Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

As the police most certainly did not 'know' the true time of death, then likewise the police are in no position to accuse Astrachan

And likewise, the police can't possibly have accepted that Astrakhan had an "alibi" for the Kelly murder.

You see it, now?

The police could only accept a suspect's "alibi" if they had a definite time of death for the victim, and as you acknowledge, they certainly did not in this case.

They couldn't, which is why they let him admit guilt to larceny and "go straight to jail".

Yeah, for three months.

"Well done, boys, the streets of London are now safe, as the likely perpetrator is behind bars and will not emerge until three whole months are up, at which point we, err, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, eh?"

And, if Astrachan was Isaacs, all Isaacs needed to do was insist it was not him who Hutchinson saw.

Oh, so Isaacstrakhan was the murderer then? Otherwise why the denial, and risk digging a deeper whole? And I do hope you're not seriously suggesting that such a denial would have been the end of the matter as far as police interest was concerned. If Isaacs-related events truly occurred as you suggest, he would have remained at the very top of the list of suspects for many years to come. Forget Druitt and Kosminski; in poll position on Macnaghten's memoranda would have been "Joseph Isaacs - the surly Jew who was almost certainly the man seen in Kelly's room by star witness Hutchinson at around the time the murder was committed, but against whom we could never find that final proof, damn it!". None of that happened. Instead we see Joseph Isaacs sinking without trace after the 15th December, when it was reported that no further charges were being made against him.

Well, until we learn on 23rd December that he was in prison at the time of Kelly murder, which is supported by an independent source and is almost certainly correct.

The fact the press were unable to extract a time from Cusins, is likely due to police cautioning her on speaking to the press. As with several Millers Court residents, although they did speak to the press, they do not give anything too precise away.

That's not true in the slightest.

The police requested that their witnesses did not provide any details, and the ones that ignored this request and blabbed anyway were in no way reticent about providing full details of their experience. Hence, we may be certain that Cusins's claim to the press involving Isaacs supposedly "pacing the room" was not remotely sanctioned by the police, and accordingly, her failure to provide a time for this "pacing" begs a better explanation - like, for instance, the obvious one; that she lied about the incident or was way off in her recollection of the date (I favour the former).

I only offered one example where he could have had one just to show how wrong you are.

But your "example" failed to demonstrate any such thing.

You realise, I hope, that an "alibi" is utterly worthless unless the police recognise it as such? Good. In which case, you're compelled to accept that the police could only accept an "alibi" for Isaacstrakhan (I've almost grown immune to the absurdity of the construct - almost) in the event that they knew exactly when the Kelly murder occurred, which of course they didn't.

Cusins could not possibly have given him an "alibi". In theory, of course, it is possible for Isaacstrakhan to have darted out of room #13 and popped back home for some much needed "room-pacing", in time for yet another black package wielding well-dressed man to enter her room and kill her; laughably ridiculous and unlikely, but not physically impossible. That isn't an "alibi", however, because hardly any of it could have been proved, including - and most importantly - the time of death.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

And likewise, the police can't possibly have accepted that Astrakhan had an "alibi" for the Kelly murder.

No relation.
Cusins could establish Isaacs was in his room just after 3:00 am, regardless whether the police believe this to be the actual time of death.
They certainly cannot pin a 1:00-2:00 am ToD on him, neither can they entertain a ToD later than 4:00 - no supporting evidence for that.

The police only have two potential ToD's, if they can't place him at the murder scene at either of those times, (assuming they find no heart in his room), then they would be hard pressed to make a charge stick.

Yeah, for three months.

Yes, a time parallel with the entire duration of the Whitechapel murders, at least from Nichols to December 1st. They had the luxury of time to investigate him if necessary.

Oh, so Isaacstrakhan was the murderer then? Otherwise why the denial,...

Same reason 99.999% of the male population in London would have denied being there. Also, he can claim he is not the only Jew with such a coat.

What do the police have on him, to charge him?

The police requested that their witnesses did not provide any details, and the ones that ignored this request and blabbed anyway were in no way reticent about providing full details of their experience.

Wrong again.
Prater did talk to the press, but told them she heard nothing through the night. Sarah Lewis didn't talk at all.

[Ben]

Cusins could establish Isaacs was in his room just after 3:00 am, regardless whether the police believe this to be the actual time of death.

No she couldn't, Jon.

What if she was slightly out in her estimation of the time? Bear in mind she would only have needed to be slightly out for the whole "Isaacstrakhan alibi" to be completely nullified (which it is anyway, for other far more important reasons, like Isaacs being in prison at the time).

The police only have two potential ToD's, if they can't place him at the murder scene at either of those times, (assuming they find no heart in his room), then they would be hard pressed to make a charge stick.

Exactly, so no possibility of an "alibi" for Astrakhan in the absence of a definite time of death. If Astrakhan was identified, alibi-less, as Isaacs, he would have continued to be the prime suspect by a very long sea mile, but since that definitely didn't happen, we must seek out an alternative explanation for the abrupt loss of interest in both Isaacs and Astrakhan. Personally, I prefer the one backed up by strong evidence, which is that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th November, and Astrakhan was a fabrication.

It may be a boring, unglamorous explanation, devoid of gold chains and blag bags, but it's indisputably the best one.

Yes, a time parallel with the entire duration of the Whitechapel murders, at least from Nichols to December 1st. They had the luxury of time to investigate him if necessary.

Then what?

What if those investigations didn't result in the procurement of proof either way? What then becomes of the prime suspect who was strongly believed to have been in Kelly's room at around the time she was murdered?

Prater did talk to the press, but told them she heard nothing through the night. Sarah Lewis didn't talk at all.

Are you talking about the Star report? Where, in that report, does she say anything about hearing "nothing through the night"? What she did provide was a last sighting of Kelly at 9.00pm on Thursday, to which she made no reference at the inquest. If a witness blabs to the press, especially prior to the inquest, they are acting against the wishes and instructions of the police.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No she couldn't, Jon.

What if she was slightly out in her estimation of the time?

Ben, 1n the late 19th century it was normal that times given by witnesses were an approximation. We are only preoccupied with a precise time because of present day technology.

The police themselves are only dealing with estimates (ToD, "scream"), but the point with this scenario is, whoever the killer was, he had to be present in that room for the best part of an hour after the scream.
So a scream at 3:30 means the killer is there until 4:15-4:45 roughly.
So, Mary Cusins hearing footsteps in the room between 3:00-4:00, roughly, provides an alibi.

Conversely, the police have no cause to believe Astrachan could be responsible for the earlier 1:00-2:00 am ToD, that honor is given to Blotchy.

Personally, I prefer the one backed up by strong evidence, which is that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th November, and Astrakhan was a fabrication.

The fact remains (fact, not opinion), that Isaacs location on the night of Nov. 8th/9th has still not been established.
And, as learned opinion has stated that a misdemeanor only requires the issue of a summonze c/w the evidence of Mary Cusins hearing him in his room, the likelyhood is leaning in the favor of Isaacs being out on the streets.
Like it or not.

Then what?

What if those investigations didn't result in the procurement of proof either way? What then becomes of the prime suspect who was strongly believed to have been in Kelly's room at around the time she was murdered?

He isn't a prime suspect Ben, the police have nothing to 'suspect' him with.
Joseph Isaacs is nothing more than a Person of Interest. Therefore, until & unless anything surfaces in the three months he is locked up, then he walks, like any other innocent man.

Are you talking about the Star report? Where, in that report, does she say anything about hearing "nothing through the night"?

There are more reliable newspapers Ben, than the Echo & the Star.
Try looking around...

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character. Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.

Two days before the inquest, Mrs Prater gave no specifics away to the press.

[Ben]

So a scream at 3:30 means the killer is there until 4:15-4:45 roughly.
So, Mary Cusins hearing footsteps in the room between 3:00-4:00, roughly, provides an alibi.

No, Jon.

It most certainly doesn't.

You need to expunge the word "alibi" from your vocabulary in this context, but it cannot possibly apply.

If Isaacs was heard - not seen - pacing in his room "between 3:00-4:00 roughly", and the cry of "murder" was heard "between 3:00-4:00 roughly", how the blazes does Isaacs have an alibi for the Kelly murder, especially when the two locations were separated by a mere two-minute walk? He doesn't. He can't possibly have. The notion is absurd. Considering that the timings in question were merely "approximate", there was every possibility that the cry of murder occurred prior to the "room-pacing" allegedly heard by Cusins.

Even if the police were able - using some dark magic - to prove that the "pacing" preceded the "cry", there was still no question of an "alibi" because the police were still considering the possibility that the murder happened at least an hour in advance of both, in accordance with Dr. Bond's evidence.

The fact remains (fact, not opinion), that Isaacs location on the night of Nov. 8th/9th has still not been established.

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Isaacs was in prison on the morning of the 9th November, thanks to your research, with confirmation from the 23rd December edition of Lloyds. Honestly, if you're not willing to support the conclusions that your own research leads you inexorably to, what is the point of conducting any research at all? Just be an "Isaacstrakhan" theorist and go round and round in circles defending that theory every day. It's a lot easier.

And, as learned opinion has stated that a misdemeanor only requires the issue of a summonze c/w the evidence of Mary Cusins hearing him in his room, the likelyhood is leaning in the favor of Isaacs being out on the streets.

This is irritating nonsense.

You've provided no information on the credentials of this "learned" individual; nor have you acquainted him with the facts of the case. You can't have done, or else your Police Historian (so much better informed than policemen, according to you) would be aware of the laughable futility of letting a homeless career criminal go and expecting him to stick around for a "summons".

He isn't a prime suspect Ben, the police have nothing to 'suspect' him with.

Yes, they did.

They had a witness who, according to you, saw him enter the home of Mary Kelly and remain in that room until around the time she was killed. That would have made Isaacs the prime suspect in the absence of an "alibi", which, as we've clearly established, he could not possibly have provided. Why do we hear nothing about this prime suspect (who must forever remained such, if we accept your version of events) in years to come? Why no mention of him in the Macnaghten memoranda?

Oh yes, that's right, because he was never a prime suspect, but rather a temporary suspect who turns out to have been in prison when Kelly was murdered.

Two days before the inquest, Mrs Prater gave no specifics away to the press.

Yes, she did.

Divulging a last sighting of Kelly is pretty "specific" in my book, and any form of press communication would have been against the wishes of the police. The idea that Mary Cusins didn't provide a time for Isaacs's "pacing" because she wanted to be a good girl to the police is utterly without foundation.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. I do not expect a reply to this post for at least five hours.

[Wickerman]

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Isaacs was in prison on the morning of the 9th November, ...

Not even close young fella. Not until we find paperwork confirming that his appearance at Barnet Police Court was the result of a warrant, or on remand, or in answer to a summons. Only then can we close the book on that window of time.
Until then, his whereabouts on the night of the murder is still unknown.

Honestly, if you're not willing to support the conclusions that your own research leads you inexorably to, what is the point of conducting any research at all?

All I have confirmed at present is that Isaacs was indeed in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer. And that this was the Joseph Isaacs who stole the coat(s) referred to in the press.

You've provided no information on the credentials of this "learned" individual; nor have you acquainted him with the facts of the case.

Now that would be stupid wouldn't it?
To obtain an opinion by misrepresenting the details, only to post the complete account on-line for all the world to see?
Have a bit more consideration Ben.

.. or else your Police Historian (so much better informed than policemen, according to you) would be aware of the laughable futility of letting a homeless career criminal go and expecting him to stick around for a "summons".

He wasn't homeless.
I obtained those very same cautions directly from the same source.
Don't you remember me posting them for you?

"Reasons to hold someone might be:
- If the accused displayed threatening behaviour towards or likely to interfere with the witness.
- If the police had reason to believe the accused would abscond (ie; he has no fixed address).
(At this time he resided at Paternoster Row.)"

I am well aware of the possibilities, but summonses were issued for petty larceny & misdemeanor's all the time. And, sometimes the accused did abscond, fixed address or not - it happens Ben. If they held back every summons because of a possibility he might abscond, they wouldn't be handing them out at all.

They had a witness who, according to you, saw him enter the home of Mary Kelly and remain in that room until around the time she was killed.

That only makes him a person of interest, the possibility exists that he left just five minutes after Hutchinson, and that Kelly went back out again.
The police have no proof that this did not happen, so likewise, they have nothing firm to charge Astrachan with.
What they need him for is to talk with him and obtain his account.

Why no mention of him in the Macnaghten memoranda?

Because the police realized he wasn't the killer?
If it's a distinct possibility to me, then it must have been obvious to police.

Divulging a last sighting of Kelly is pretty "specific" in my book,

Get a new book, Prater gave no specifics about hearing the cry, or when she heard it.

The idea that Mary Cusins didn't provide a time for Isaacs's "pacing" because she wanted to be a good girl to the police is utterly without foundation.

Good grief Ben, much of what we talk about is without foundation.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Not until we find paperwork confirming that his appearance at Barnet Police Court was the result of a warrant, or on remand, or in answer to a summons. Only then can we close the book on that window of time.

In the meantime, we may be content to accept that all available evidence and common sense points squarely in the direction of Isaacs being detained in police custody following his arrest for stealing a coat, as opposed to the police being so cretinous and incompetent as to allow a known homeless thief to do an immediate runner. He was arrested on the 8th, sentenced on the 12th, and we have an independent report saying he was in police custody on the 9th. I wonder what the logical explanation is (not)?

All I have confirmed at present is that Isaacs was indeed in prison at the time of the assault on Annie Farmer. And that this was the Joseph Isaacs who stole the coat(s) referred to in the press.

Yep, thanks for providing that independent corroboration for Lloyds's "coat-stealing" report - the one you previously insisted was nonsense. You have also provided immeasurably strong support for the claim (in the same report) that Isaacs was in prison on the 9th, and it would be an absolute travesty for you to disavow your own research in support of that conclusion, purely because you would have preferred the reality to be different. Who is more respected, do you think, in the ripper community - the researcher or the "theorist"? The former, of course. So who cares if your good research trumps your unconvincing theories?

Isaacs was of no "fixed" abode; his temporary lodgings at Paternoster Row were not in the least bit "fixed" and the police - being collectively endowed with more than one brain cell - would not have considered them in the least bit so. Isaacs was a known itinerant, which meant he was free to up sticks at the drop of a hat. If there was anyone in London who matched your police historian's criterion for preferring a period of detention over a summons, "If the police had reason to believe the accused would abscond (ie; he has no fixed address).", it was Joseph Isaacs, for whom the choice between going to prison and easily escaping punishment was a no-brainer.

If they held back every summons because of a possibility he might abscond, they wouldn't be handing them out at all.

Listen to your police historian. Summons were issued to those considered unlikely to abscond, i.e. non-career criminals and otherwise respectable citizens committing one-off misdemeanours, for whom the act of absconding would have attracted far greater censure, opprobrium and even ostracization. Think "local GP caught speeding" and you won't be far off the mark. Think "known local thief and casual dosser" and you'd be way off it.

That only makes him a person of interest, the possibility exists that he left just five minutes after Hutchinson, and that Kelly went back out again.

The existence of that "possibility" would not have prevented Astrakhan man from becoming the prime suspect if Hutchinson's account continued to be believed (it didn't, of course). It would have prevented him from being considered a proven murderer, yes, but he would have remained the prime suspect.

Because the police realized he wasn't the killer?

Not even a possibility, unless they could prove that Kelly was killed before or after Astrakhan supposedly left the room, and they never could.

Prater gave no specifics about hearing the cry, or when she heard it.

But she did provide other details that she didn't even mention at the inquest. The point - which we're straying from - is that Prater's press interview was not sanctioned by the police, and nor was Cusins's.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
In the meantime, we may be content to accept that all available evidence and common sense points squarely in the direction of Isaacs being detained in police custody following his arrest for stealing a coat,...

Hi Ben.
Like I keep saying, the only evidence that exists which has any bearing on his whereabouts on Nov. 9th is the statement by Mary Cusins, that he was pacing his room.
To date, there is no confirmation of him being detained, nor of him being issued with a summons. So no evidence either way.
That's the truth of the matter.

Yep, thanks for providing that independent corroboration for Lloyds's "coat-stealing" report - the one you previously insisted was nonsense.

It still is nonsense, the Lloyds report is corrupt.

For it to be correct we have to believe that Isaacs choose not to tell police he was in their custody on the night of the Kelly murder, and on top of that we have to believe that Barnet Police choose not to tell Scotland Yard they had him in custody.
Either scenario alone would be intolerable, but both together make it inconceivable that he was in custody.

Isaacs was of no "fixed" abode; his temporary lodgings at Paternoster Row were not in the least bit "fixed"....

Incorrect, having a postal address in early November is not "no fixed above".

He was only classed as of "no fixed abode" after he had been released from prison in early December, which only stands to reason.

Listen to your police historian. Summons were issued to those considered unlikely to abscond,...

'Unlikely to abscond' is also based on a past history of the accused where summonses have been issued and he has not answered them.
If there is no such prior history, regardless of his criminal activity, then what cause do they have to believe he will abscond this time?
So long as he has answered previous summonses, he is treated accordingly.

The existence of that "possibility" would not have prevented Astrakhan man from becoming the prime suspect ......

Any Prime suspects were extremely short term. All those who came nearest to that category were thoroughly checked out, and dismissed, along with Isaacs/Astrachan.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Like I keep saying, the only evidence that exists which has any bearing on his whereabouts on Nov. 9th is the statement by Mary Cusins, that he was pacing his room.

You are referring, of course, to a second-hand piece of hearsay that appeared in the press, which is of highly questionable provenance, and in terms of historical value is complete filth in comparison to your recently discovered record of Isaacs's arrest on the 8th December for stealing a coat, wholly endorsing the 23rd December Lloyds Weekly article attesting to the man's imprisonment for precisely that offense. What's this "statement" you speak of? We don't have a "statement" from Mary Cusins. We don't have anything from Mary Cusins herself, unless you count an unreliable press paraphrasing effort as a statement. Again, I can only implore you to be guided by the fruits of your own labour, and not to deny them because they didn't happen to produce the result you were hoping for.

For it to be correct we have to believe that Isaacs choose not to tell police he was in their custody on the night of the Kelly murder, and on top of that we have to believe that Barnet Police choose not to tell Scotland Yard they had him in custody.

No, Jon.

It isn't necessary to believe either of those things. The evidence, which overwhelmingly favours Isaacs being in prison on the morning of the 9th, is perfectly compatible with him alerting the authorities about his alibi at the earliest opportunity, i.e. as soon as the police quizzed him on the subject, following on from which inquiries would naturally have been made with the relevant authorities; those responsible for arresting him on the 8th, who belonged to a different division. None of this would have happened overnight.

Incorrect, having a postal address in early November is not "no fixed above".

Nope, that doesn't follow at all.

Look at what your own research has uncovered and pay heed to it:

"Joseph Isaacs, an itinerant musician, was charged with having, on November 8th, stolen from the Green Dragon Inn, High-street, Barnet, two coats, of the value of 30s, the property of John Bennett."

If the police knew he was an "itinerant", they knew he had no "fixed abode", which meant there was next to no possibility of them letting him go and expecting him to wait, like a good and honest thief, for his impending summons at his temporary accommodation. Indeed, only the most hilariously short-sighted of ninnies would expect that. The phrase "likely to abscond" obviously applies to anyone for whom the act of absconding would be an easily achievable, and thus predictable, expedient. The mentality that impels a person to commit theft is utterly incompatible with sitting pretty at a temporary lodging house awaiting a "summons", and more importantly, a half-competent police officer would appreciate that. The naughty schoolboy, leaving a smelly poo in the locker of the nerdy kid after P.E. class, does not run directly post-deed to the headmaster's office requesting a caning, and the homeless career criminal does not sit around waiting for a letter demanding that he come and be punished - not when he could simply relocate to alternative lodgings.

All those who came nearest to that category were thoroughly checked out, and dismissed, along with Isaacs/Astrachan.

Isaacs's prison alibi was discovered before he had a chance to become a "prime suspect", and "Astrakhan" (let's pretend he even existed) could not possibly have been "checked out and dismissed" because it would have been impossible for him to procure an alibi under those recorded circumstances.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You are referring, of course, to a second-hand piece of hearsay that appeared in the press, which is of highly questionable provenance,

Hi Ben.
Consider for a moment, why would the police use a witness who had already proven to have provided an unreliable/erroneous/false statement?

Mary Cusins had provided the police with her statement on the weekend (Nov 10/11) that her missing lodger, Joseph Isaacs, had been in his room on the night of the murder.

You believe this is proven false by Isaacs (in your opinion) been shown to be in prison on that night. You also believe the police found this out.

Then, four weeks later, Dec 7th, Mary Cusins, as a reliable witness, is brought into court for the prosecution against Joseph Isaacs on trial for watch theft?

What's wrong with that picture Ben?

No, Jon.

It isn't necessary to believe either of those things. The evidence, which overwhelmingly favours Isaacs being in prison on the morning of the 9th, is perfectly compatible with him alerting the authorities about his alibi at the earliest opportunity, i.e. as soon as the police quizzed him on the subject, following on from which inquiries would naturally have been made with the relevant authorities; those responsible for arresting him on the 8th, who belonged to a different division. None of this would have happened overnight.

Actually, yes it would, and just as quick.
The police had no need to apply for a Remand if either Isaacs or the Barnet police had known he was in their custody.
The press apparently knew Isaacs was in prison for the Farmer attack even before his first court date (Dec. 7th), so Issacs had talked - so why didn't the press also mention him being in prison for the "mutilations"?
The answer is, Isaacs had not told them - and we know why.

Nope, that doesn't follow at all.

Look at what your own research has uncovered and pay heed to it:

"Joseph Isaacs, an itinerant musician, was charged with having, on November 8th, stolen from the Green Dragon Inn, High-street, Barnet, two coats, of the value of 30s, the property of John Bennett."

If the police knew he was an "itinerant", they knew he had no "fixed abode",

Itinerant, does not mean "no fixed abode".
Even in Court in Edinburgh, for theft once again, he gave his home address as Paternoster Row.
Itinerant only means someone who travels, not that they have no fixed address, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Isaacs's prison alibi was discovered before he had a chance to become a "prime suspect", and "Astrakhan" (let's pretend he even existed) could not possibly have been "checked out and dismissed" because it would have been impossible for him to procure an alibi under those recorded circumstances.

We still have no "alibi" for him on the night of the 9th Nov.

[Paddy]

Can any of you tell me if there was a press statement concluding Hutchinsons supposed search with the police for Astrakhan Man after Mary Janes' murder?
If there is previous info in the forum could someone point me in the right direction please?
Many Thanks
Pat.

[Wickerman]

Do you mean a press story concerning the walk-around the neighborhood searching for Astrachan, as mentioned by Abberline?

If so, then no.

[Ben]

“Consider for a moment, why would the police use a witness who had already proven to have provided an unreliable/erroneous/false statement?”

When are you talking about, Jon? If you mean on the 7th December, the police "used" her only to confirm the identity of the defendant. I do not suggest that she was considered an unreliable witness at that point; I suggest she was considered so the moment it emerged that Isaacs had been in prison at the time of the murder, and that her “pacing about the room” claim was at best inaccurate as to the date it occurred, and at worst an outright fabrication. None of us can pinpoint the exact time at which Isaacs's prison alibi was confirmed, but it was at some point between the 7th and the 14th December.

“The press apparently knew Isaacs was in prison for the Farmer attack even before his first court date (Dec. 7th), so Issacs had talked - so why didn't the press also mention him being in prison for the "mutilations"?”

Jon, please read my counterpoints to this as opposed to just repeating the original point as though it were never addressed. I’ll repeat (and when you read the duplicate on the other thread, only respond to one of them!):

You are making an unnecessary "issue" over the fact that the discovery of Isaacs's alibi for the Farmer attack apparently predated the discovery of his imprisonment during the Kelly murder, and for some reason prefer to ignore the obvious and logical explanations for this, which are as follows:

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

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

“Itinerant, does not mean "no fixed abode".”

Yes it can, and does.

If he was a thief, he was untrustworthy, and if he was in the habit of moving regularly from place to place, he was an untrustworthy itinerant thief; in other words, the last person on the planet anyone would expect to wait around at temporary lodgings for a “summons” to arrive in the mail. What did happen “in court in Edinburgh”, by the way? Was he released back to London to await a “summons”?

“We still have no "alibi" for him on the night of the 9th Nov.”

I disagree, as you know, but I was making a slightly different point.

Never mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Ben,

Isaacs was imprisoned in Edinburgh - twice. Some people just never learn. I've just returned from a week away only to find the Isaacs debate still raging - to what end I'm not sure, since clearly he was in custody on 8th November (again)

I think I should've stayed in Wales...

[Paddy]

Do you mean a press story concerning the walk-around the neighborhood searching for Astrachan, as mentioned by Abberline?
If so, then no.

Just seen your message Jon, thanks.

Pat.....