Jacob The Ripper?

[The Grave Maurice]

Point taken, Scott. I really hadn't paid too much attention to Levy until all the chatter about him here. Although, when you think about it, isn't he a more probable suspect than some of the others (e.g., Robert Mann and Charles Le Grand) that have been touted recently?

[Mortis]

Scott, maybe this will convince you otherwise:

Hi Scott

I said before that Jacob was too fat to be the Ripper.


Yeah, you have, I did ask you about this the last time you mentioned it, but you haven't answered.

So again, can I ask why you think he was too fat when we know he weighed 9st 3 when he was at Stone?


Also, the only reason Mark King focused his research on Jacob is because Jacob was the cousin of King's favored witness, Joseph Hyam Levy.

May I ask how you know this, because I am never read in Mark King's works that he had made this connection, he states they may be related, because they are both Levy's but he doesn't link them.

I would be very grateful, if there is some work of Mark King's out there that I haven't read, you could point me to it. I would love to know the history of Abraham Levy and Mark seems to know this.

Tj

Also, it seems that there is a little too much coincidence in Jacob being the Ripper, don't you think?

I've recently played Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper and the game points out everything towards Jacoby Levy. It's very detailed about why Jacob killed prostitutes, how he killed them and many many more "coincidence" that points out to Jacob Levy.

[Errata]

Food for thought:

More than half of the "Levys" in London were not in fact Levys.

Levi is a caste, not a clan. Judaism divides people into three "castes". Cohen, Levi, and Israelite. Cohen are the priests, Levis the law givers, and the Israelites are the rest of the 12 tribes. Amongst the Cohen and the Levi, it was still quite common for a last name to be something akin to Ben Avram. Son of Abraham. Or whatever their fathers name was. As family names may or may not have been appropriate, any Jew might put down Cohen of Levy as a family name upon immigration of when asked by a census. Israelites on the other hand, had typically taken territorial or career oriented last names. Kosminski, territorial. Goldblum, territorial or career. That's the reason that still to this day Cohen and Levy are very common Jewish last names.

In the Jewish community, this would have been know. So I guess the litmus test would be to see who actually introduced themselves as "Jacob Levy", vs "Jacob Ben Judah". Which might mean that anyone identified as Jacob Levy could have a completely different last name, which might make identification an issue.

Is it weird that I don't consider JtR's killings as a "bearded" crime? I just cant see it, big long beard dipping in all those women. It's just peculiar.

[Ben]

I just cant see it, big long beard dipping in all those women. It's just peculiar.

Indeed, Errata - not to mention being at odds with the vast majority of witness descriptions.

I'm put off by Levy as a suspect on account of his profession. The ripper was clearly responsible for botched attempts at severing the heads of some of his victims, and it beggers belief that a professional butcher could have failed in this regard.

All the best,
Ben

[Jimi]

Heads and Beards

Hi All
Hi Errata
I am not sure what you are saying hear. Sorry. From what i can gather you are saying Jacob Levy would not have used the name Jacob Levy but rather Jacob ben Joseph,his fathers name? Would that have worked in victorian England? There is actual ancestral history of the Levy name, his grandfather,born 1770 in Whitechapel, was recorded on his marriage certificate as Isaac ben (or bin) Hyim Levy. Sorry again for being so dense and thanks for the info.
Hi Ben
Actually it`s not easy at all to remove the head from a supine body. I worked for 15 years as a butcher so i do have a little experience. The closest animal,anatomically,to a human is a pig, the pigs head is attached to the neck by a cup and ball joint, held there by a band of cartilage. the normal way,and easiest, is to hang the pig by its heels, or if laid down to cut through the neck down to the bone, the knife is inserted between the cup and ball and the carilage severed. Now to remove the head one lifts up with one hand and then, with as much force as possible you push down,effectively breaking the neck.
However if JTRs victims were laid on the ground you could not get enough downward force to break the neck.Butchers do this so that the animals head is hanging over the edge of there work block.
What is it with the beards? Nobody ever said Jacob Levy had a beard,small medium or long.
Keep Well
Jimi

[The Grave Maurice]

The ripper was clearly responsible for botched attempts at severing the heads of some of his victims, and it beggers belief that a professional butcher could have failed in this regard.

See, that's what I love about this case: there are so many legitimate points of disagreement. For example, I have never believed that JtR intended to sever the heads of any victims. I put it down to over-enthusiastic throat cutting, pure and simple. I think that if he had wanted to remove the heads, he would have. But that wasn't his primary area of interest.

[Ben]

Hi GM,

It's possible that the spinal notches were the by-product of over-zealous cutting, but there was something about their appearance that led Phillips to the conclusion that they were the result of an attempt to sever the vertebrae. Perhaps the notches were all concentrated on one place, as opposed to the general region of the top of the spine, as one might expect if Jack was merely over-enthusiastic?

Hi Jimi,

You've rather reinfoced my point, to a degree. If, like you, the killer had some experience of butchering, then it surely stands to reason that he'd know not to bother with the decapitation. The fact that there are indications that he tried and failed suggests that he wasn't remotely au fait with the practicalities involved, as a butcher undoubtedly would be.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

I've recently played Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper and the game points out everything towards Jacoby Levy.

Well, ok then. Can't argue with that. Jacob was definately the Ripper.

The fat joke was a bad joke, so sue me.

[Errata]

Hi All
Hi Errata
I am not sure what you are saying hear. Sorry. From what i can gather you are saying Jacob Levy would not have used the name Jacob Levy but rather Jacob ben Joseph,his fathers name? Would that have worked in victorian England? There is actual ancestral history of the Levy name, his grandfather,born 1770 in Whitechapel, was recorded on his marriage certificate as Isaac ben (or bin) Hyim Levy. Sorry again for being so dense and thanks for the info.

What is it with the beards? Nobody ever said Jacob Levy had a beard,small medium or long.
Keep Well
Jimi

Actually what I'm saying essentially is that names in the Jewish community and names outside the Jewish community may be different. Isaac Ben Hyam Levy is actually a perfect example. His name is Issac Ben Hyam. Levi is his tribe. So in official paperwork it gets combined, and Levy is now the official last name. Bin is Arabic by the way. Same meaning, only for Muslims.

Now, I have absolutely no idea if this has any bearing on the case at all, and I'm not sure if there is a way to find out. A new immigrant to the community would call Jacob Levy "Jacob Ben Joseph", or "Jacob Bar Joseph". Same thing. Because to them, that would be his name. The reason it could cause problems is because when speaking to someone outside the community, one would have to be pretty specific to make sure you are talking about the same Levy. Or Cohen for that matter.

Two Jacob Levys had the same profession and lived near each other. In all of London I would imagine there would be quite a few more. An investigator walks up to a Jew and asks if he knows Jacob Levy, the answer is yes. I even know a Jacob Levy. They would have to specify, "The Jacob Levy who is married to this woman, the son of this man, who works at this location, who lives at this address". Or in short hand, "Jacob Ben Joseph". Conceivably there could be a Jacob Levy who has a bad temper, A different Jacob Levy who frequented prostitutes, And a third Jacob Levy who is sort of an embittered butcher. Within the community there would be little confusion, as the first would be Jacob Ben Judah, the second Jacob Ben Shmuel, and the third Jacob Ben Joseph. These are the names used in Synagogue, and therefore known to all. Anyway Yiddish was mostly the only language these people had in common with one another. Both Londoner's born and bred, and the fresh off the boat crowd spoke it. And in Yiddish, it is very common to use someone's Hebrew name. Jacob Ben Joseph.

I brought it up because someone had said something about there being a lot of Levys running around. This is why. Sort of an Ellis Island effect. Did it matter in this case? No idea. Certainly his cousin knew exactly which one he was. But would the others who were reporting community gossip? Or the people who originated the gossip? Did they mean the same man? So that's why I brought it up. There is clearly a communication gap between the Jewish communities and the rest of London. The question is, to what extent? And I don't know. I do know that Jews were still being accused of killing babies and drinking their blood for Passover. But Disraeli was rocketing up in political power as well, so some respect was being given in that quarter as well.

I think anytime someone relies on a vastly misunderstood group of people for information, a group that people avoid learning about, and who keep to themselves, their own ways, and their own languages, then an investigator has to be very careful there is no confusion. I don't think the original investigators were. So we should be. The possibility exists. So if we know the possibility exists, then we can make sure we don't make that mistake. Regardless of whether or not it was made in the first place.

As far as the beard thing goes, If he was a practicing Jew, he had a beard. Not unlike the beards seen on Orthodox Jews today. Jewish males were not allowed to cut their beards. Today many do, but there have been an enormous amount of changes that have filtered down through the centuries. So odds are he had a beard. Especially as a Levi and if he at one point may have been a Shochet.

[Jimi]

Jacob ben Joseph

Hi Errata
WoW. Superb post. Thank you.
As to it`s relevance, in our research we do use quite a few Jewish record sites so from a personal view it is very useful, as to Jacob being a practicing jew, i don`t think so. However i need to go back to the Jewish records and use a new searcn name. Thanks for that
Keep Well
Jimi

[MrTwibbs]

Hi




For me and Tj he ticks nearly all the boxes needed to be Jack The ripper.

I will post info on this throughout the day please be patient, Tj is the typist, not me.

Jimi

Imo Levy is JTR. So much evidence.The suggestion that he was discommunciated from the community and used the writing on the wall to blame the Jews is just a small example of many. The physical descriptions match him also and he had the skills and stomach to do the murders. He was known to visit prostitutes and his child was hit by an STD. The symptoms of which leave the face hollow. Similar to how he carved the noses and eye lids of at least one of the victims.

[Errata]

Hi Errata
WoW. Superb post. Thank you.
As to it`s relevance, in our research we do use quite a few Jewish record sites so from a personal view it is very useful, as to Jacob being a practicing jew, i don`t think so. However i need to go back to the Jewish records and use a new searcn name. Thanks for that
Keep Well
Jimi

Hahah. Thanks.
As far as records go, I would be surprised if he showed up as anything other than his "Christian" name. The real pitfall in this kind of situation is in conversation with an outsider. for example:

An investigator asks a Jew "Do you know Jacob Levy?"
"I think so..."
"You would know. We hear he is pretty strange. Bad guy all around."
"I do know him! He is a bad man! A crazy man. Are you going to arrest him? You should. We cannot sleep until he is locked up!"

Well what more does an investigator need? But let's ask one more question.

"Do you know where this Jacob Levy lives?"
"Of course I do! He lives upstairs from my family. He keeps birds. Dozens of birds! and the noise he makes, whistling and talking to them. All night he does this! I haven't slept in weeks. And no matter how many times I tell him to take off his heavy boots in the house, he stomps around at all hours. And the whistling!"

Uh oh. Maybe not Jack the Ripper.

Thank my grandmother for the material. Oy vei.

Like my History prof said, context is king. If you don't have it in common, then nothing is worthwhile. Bloody Mary seems psychotic until you know what her mother went through. The American Founding Fathers seem very noble of purpose until you find out they wanted control of all of England's territories, and tried to take Canada by force.

And my History textbook said that the U.S won the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and I can't even begin to calculate all of the wrong in that statement. I mean, that's not just a typo. And I'm sure people believe that statement to this day. Because it was in the textbook. And textbooks are Researched and Well Documented bundles of Truth.

I think my healthy skepticism is running to paranoia. I'm going to shut up now.

[Jimi]

In Context

Hi Errata
I couldn`t agree more. Context is the king and must be so,during all our research both myself and TJ will check for ourselves our information. Church and synagogue,prison and census results are all checked out, and like you say,you wouldn`t believe how many Levys,Levis and Levitskis there were in Whitechapel. We like to think about the history of the druids were context is needed, the Druids,ancient spiritual leaders of the Britons,were oft quoted by the Romans as being cannibals and practising human sacrifice and were wiped ouy by the Romans. There is no evidence for this,but the only written records that survive of the druids were written by.....The Romans. So it must be true...not!
If i may, Errata,could i ask a question?
You seem to have an insight into Jewish family, Jacob had 2 step sisters,Jane and Rebbeca, they used the family name Solomons in 1841 but later become Levys. However we cannot find any reference to the father of these children, both of these children plus jacobs eldest sister were born out of wedlock, for a fact.
How much of a stigma would this be to the jewish community around them?
Any info. would be helpful and thank you for your input so far.
My thanks to Granny Oy Vei too most useful
Keep Well
Jimi

[Jimi]

STDs in children

Hi Mr. Twibbs
Thanks for that.
If you compare Jacob with other Ripper suspects he is a very strong candidate. Physical description,method,locale are all in his favour. We just need proof.
May i ask, where did you see the info. about Jacobs child suffering with an STD? I have never seen any reference of this and would be very grateful if you could furnish me with further details.
Keep Well
Jimi

[Errata]

If i may, Errata,could i ask a question?
You seem to have an insight into Jewish family, Jacob had 2 step sisters,Jane and Rebbeca, they used the family name Solomons in 1841 but later become Levys. However we cannot find any reference to the father of these children, both of these children plus jacobs eldest sister were born out of wedlock, for a fact.
How much of a stigma would this be to the jewish community around them?
Any info. would be helpful and thank you for your input so far.
My thanks to Granny Oy Vei too most useful
Keep Well
Jimi

Wow. Great question. The answer of course is "It depends".
According to Biblical law, clearly sex outside marriage is not okay. Like getting stoned to death not okay. But obviously that sort of biblical law was no longer practiced. In practice, a blind eye was often turned towards it if a couple was established and going to marry. It was sometimes just considered a proof of fertility. Especially in poorer parts of eastern europe.

Here is where it depends. Children are incredibly precious in Jewish communities. All things being equal, I would be very surprised if the children of an unmarried couple were punished for being bastards. But things are never equal.

To illustrate: A Jewish woman in a remote shtetl in Russia gets pregnant by a local boy. Unless he runs away, there is no way he is not going to end up marrying her. The elders of the village would permit no other outcome. The family of the boy would be heavily fined for the duration of the child's life, a fine they would not be able to afford. Marriage is not about love. It is about combining property and having children. And children grow up knowing this, and knowing it is exceedingly unlikely they will be able to choose their own spouse. In this scenario, no stigma would be attached to the girl or the children, even if the boy does run away. There may be some question as to why the boy would rather run away than marry her, is she so unpleasant, etc. but it would fade quickly. There is no stigma attached to marrying a woman with a child. He may never be as fond of that child as he is his own, but that happens everywhere.

In Victorian London, a girl gets pregnant by a boy. Heavy pressure would be placed upon him to marry her, but mostly by the girl's family. Her best chance is to hope that his family cannot afford offending her family. Otherwise she will be sent away to have the child, the baby would be taken away and given either to an orphanage or some servant couple to raise, depending on her status. If she is somehow astonishingly lucky, she will still have a home to come back to after the birth. Everyone will know what happened. Her reputation will be ruined. Her only hope of ever getting married will be either to find someone who truly loves her, or to go far away and hope the knowledge of her circumstance does not follow. If she is lucky. If she isn't, then she is kicked out onto the streets.

So the question about how stigmatized the woman and her children would be depends on how westernized the community is. Have they adopted Victorian morals? To what extent? How many different fathers do the children have? Was their father Jewish? Was the relationship consensual? Does the community even know that they were born out of wedlock? And even if the worst is true, it remains that the children are Jewish, and they are blameless according to Jewish law.

Only a very westernized Jew would ostracize the children. The worst that these kids are likely to face growing up is the constant explanation of why they don't have a father. And they will have less options in marriage, but only because they have no father either to dower them, or to combine business with a boy's family. If their mother marries and they are accepted by her husband, then little stigma will remain.

In a way, the matrilineal nature of Judaism provides some protection. Women in the Jewish community had power that Victorian women did not. It is the women who would decide how such a woman and her children would be treated. It is the women who would decide how suitable they would be for their sons. It is the women who would decide what stigmas should be attached if any. The men would abide their decisions.

That's stigma. Gossip on the other hand? Boy howdy.