Jacob The Ripper?

[tji]

Hi Bridewell

No problem. I agree, I was concentrating more on the answer, rather than how it was coming across, while I am trying to cut down on my smilies usage, they do have their uses.

Nothing wrong with back-tracking, at least you acknowledge you may have been hasty and are willing to wait and see, rather than ignore what is there because you don't want to be wrong.

Nothing to apologise for, it is very easily done, I believe we are all guilty of doing it at least once in our lives.

No problems, we will hopefully be posting the information soon. I hope it does us justice - the pressure is there now lol.

Tracy

[tji]

Hi Curious

Nice summation, thank you.

There are probably a thousand suspects who fit much better than Levy. We just don't know who they are.

Huh?!

The only reason we even know that Levy exists is because of a speculation that Joseph Hyam Levy was protecting a relative. Had he not been the cousin of a witness, we never would have known his name either. There were about 6 million people in London at the time. On the suspect list to our left is about 20 people. And the only reason we even have those twenty people is that they were tangentially involved in the case. Or famous. Statistically, the odds of us stumbling onto the one guy in 6 million Londoners who actually is the killer is a little remote.

No! Jacob was already put forward as a suspect by Mark King before we connected him to Joseph. The connection, while giving him merit over others is not the only reason he is a suspect.

So we should just not bother looking? Also statistics would be considerably less once you took out all the people who couldn't have been a suspect.

Personally, I think we should take names out of it.

Oh okay - well then if we are taking names out I can now say I have solved the case, I know who Jtr was, can't tell you though, no names allowed..... Yeah I can see a few problems with that.

Now most serial killers are light on motive, with it mostly boiling down to "because I wanted to". But with Levy, we are left with a man who had an occupation that could have helped him commit these crimes, but isn't evident in any of the crimes. He was the right age, right height, lived in the East End, and his mother died in 1888. And that's assuming his mother's death even bothered him. And several different heights were given by witnesses, so I don't think we can use that as a measure. I think we're down to him being the right age, and lived in the neighborhood.

Okay, how do you know it isn't evident in any of the crimes?
He didn't just live in the neighbourhood, he lived in the centre of it all, as for the height, he is 5 ft 3'. There is no confusion over it.

Now, IF he in fact died of Neurosyphilis, that may actually take him out of the running. The early symptoms of Neurosyphilis include a lot of problems that play hell with fine motor control. Or really any motor control. Had Jack been an axe murderer the motor control problems wouldn't matter, but as it stands, it could be a deal breaker.

No early symptoms include loss of ambition to work, memory lapses, irritability, unusual giddiness, decline in personal appearance, along with a few others. I believe you probably are thinking of the Tabis dorsalis form of neurosyphilis, not General Paresis, which he was diagnosed with.

The problem with name oriented suspect discussion is that for all we know, Levy was in France at the time of the murders. Or taking care of his dead uncle's estate in Wales. Or didn't have a thumb. Laid out with measles. Any number of things could immediately eliminate him, had we been there at the time. Things we will never know now. It seems a shame to hang your hat on a suspect that can only peripherally investigated.

This case could be made for practically every suspect Errata, it is the problem with trying to trace someone from 100+ years ago, no-one said it was going to be easy, so should we just give up and not bother?

(By the way, guy with no thumbs thing happened to my Uncle when he was an MP. Took them three interviews with this very upset man to even notice that he had no thumbs, and that was because he had to sign something. So if you're ever arrested and you have a condition that means you couldn't have done it, shout it out because they may not see it.)

[/QUOTE]

I think the medical records would have noted it.

Tracy

[Bridewell]

Too Kind

Hi Bridewell

I'm not sure if we are on the same wavelength here?

By evidence I am in about actual physical evidence that no-one has otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing the case.
I am not sure how he can't make a suspect because we haven't got that physical evidence?

Does that make any suspect not a good suspect?
What we have done in the article is make a strong case for him as a suspect, but we have never said we have proved he was Jack.


No I should be the one to apologise, re-reading my post it was more 'aggressive' than what I intended and insulted was a little too strong a word in hindsight. Sorry.

Of course you have the right to question Jacob, apologies if I gave the impression you couldn't. May I ask if you have read the article at all though?


Tracy

Hi Tracey,

That's a very gracious reply. I think part of the problem we all have with the boards is that we only see each other's words and not the thought processes behind them. Having looked at some of the more recent posts on this thread, I'm going to back-track slightly. Your man is a long way from being the worst suspect on the list, because of his background and history. The problem (as with most) is placing him at a crime scene, although I acknowledge that his cousin was a witness to something with regard to the Eddowes murder.

I think I'm going to have to wait for the bullet-points referred to earlier and take a more considered view when I have had sight of all your material, and the conclusions you have drawn from it. I therefore apologise for, to some extent at least, rushing to judgement. I should know better.

I look forward to reading more.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Jimi]

Good Luck

Hi Errata
Discussion does seem a bit pointless when it's one sided, (or you don't have all the facts) so....
I wish you well,honestly, and good luck with your surgery.
Keep Well
Neil

[Errata]

OH!!have you read the article yet?
Neil

That's a really long winded take down of a post. So you know, I guess Bravo for that... but as I already stated ..

NO!! I haven't read the article. It's not a reflection of your research talents that make me question the viability of ANY suspect at a 130 year remove. It's his inability to answer questions that's the problem. And If you recall, or would like to harken back to the earlier pages of this thread, I was HELPING you when I was explaining some of the peculiarities of Jewish life in the Victorian era, and I was explaining about syphilis to someone, though it may not have been you. But I was answering your questions, the whole Jewish name thing seemed to interest you... For all I know, your article will absolutely convert me to believing it was Levy. But I don't have it. I do not doubt for a second that it is possible to have a very good reason to have Levy as a prime suspect. I just don't know what it is. Maybe it's in the article. But there are any number of people who do not understand certain realities of things foreign to their experience. Mental illness, Judaism, Victorian medical capabilities. It has been stated any number of times on these boards that all serial killers are insane, and we know that's not true. So I don't have a Pollyanna-ish fundamental belief in the validity of the basis of everyone's suspect criteria. You, I'm fine with. TJI, I'm also fine with. Curious I argue with from time to time, but I'm still fine with. Sometimes I have presentation issues, but what's life without a little disagreement about garnish?

Now, I'm tired, I'm about to bite off my own fingers I'm in so much pain, and I have spinal surgery in 10 hours. I will be perfectly willing to argue about this more whenever I get out of the hospital, but for now, I'm done. All I ask is that everyone consider "At what point do I become responsible for what I say about another (albeit long dead) person, and what are my responsibilities to that person?" I'm not at all saying that you have violated any sacred trust somewhere, it's just worth re-examining every so often. Or in other words, If you're at peace with your god and I'm at peace with mine then any disagreement we might have will be strictly academic, and no reason to take offense.

Ta mates

[Jimi]

Motive

hi All
Hi Velma
No, nothing wrong with your summation.
I agree my argument is probably light on motive. Did we try and discover a maternal reason. Look back on this thread and you will see how many times we have appealed for information on Caroline/Catherine Levy/Solomons. The womans a freaking ghost!
Thats not the only weak point,but having read the article,may i ask you a question?
If there was a poll on who was Jack the Ripper would you be tempted to Jacob in your top 3?
Keep Well
Neil

[Jimi]

The Article

Hi All
Can I just interpose hear and say that we will be posting a summary of the article, whether as bullet points or as a dissertation, in time.
However, neither Tracy or myself can be as informative as we would like due to Ripperologist still being available. We feel that to blast out all the info that is in the article, would be ill of grace to all those who freely gave us their time and experience, and lets be honest, it doesn't come cheap to produce a magazine.
Keep Well
Jimi

[Errata]

Errata,
If you don't like the suspect area of this discussion, why bother yourself? Other people love it. Why not just let them do their thing?

It's not that. I mean, there's a lot of speculation and potential maligning of character involved, so it seems fair to be specific. I mean, my Grandparents names come up sometimes in a knowledgeable discussion of the Rosenbergs and treason. And a couple of people have said that my Grandfather was the one who actually gave the Russians the bomb. And that's fine, to a point. I mean, it's crap because we know who it was, but I don't mind the intellectual exercise. What I mind is the reason for the suspicion, which is based on the idea that since my uncle and dad were quite young, they clearly had to have some income above my Grandfather's government salary. And they did. My grandmother tutored in the 8 different languages she spoke. But the few people who have put forth my Grandfather's name for treason didn't know that. And all of them had young children, so it's a bad reason to single him out. Now if there was some reason for suspicion specific to my grandfather, I'd be fine with that. I mean, he had mob ties, so it's not out of the question that he may have engaged in illegal activity. But there's no reason for suspicion given that didn't apply to everyone else in that group, and a good portion of the rest of New York City. So that bothers me.

If the basis of suspicion is specific to the individual, or to specifics in the individuals life, that's fine. But people should back it up. If you think Jack the Ripper was a butcher, tell me why, specifically. Is it the way he cut? The tools you think he used? The orientation or treatment of the corpses? Why do you think he has to be Jewish? Or does it matter? Why do you think he has a mental illness? What about Jack the Ripper's crimes make you think of insanity? That kind of thing.

Because if Jacob Levy's great grandson comes in here wanting to defend his forefather, he should have something to defend against. I mean, these victims were people. These suspects are people. They have relatives, people who would like to think well of their forebearers. And I doubt they would mind the intellectual exercise either, but if people are going to put forth a suspect and gather evidence against him until they hit a wall records wise then it seems only fair to have specific allegations. He did this because he was A and Jack the Ripper was A because of B. Not "this guy is a suspect because he lived in the neighborhood and was abnormal". Not "your Grandfather was a traitor because he had young kids and was a communist". I mean, my Grandfather was a communist for about five minutes, and if that's the best anyone can come up with, I'd rather not have my name dragged through the mud.

I mean, we'll never know. And speculation is fine. But when it comes to naming names, it seems to me that requires greater care. If people are going to suggest an identity for Jack the Ripper, they should make as solid a case as they can based on specifics. Tell me why you believe what you believe. Likely I'll argue with you. Whether I agree is irrelevant. But if I start feeling sorry for some guy because it's beginning to seem like he's being trashed for no good reason, that's a problem. And I'm not saying that's the case with Levy, but I'm getting there. And yeah, some of it is based on my own personal realities, and I try to be honest about that. I'm just saying, if you think the death of his mother mattered, tell me what makes you think the death of his mother would cause a killing spree of middle aged prostitutes. What makes you think that ever happens, why in this case would it have happened, and why this specific victim group? I mean, you're suggesting the guy killed and mutilated women. I think people owe him a detailed analysis.

[Jimi]

Jacob the Ripper?

Hi Errata
There are probably a thousand suspects who fit much better than Levy-:
Then name one.
. The only reason we even know that Levy exists-:
Mark King first postulated about jacob over 6 years ago that I know of.
And the only reason we even have those twenty people is that they were tangentially involved in the case. Or famous. Statistically, the odds of us stumbling onto the one guy in 6 million Londoners who actually is the killer is a little remote.-:
Or bloody good research
So if you think this killer was an insane Jewish butcher -:
We've never said Jacob was insane in 1888
If he was a butcher, why wouldn't he cut like one?-:
How is a butcher supposed to cut?
If he was Jewish why risk killing so close to a synagogue? -:
Do I feel a breeze of enlightenment coming over me? Oops, no sorry, I just broke wind
He didn't go mad immediately afterwards. It was a year and a half later. He also went mad 2 years previously. And he wasn't begging to be locked up lest he harm anyone again, he said he felt urges that would harm someone were he to act on them. Which is actually a very responsible reaction to the symptoms of mental illness. -:
Please read the article.
Now most serial killers are light on motive, with it mostly boiling down to "because I wanted to". But with Levy, we are left with a man who had an occupation that could have helped him commit these crimes, but isn't evident in any of the crimes. He was the right age, right height, lived in the East End, and his mother died in 1888. And that's assuming his mother's death even bothered him. And several different heights were given by witnesses, so I don't think we can use that as a measure. I think we're down to him being the right age, and lived in the neighborhood. Now, IF he in fact died of Neurosyphilis, that may actually take him out of the running. The early symptoms of Neurosyphilis include a lot of problems that play hell with fine motor control. Or really any motor control. Had Jack been an axe murderer the motor control problems wouldn't matter, but as it stands, it could be a deal breaker.-:
No, really,please read the article. I feel an attack of deja vue coming on.
Levy was in France at the time of the murders-:
No,he was working at 36 Middlesex street
Or taking care of his dead uncle's estate in Wales -:
All his uncles lived and died in Whitechapel
Or didn't have a thumb -:
Jacob was fit in body when admitted to the asylum.
Any number of things could immediately eliminate him, had we been there at the time. Things we will never know now. It seems a shame to hang your hat on a suspect that can only peripherally investigated. -:
You know,Errata, that is actually insulting. Tracy and myself spent years, at least 3, aided by other very reputable researchers, in discovering and verifying the Levy family and Jacobs medical and asylum records. If that translates to you, as a suspect that has only been peripherally investigated I can only say there is no satisfying some people.
OH!!have you read the article yet?
Neil

[curious]

Errata,
If you don't like the suspect area of this discussion, why bother yourself? Other people love it. Why not just let them do their thing?

[Errata]

What makes Levy such a strong suspect for me is:

1. Location, location, location. He lived right in the midst of the action. (I know, so did thousands of others)

2. His job. He was a butcher, and I believe an offal dresser, which meant he removed entrails from animals in near-dark conditions. He was good and quick with a knife.

3. He had been in prison previously, which often changes people makes them more violent. Plus, they have learned new "tricks of the trade."

4. Levy matches witnesses' identification. His age and height are about right.

5. The case against Levy is probably light on motive. But in the case of mentally unhinged folks, it is almost impossible for someone else to guess their thought processes. If Jacob Levy is the Ripper, I suspect it ties in someway to his mother and her death in 1888. Grief is so often a confusing mess of love/hate/resentment/abandonment, etc. Before the previous marriage of his mother was located, I speculated that if she had had children out of wedlock, that might help explain motivation. I can't see how revenge for syphilis figures into the age of the victims.

It boils down to: He was there and he wandered around at all hours, he had the ability to pull off the lightening fast murders, and he went mad soon afterward, begging to be stopped before he hurt anyone else. (I think that's still a valid semi-quote, isn't it Tracy, Neil?) Add all that to his first cousin's reaction. To the fact that nothing occurred in October immediately after Levy was sighted by his cousin . . .

Is there another suspect that fits as well?

There are probably a thousand suspects who fit much better than Levy. We just don't know who they are. The only reason we even know that Levy exists is because of a speculation that Joseph Hyam Levy was protecting a relative. Had he not been the cousin of a witness, we never would have known his name either. There were about 6 million people in London at the time. On the suspect list to our left is about 20 people. And the only reason we even have those twenty people is that they were tangentially involved in the case. Or famous. Statistically, the odds of us stumbling onto the one guy in 6 million Londoners who actually is the killer is a little remote.

Personally, I think we should take names out of it. I think we need to decide what the killer is like, and then find someone who fits that. So if you think this killer was an insane Jewish butcher who did time, then maybe, but even then you still have problems. If he was a butcher, why wouldn't he cut like one? If he was Jewish why risk killing so close to a synagogue? He didn't do a whole lot of time, he got transferred to an asylum. But they let him go, and people weren't real concerned about overcrowding back then, so he must have been better. He didn't go mad immediately afterwards. It was a year and a half later. He also went mad 2 years previously. And he wasn't begging to be locked up lest he harm anyone again, he said he felt urges that would harm someone were he to act on them. Which is actually a very responsible reaction to the symptoms of mental illness.

Now most serial killers are light on motive, with it mostly boiling down to "because I wanted to". But with Levy, we are left with a man who had an occupation that could have helped him commit these crimes, but isn't evident in any of the crimes. He was the right age, right height, lived in the East End, and his mother died in 1888. And that's assuming his mother's death even bothered him. And several different heights were given by witnesses, so I don't think we can use that as a measure. I think we're down to him being the right age, and lived in the neighborhood. Now, IF he in fact died of Neurosyphilis, that may actually take him out of the running. The early symptoms of Neurosyphilis include a lot of problems that play hell with fine motor control. Or really any motor control. Had Jack been an axe murderer the motor control problems wouldn't matter, but as it stands, it could be a deal breaker.

The problem with name oriented suspect discussion is that for all we know, Levy was in France at the time of the murders. Or taking care of his dead uncle's estate in Wales. Or didn't have a thumb. Laid out with measles. Any number of things could immediately eliminate him, had we been there at the time. Things we will never know now. It seems a shame to hang your hat on a suspect that can only peripherally investigated.

(By the way, guy with no thumbs thing happened to my Uncle when he was an MP. Took them three interviews with this very upset man to even notice that he had no thumbs, and that was because he had to sign something. So if you're ever arrested and you have a condition that means you couldn't have done it, shout it out because they may not see it.)

[curious]

Not to sound harsh, but when you say "Each to their own" are you saying you would NOT turn in a relative who was a serial killer? What is the alternative? Let them turn women inside out? Kill them? I'm not challenging in a "you're a bad person" kinda way. I mean, I get that it would not be an easy decision. But if you feel that way, and others feel that way, then clearly people back then may have in fact felt that way, and that is something I would like to understand. Which currently, I have to admit, I don't at all.

I'm with you -- part of the way, Errata. If I knew for sure anyone was committing crimes like these, I'd be figuring out a discrete way to let law enforcement know without putting myself in knife's way.

However, the East End of London in 1888 indeed the entire world was a different place, then. Much of the Whitechapel population were refugees from lands where they were badly mistreated and the people very deeply distrusted the government. They had learned that their survival meant clinging together and protecting each other.

Now, Joseph Levy, the witness, may have had his suspicions about cousin Jacob, but it is not likely that he KNEW for sure that he was the killer.

It has been suggested that from that point on, the family was probably keeping a very close eye on the dangerous family member. Making sure that both Jacob and Whitechapel were safe.

Just as ?? was it Anderson?? who said that it was a low-class Jew who was protected by his family. With Jacob Levy, likely he would have been right.

What makes Levy such a strong suspect for me is:

1. Location, location, location. He lived right in the midst of the action. (I know, so did thousands of others)

2. His job. He was a butcher, and I believe an offal dresser, which meant he removed entrails from animals in near-dark conditions. He was good and quick with a knife.

3. He had been in prison previously, which often changes people makes them more violent. Plus, they have learned new "tricks of the trade."

4. Levy matches witnesses' identification. His age and height are about right.

5. The case against Levy is probably light on motive. But in the case of mentally unhinged folks, it is almost impossible for someone else to guess their thought processes. If Jacob Levy is the Ripper, I suspect it ties in someway to his mother and her death in 1888. Grief is so often a confusing mess of love/hate/resentment/abandonment, etc. Before the previous marriage of his mother was located, I speculated that if she had had children out of wedlock, that might help explain motivation. I can't see how revenge for syphilis figures into the age of the victims.

It boils down to: He was there and he wandered around at all hours, he had the ability to pull off the lightening fast murders, and he went mad soon afterward, begging to be stopped before he hurt anyone else. (I think that's still a valid semi-quote, isn't it Tracy, Neil?) Add all that to his first cousin's reaction. To the fact that nothing occurred in October immediately after Levy was sighted by his cousin . . .

Is there another suspect that fits as well?

[judyj]

Hi Malcolm X

The man that GH described may not have been the ripper. That guy may have stayed for a while and than left without GH seeing him, GH may have already left. Mary may have come out again and met the Ripper either that or he may know her and known that she would be alone. Maybe even GH himself. I have a lot of questions concerning his description of the man seen with Mary.

julie

[tji]

Hi Errata

This thread.

I am saying given the way things were at that time I would certainly think twice and make sure I was 100% sure my family member was Jack the Ripper before bringing down the hatred and anger of the whole country onto them and all other family members.


Tracy

[Errata]

Hi Eratta

Forgetting the article for one minute, on the boards alone we have out forward information that shows it isn't just the fact he knew his cousin.

Where? I mean, I don't read every thread so clearly I could easily have missed it. If you could give me a point towards it I will read it immediately.

Not to sound harsh, but when you say "Each to their own" are you saying you would NOT turn in a relative who was a serial killer? What is the alternative? Let them turn women inside out? Kill them? I'm not challenging in a "you're a bad person" kinda way. I mean, I get that it would not be an easy decision. But if you feel that way, and others feel that way, then clearly people back then may have in fact felt that way, and that is something I would like to understand. Which currently, I have to admit, I don't at all.