no-one repeated the 'in prison' account because they knew this was a mistake?

It also appears that Isaacs was detained from about Dec 7th - Dec 15th, or thereabouts, in order for them to investigate his whereabouts on the night of the Kelly murder.

Strange, isn't it that Isaacs never thought to provide this rock-solid alibi to Abberline, "Hey Guv, I was nicked" (as per Lloyds). A quick telegraph to the jail in question would have resolved the issue, so apparently this didn't happen. They took about a week to establish his whereabouts. So clearly whatever his alibi was, something so simple as being in prison was not the one.
Apparently, it did not take the police any time at all (24 hrs?) to clear him of culpability in the Farmer case, why? - obviously Isaacs told them "because I was nicked". Such a claim is easy to confirm.

So, if the police could clear him of the Farmer charge so quickly, then why not for the Kelly charge, assuming the alibi's were the same?

Doesn't add up, does it

[Ben]

You seem to have a deeply unhealthy obsession with delving into the distant archives in order to find something, anything, however absurdly tenuous, that might undermine the credibility of one of your perceived "opponents", but pursuing small-minded and petty vendettas just isn't Chrismasy, and nor is it a productive expenditure of your time. And you don't succeed here at all. A competent investigator goes with the best evidence available until something better comes along to steer that investigator in a different direction. As such, the reasons for supporting that particular identification of Sarah Lewis as the most likely one were sound, according to the best evidence at the time, and likewise, your reasons for dismissing that particular candidate are no less stinky now than they were then.

What we also have is one 'referenced' news article by Lloyds placing Isaacs in his room on the 9th, via Mary Cusins, and one 'unreferenced' news article suggesting he was in prison.

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, whereas the latter was based on investigations conducted by the newspaper themselves, and they were a perfectly reputable newspaper to boot. You're also not paying any attention at all to the chronology of events. You must understand that if an article (b) appears considerably later than - and in apparent conflict with - article (a), it often simply means that later investigations have cleared up some of the misunderstandings of article (a) resulting in article (b). This is evidently what happened is Isaacs' case, which is why the very last we hear of him was on 23rd December, when it was reported that he had a prison alibi for the Kelly murder, neatly and perfectly explaining the lack of references to him thereafter.

Case closed according to all concerned in 1888.

Case pointlessly and senselessly revived by you in 2013.

Whether this was the result of speculation by the press, or that the police did truly believe Isaacs was the attacker of Annie Farmer, it is quite easy to see how confusion could result in Lloyds making an erroneous claim

It's not a confusion, and it's not an erroneous claim.

The confusion and erroneous claims all stem from you and your bizarre inability to fathom that a career thief was arrested and imprisoned twice for two instances of theft. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for stealing a coat, whereas later, he was arrested and sentenced to hard labour for stealing a watch. These were two separate punishments for two separate offences, not to be confused with each other. Out of the window, then, must be hurled any justification for arguing "confusion" on the part of Lloyds Weekly.

Strange, isn't it that Isaacs never thought to provide this rock-solid alibi to Abberline, "Hey Guv, I was nicked" (as per Lloyds).

I'm sure that's precisely what he said.

But he was still wanted in connection with the watch theft, remember? He wasn't taken into custody solely on the basis of ripper suspicions. I'm quite sure it took a very short time indeed for Isaacs to be absolved of suspicion in the latter crimes, courtesy of his prison alibi, 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. Nothing to do with any quickly-demolished suspicion that he was the ripper of Kelly's murderer. It also took longer for the press to be appraised of the latest details.

[Sally]

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

I've been most entertained by your post, quite made my day, it did!

But Sally, our 'wait' was a bit of an anti-climax seeing as how all those points have been debated already.

You were waiting? Really?

And here's me thinking Sally has found something of interest... what a let down

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

Much like your "most reasonable candidate" for Sarah Lewis, if you recall

Sigh.

As I see Ben has pointed out to you (for which thanks, Ben) theory is based upon what is known at the time. There was absolutely nothing lacking in the premise that the Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street was the Dorset Street Witness, considering that she too, was living on Great Pearl Street.

We have since learned otherwise, which is all to the good, as far as I'm concerned. All that ever concerns me, in fact, is establishing the facts.

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

Ben of course bought into it too if I am not mistaken, but that is no surprise.

Oh do desist, Jon. Your penchant for taking sideways swipes at posters with whom you disagree is childish and rather petty. Nobody cares about your insignificant disputes except you.

So now you have turned this highly tuned perceptive gift of yours on Joseph Isaacs...

But what have you turned up?

Isaacs again? Really? (Yawn).

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

What we do have is documented proof Isaacs was in prison 'from' the 12th Nov.

#

On remand. Do you know what that means? He was convicted on 12th November – not arrested. You have no idea when he was arrested – don’t pretend you do.

What we also have is one 'referenced' news article by Lloyds placing Isaacs in his room on the 9th, via Mary Cusins, and one 'unreferenced' news article suggesting he was in prison.

Given what we 'do have', it is not unreasonable to expect any nay-sayers to provide an equal amount of proof in support of their claim that he was in prison on the 9th.

Ok. I’ll see what I can do. You’ll have to wait until after Christmas though. I’ve got better things to do for the next few weeks.

This is what I was anticipating from you (sigh!)

And you have given me what I was expecting from you.

I think we’ll leave it there for now. I don’t want to spoil the fun (well, mine, at least).

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.

Now, wasn't this thread about Hutchinson? Let's get back to him.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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....

[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]

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]

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