Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Seems they could be cousins though.
    Maybe.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • I am still waiting for Batman to point out the passages where he thinks I may have mistaken Joseph Hyam Levy for Jacob Levy. Once such things are thrown forward, there simply has to be some sort of backing provided.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        I am still waiting for Batman to point out the passages where he thinks I may have mistaken Joseph Hyam Levy for Jacob Levy. Once such things are thrown forward, there simply has to be some sort of backing provided.
        In this post, you agreed with Sam, who had got Joseph & Jacob mixed up.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          In this post, you agreed with Sam, who had got Joseph & Jacob mixed up.
          Well spotted, Harry - not that it bothers me. So what if I, Fisherman or anyone else momentarily mistook one Levy for another? It was a common enough name!
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
            In this post, you agreed with Sam, who had got Joseph & Jacob mixed up.
            As I said, what I agreed with was that it would make Levy doubling back twice if he was the killer. And as you may note, that only works with Jacob, not with Joseph. I am quite, quite aware about what I agree with or not, and I had read Batmans answer to Gareth BEFORE I wrote my post.

            Ah, now I see that Gareth wrote about Lawende and Harris, and THAT I did not digest before answering. That explains the confusion. And it means that I need no further explanation from Batman, I can totally see where he is coming from now, of course. Although I fail to see that I would have intermingled the two Levys before, and THAT I would want any example of!

            Anyway, as I said, only JACOB can be said to have doubled back from Goulston Street and that is what I am pointing to as a weird suggestion. Plus I find Harrys post even weirder, suggesting that we need not care much about the placement of the rag, as it would seem...?
            Last edited by Fisherman; 12-13-2018, 02:59 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              I am still waiting for Batman to point out the passages where he thinks I may have mistaken Joseph Hyam Levy for Jacob Levy. Once such things are thrown forward, there simply has to be some sort of backing provided.
              I pointed out your response to Sam. You followed through on his statement which Sam admitted was a mistake.

              Simple as that.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                As I said, what I agreed with was that it would make Levy doubling back twice if he was the killer. And as you may note, that only works with Jacob, not with Joseph. I am quite, quite aware about what I agree with or not, and I had read Batmans answer to Gareth BEFORE I wrote my post.

                Ah, now I see that Gareth wrote about Lawende and Harris, and THAT I did not read before answering. That explains the confusion.

                Anyway, as I said, only JACOB can be said to have doubled back from Goulston Street and that is what I am pointing to as a weird suggestion.
                https://imgur.com/LoUqsN4

                Harry put this image up before you gave those replies.

                They both double back, so that can't be used as a reason to demonstrate you were talking only about Jacob.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • Oh, I think I will be the best judge about who I am talking about and what I am saying. I know quite well what I said and meant and I really don't care about what anybody else may think.
                  I can easily understand how it was perceived that I was mistaking the two Levys - in fact, had any one else done it, I would reason like you do now, Batman. I am not complaining about that. But it nevertheless applies that I was talking about Jacob only and that I know the difference between him and Joseph thoroughly.

                  So think that you will, and I will settle for knowing instead.

                  And now, if you please: You said I had mixed the two up in earlier posts, and if you can prove that, you will have a very good case for me not being able to tell them apart. So please produce these examples!
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 12-13-2018, 03:18 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Anyway, as I said, only JACOB can be said to have doubled back from Goulston Street and that is what I am pointing to as a weird suggestion. Plus I find Harrys post even weirder, suggesting that we need not care much about the placement of the rag, as it would seem...?
                    Not in the slightest.

                    The fact that Jacob Levy would've had to double-back from Goulston St back to his home does not mean he didn't deposit the apron rag. Abby, for example, proffered an explanation for this. And like I said, Jacob had a brother living in the Wentworth Buildings. He might have ducked into his brother’s house first to clean up or in case he thought he was being followed.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      Not in the slightest.

                      The fact that Jacob Levy would've had to double-back from Goulston St back to his home does not mean he didn't deposit the apron rag. Abby, for example, proffered an explanation for this. And like I said, Jacob had a brother living in the Wentworth Buildings. He might have ducked into his brother’s house first to clean up or in case he thought he was being followed.
                      But I am not arguing that you could not be right, Harry! I am arguing that you are taking away the whole reason for including the Goulston Street rag as a useful clue. The ONLY use there is for it as a clue lies in its potential to point us in the direction of the killer´s next venue, arguably his lodgings. And if we allow for twists and turns taking the killer AWAY from the rag instead of in its direction, we are diluting any significance of it into mere water.

                      If Jacob ducked into Wentworth model buildings, he would have passed his own lodgings first - unless he took an illogical way. And logic is the name of the game.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        But I am not arguing that you could not be right, Harry! I am arguing that you are taking away the whole reason for including the Goulston Street rag as a useful clue. The ONLY use there is for it as a clue lies in its potential to point us in the direction of the killer´s next venue, arguably his lodgings. And if we allow for twists and turns taking the killer AWAY from the rag instead of in its direction, we are diluting any significance of it into mere water.
                        These are all assumptions, Fisherman. If PC Long is to be trusted, then all the clue can tell us is that the killer passed GSG an hour after the murder. It doesn't really tell us what direction he was headed. If he had a "bolthole" nearby, he may have stopped there to hide and clean up, before he headed back onto the street to drop the rag and return to his lodgings.

                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        If Jacob ducked into Wentworth model buildings, he would have passed his own lodgings first - unless he took an illogical way. And logic is the name of the game.
                        And if Jacob felt someone was following him, or he had been seen by someone, he might have wanted to deflect suspicion by ducking into somewhere else first before going home. Perfectly logical.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          But I am not arguing that you could not be right, Harry! I am arguing that you are taking away the whole reason for including the Goulston Street rag as a useful clue. The ONLY use there is for it as a clue lies in its potential to point us in the direction of the killer´s next venue, arguably his lodgings. And if we allow for twists and turns taking the killer AWAY from the rag instead of in its direction, we are diluting any significance of it into mere water.

                          If Jacob ducked into Wentworth model buildings, he would have passed his own lodgings first - unless he took an illogical way. And logic is the name of the game.
                          I submit to you Fisherman that there are other reasons it may have been left there and they include as a signature for the GSG, a means to identify who wrote the message, or in agreement with the message, or as a distraction for the very reasons you mention about...what people might perceive they might learn from its location.

                          The cloth "was not there" until it was found more than an hour after Kates murder. That allows for many possibilities as to why its in that particular spot.

                          For myself, I believe the cloth is the signature of Kates killer...a way for the killer to let the authorities be sure that the Kates killer had been there. And I think he wrote the message because of what he had learned within the hour after the murder and while he dropped off the items that were wrapped in the cloth. I believe the translation is essentially that the Jews seem to be evading blame for the things they have done, or that there is good reason to blame the Jews....and I believe that refers directly to Berner Street. The Model Homes housed at least 1 of the members of the club I believe, and the location was known to local jews as a starting point for peaceful marches of protest. I think its possible he just threw the cloth contents into the river, or down a sewer. I dont think he was covetous, I think Annies killer may have been.
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 12-13-2018, 03:41 AM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            These are all assumptions, Fisherman. If PC Long is to be trusted, then all the clue can tell us is that the killer passed GSG an hour after the murder. It doesn't really tell us what direction he was headed. If he had a "bolthole" nearby, he may have stopped there to hide and clean up, before he headed back onto the street to drop the rag and return to his lodgings.



                            And if Jacob felt someone was following him, or he had been seen by someone, he might have wanted to deflect suspicion by ducking into somewhere else first before going home. Perfectly logical.
                            As I keep telling you, I am not saying that the killer may not have taken any odd road to Goulston Street. What I am telling you is that any such suggestion is and remains a less valid suggestion than one that involves the killer passing the spot en route to his lodgings and dropping the apron there.
                            Removing any suggestions about circuitous trips, doubling backs and such things will make for a better fit with the clue in Goulston Street. Therefore, any suggestion of a killer who lived in a prolonged line starting from Mitre Square and passing through Goulston Street is a better suggestion on geographical merits only than Jacob Levy.

                            That does not mean that Jacob could not be the killer, it only means that it is not as likely as it would have been if he had lived somewhere beyond Goulston Street, as seen from Mitre Square.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 12-13-2018, 04:13 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              I submit to you Fisherman that there are other reasons it may have been left there and they include as a signature for the GSG, a means to identify who wrote the message, or in agreement with the message, or as a distraction for the very reasons you mention about...what people might perceive they might learn from its location.

                              The cloth "was not there" until it was found more than an hour after Kates murder. That allows for many possibilities as to why its in that particular spot.

                              For myself, I believe the cloth is the signature of Kates killer...a way for the killer to let the authorities be sure that the Kates killer had been there. And I think he wrote the message because of what he had learned within the hour after the murder and while he dropped off the items that were wrapped in the cloth. I believe the translation is essentially that the Jews seem to be evading blame for the things they have done, or that there is good reason to blame the Jews....and I believe that refers directly to Berner Street. The Model Homes housed at least 1 of the members of the club I believe, and the location was known to local jews as a starting point for peaceful marches of protest. I think its possible he just threw the cloth contents into the river, or down a sewer. I dont think he was covetous, I think Annies killer may have been.
                              But Michael, I KNOW that there are other possible reasons for the rag being where it was. And yes, we can work from such assumptions and they can be as simple or as complex as we choose to make them.

                              That, however, does not detract from how the basics urge us to assume that the killer was passing by on his way home as he threw the rag in the doorway. That is by far the simplest solution, and the ONLY solution that gives the rag a true value as an indicator of who the killer may have been.
                              It MAY have been Mr Scum of Hasker Street, who just felt like taking a longish trip into Whitechapel after killing Eddowes. But the better guess is that it was somebody who lived to the northeast of Goulston Street.
                              Those are the basics, they may or may not be consistent with the truth of the matter, but they remain the basics nevertheless.

                              Comment


                              • As I stated a few pages back, this idea of lack of reason for going to Goulston St., is obviously discounting something that most investigators didn't at the time... the Goulston Street Graffiti.

                                So to claim there wasn't a reason to go there and back again omits this important fact of the apron find.

                                Also as pointed out by HarryD, Jacob Levy has connections to the Wentworth model buildings and may not have gone home at all.

                                In fact, with Levy, the GSG is given a context more illuminating than previously thought. While it could be that the GSG was directed in general to Jews that got in the way of JtR's crimes or saw him, we now have a direct threat against a specific person in a group who lived nearby and maybe could identify him. Namely, Joseph Levy.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X