Hi Peter, Take what you read in the newspapers with a grain of salt! There is a lot more involved than was peddled in the press of the time. Because he became well-known, more was attributed to him than he was responsible for. When he was jailed a few years after his marriage, he spent 10 years in prison. He was mistakenly released in the place of someone else, and when he learned it was a mistake, he handed himself back in so that the person who was supposed to be released could be. As a result he was given a pardon. He had a legitimate jewellery shop and a second-hand business where he took full advantage of re-selling stolen goods sold to him cheaply by those who stole them. He was certainly on the wrong side of the law but he also had a 'code of honour' of sorts and is not guilty of all that was laid at his door. It was popular at the time to vilify jews, especially rich ones. The newspaper account of his escape when returning from his court appearance is inaccurate and highly coloured. His wife was not guilty of any criminal activity, but his brother was bribed by the police to plant evidence that got her transported to Tasmania. When Isaac learned of it, in disregard for his personal liberty, he immediately sailed for the penal colony to see if he could help her. That is not the action of a selfish person. Although previously a law-breaker, he was respected in Tasmania to the extent that he kept government account books and was considered an accurate and honest book-keeper. The most respected lawyer in the colony stood guarantor for him and a number of the colony's gentlemen and 'top brass' got together to pay a bond demanded by the British prosecutor. He was very intelligent, and thoroughly annoyed the constabulary in London because he could run rings around them in verbal altercation. You may have heard that the novel "The Potato Factory" is supposed to be the story of his life, however, the bulk of it is solely imaginary and there is very little fact in it. We considered taking a libel suit against the writer, however, because he called it a 'novel' he can say what he likes. Ikey was undoubtedly a colourful character and deserved his imprisonment, but he was not the ridiculous or sinister figure that he was made out to be by the press of the day. Charles Dickens was a young reporter at the time of Ikey's third trial and the strong similarity between the trial transcript and the trial of Fagin in 'Oliver Twist' has led to speculation that Dickens modelled his account of Fagin's trial on that of Ikey. However, there is no other congruence between the experience of Ikey and the character of Fagin although a lot of people wrongly assert that Ikey was the character reference for the creation of Fagin. A lot of research has gone into peeling back the layers of misinformation to reveal the real person at the heart of all that was written about him. It is interesting to be able to look at the old newspapers and see what society thought about him at the time. I have copies of all the articles I've been able to find about him. I think that coming to Australia was a blessing for his family, because they were able to rise to places in society that they never would have been permitted to hold had they remained in England. It can be strange how things turn out! Thanks for keeping in touch. Star
