And I'm afraid it looks like you have a long way to go yet...
Otherwise you would have familiarised yourself with the fact that this protracted and long-winded debate culminated in the revelation that I was proven correct all along about Isaacs being in prison at the time of Kelly's murder; as opposed to wading, quite unnecessarily, into a long-dead and utterly resolved issue, with support for the losing (or rather, lost) side.
The only "pacing the floor" Isaacs did on the 9th November was in his prison cell.
You don't appear to have any basis at all for your accusation that I've confounded "exhausting" with "exhaustive". Where in this discussion have I described anyone as being "exhausted" (or any synonym thereof), and in what respect have I misunderstood the meaning of "exhaustive"? Some relevant quotes that actually illustrate where I am supposed to have erred would be gratefully received. In fact, a closer inspection would suggest that it's you who might benefit from a "decent thesaurus".
It’s not a case of the police being thus far unable to connect Isaacs with that outrage; their ‘exhaustive’ inquiries have established that he can have no possible connection [because he was serving a prison sentence at the time]
No, it absolutely didn't mean that. Thorough means, well, thorough; it certainly doesn't mean "leading to a resolution one way or the other". One can undertake an "exhaustive" (i.e. thorough) investigation into an issue without it producing proof either way, and it evidently achieved no such thing in the case of Isaacs's alibi for Farmer attack. The previous argument - now sensibly disowned by its originator - was that H Division's knowledge of Isaacs's prison alibi (for 21st November) establishes that they had been in contact with S Division, who were unable to shed any light on his whereabouts for the 9th, thus supposedly weakening my contention that he was been imprisoned for a separate offence on that date too. The reality, however, is that Isaacs was in a remand prison on the morning of the 9th, following the theft of two coats from a Barnet Inn the previous day, thus trivialising the previous argument over the time H Division learned of it. I merely suggested that it was likely to have occurred the moment they heard back from S Division in response to their queries, which we can logically assume were made immediately following Isaacs's protestations of his innocence.
The subject of Isaacs's non-culpability in the Farmer affair, and the manner in which it was reported by the contemporary press, is no longer relevant to anything, thanks to Jon's research, but H Division had clearly not ascertained "proof positive" of Isaacs's Farmer alibi as early as the 6th December (the same day as his arrest!), otherwise they would have ascertained "proof positive" of his Kelly alibi (now factually established) at the same time. The police were only "looking for clues in the neighbourhood" on the 6th December because, at that early stage, he was still a potential ripper and Farmer suspect owing to the fact that a) they had not heard back from their Barnet colleagues, and b) they had only Mary Curtain-Twitcher's claims to go on.
Just a general point about police and press communication. It seems that some people are under the impression that the police deliberately maintained as hostile a relationship as possible with all members of the press, and persistently refused to divulge details that would be no skin off their noses to divulge, all for the sake of maintaining distance from the enemy. I'm afraid this falls severely short of reality. Joseph Isaacs stood accused, on the flimsiest of grounds, of being the most brutal mutilating murderer in history, and yet the argument here is that the police failed to disclose the detail that he had been conclusively absolved of any question of guilt, courtesy of a prison alibi for the 21st November, just to snub the press and "keep them guessing". I'm afraid this is a very unconvincing argument, especially when we know for a fact that the police informed Lloyds Weekly of the fact that Isaacs was in prison when the Kelly murder was committed, following arrest for stealing a coat.
It would be more logical to use the arresting officer, who could speak to having seen and arrested this man before, to prevent any claims of mistaken identity from one case to the other.
But he didn't speak to anything of the sort, as Jon helpfully informed us. The Barnet policemen who attended Worship Street court said nothing about having personally arrested the defendant; he only "speaks to the 21 day sentence issued on 12th Nov. at Barnet", according to Jon, which is rather extraordinary if this was the same individual responsible for making the arrest. It doesn't matter much now, of course, considering how thoroughly I've been vindicated on the overarching issue of Isaacs's alibi. The subject only arose because it was suggested, completely wrongly, that if the policeman in court was the arresting officer, he would have known all about Isaacs's 9th November alibi, had there been one, and would have made reference to it there and then accordingly. In reality, of course, the policeman would not have made reference to a ripper alibi during that court session, whether he knew about it or not, because his appearance at Worship Street related exclusively to the watch theft, as opposed to being a trial for murder.
Since the PC in question "spoke" only regarding the period of sentence for coat theft - nothing about making an arrest or cementing the defendant's identity - there was no particular cause to use the original arresting officer, but as I said, it counts for very little now, considering that the original argument - which required the arresting officer being the court witness - has been nullified.
Carrying on this theme, how do you imagine the police were ever able to clear him of all the murders?
I never claimed the police entertained realistic hopes of securing alibis for all ripper-attributed murders. I simply wondered what outstanding "matters" the police might have looked into during Isaacs's remand period, after he had been proven innocent of the Kelly murder, and one possibility is that they investigated his whereabouts for previous murders. Even if his alibi for Kelly made him an implausible candidate for the others, the fact that Cornelius Oakes had accused him of threatening violence to women would have been enough to warrant police attention. I'm afraid I have no idea "what became of that investigation".
Assuming the inquiries could hardly have been exhaustive enough to clear him of any possible involvement in any of the murders
They did clear him of any possible involvement in the Kelly murder.
Seems disastrously implausible to me, considering that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited long before Isaacs's arrest on the 6th December, and secondly, no amount of begging, borrowing and stealing on Isaacs's part would ever have allowed to him to come close to emulating the obviously affluent appearance of Astrakhan man. A Ford Escort with garish stickers, body-coloured bumpers and a superadded rear spoiler maybe described as "flashy", but it hardly announces affluence. Moreover, Abberline must have had more imagination that to entertain the idea of an habitual thief and conman being so cretinously unstreetwise as to dress in such a fashion, in that district, and at that time.
Sorry - the above post is missing a quote. Take two:
Was Abberline’s initial interest in him not because his flashy appearance recalled to mind the description Hutchinson gave of the man he saw with Kelly? Seems plausible enough to me.
Seems disastrously implausible to me, considering that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited long before Isaacs's arrest on the 6th December, and secondly, no amount of begging, borrowing and stealing on Isaacs's part would ever have allowed to him to come close to emulating the obviously affluent appearance of Astrakhan man...etc.