Wolff Levisohn as Jack?

[HelenaWojtczak]

I have just typed this from the Illustrated Police News 24th November 1888.

At Worship Street, Mary Ann Johnson, thirty, and Christine de Grasse, twenty-three, women of loose character, were charged with molesting a Polish Jew, named Wolff Levisohn, in the street. The prosecutor said that one night last week he had occasion, in pursuit of his occupation as a traveller, to go to Whitechapel. At half past eleven he was on his way home to St. Ann’s-road, South Tottenham, when he was accosted by Johnson. The woman called out, ‘You are Jack the Ripper!’ and the other woman, who had also accosted him, joined in the cry. An excited crowd soon collected, and fearing that the consequences might be very unpleasant for himself, witness took refuge in the Commercial-street Police-station, and when the police took the women into custody. The prisoners both said they simply said the prosecutor ‘looked like Jack the Ripper’, as he had a shiny bag. The women were fined 20s each, or fourteen days in default.

[Steven Russell]

20s (£1) seems like quite a large sum for "women of low character". That's two months' doss money. I wonder if they paid up or did the time.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[ChrisGeorge]

A great find, Helena. I didn't know that Wolff Levisohn had any connection to the case other than that he testified at Chapman's trial. Of course, there is the allegation by R. Michael Gordon that Chapman and Levisohn had a double act going.

Chris

[Steven Russell]

It is a good find. Although the story does appear in the new A-Z, this version has more detail.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Steven Russell kindly emailed me some scanned pages from The True Face of JtR and the author mentioned the Levisohn story on page 164, so I sought out the IPN cited and got the whole story from that.

It certainly IS curious that Wolff should be accused of being JtR then gives evidence at a trial of a man who then, partly as a result of things Wolff said, himself ended up being accused (by Abberline) of being JtR.

Having gone through all the witness testimony with a fine-toothed comb, I now see that it was Wolff's erroneous statement that Chapman was working on the corner of George Yard in Sept 1888 that contributed to the making of Chapman as a JtR suspect.

(And I've seen this claim repeated many times since.)

[HelenaWojtczak]

20s (£1) seems like quite a large sum for "women of low character". That's two months' doss money. I wonder if they paid up or did the time.

Best wishes,
Steve.

The newsprint is slightly blurry and it actually looks like 20L -- i.e. £20, but I thought, that can't be right - must be 20s. I mean, if is says 20 followed by one unintelligible character, that character can only be s for shillings, because the only alternative is d and that sounds wrong because they would surely make it 1s or 2s and not 20d.

But I agree, that still seems a lot. About a week's wages. Like being fined £250 today?

Just because they were "women of loose character" does not mean they were necessarily members of the most impoverished - the homeless who dossed at 3d a night. They might have been employed and earning, and only labelled 'loose' by disapproving, moralising magistrates or journalists who objected to women going out "on the razzle" every Saturday night.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Now I come to re-read it, it seems they served the 14 days - do you agree?

[Steven Russell]

Yes, it does look as if they served the time. Although it does not look much like an s, it must be, as £ always comes before the number and twenty pence would more likely be shown as 1s8d or a variant. I don't think people talked about "twenty pence" before decimalization. They would have said "one shilling and eightpence" or "one and eight" less formally. Then again, why print 20s rather than £1? It must be a pound though, as twenty quid and one and eight are way too much and too little respectively. I bet fourteen days in a Victorian prison was no picnic. Harsh!

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Steven Russell]

Actually, it probably says 20/. which means twenty shillings.
S.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I've been thinking about this some more...

Interestingly, there is as much circumstantial evidence for Levisohn’s candidature as Jack the Ripper as there is for Chapman. And so why isn't he taken seriously as a suspect? He's not even on the Casebook list.

He, too, had been a feldsher, suggesting a knowledge of anatomy; indeed he had actually served as a feldsher in the army, where perhaps he saw more blood and gore than Kłosowski, his boil-lancing comrade. Three of the lesser objections to Chapman’s candidature (after the change in M.O.) were his young age, his lack of knowledge of East End geography and his poor English language skills. Levisohn was thirty-nine during the Ripper killings and had lived in the East End of London for a quarter of a century, and so was fully conversant with its geography and language.

What is more, he was once accused of being the Ripper, AND he could be accused of trying to "frame" Chapman by claiming that Chapman was living at the White Hart in 1888, which he was not. Hmmm...

OK so Chapman turned out to be a serial killer, which apparently is what secures him a place in the suspect list, but he is then ruled out on the basis of the change of M.O. which puts him right back equal to Levisohn.

So, if Chapman is a serious candidate, then why not Levisohn?

Helena

[DVV]

Hi Helena

If all men with a black bag are to be considered serious candidates, we're not out of the woods yet.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena

If all men with a black bag are to be considered serious candidates, we're not out of the woods yet.

But that's not what I said.

[Malcolm X]

why not, because realising that these women thought that he was JTR, tells you that JTR would not be dressed like this AFTER LEAVING a murder scene!
just in case something like this happened again

Chapman as JTR?..... yes but not dressed like this and neither Levisohn.

finally, Chapman isn't a suspect that's seen very often, or this other guy, he's only maybe seen with A.Chapman and MJK, and even these two are dodgy

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Malcolm, my point is (and is really directed at those who favour Chapman) -- if Chapman is a prime suspect, why not Levisohn, because all the reasons that apply to Chapman also apply to Levisohn, with the one exception of Chapman being a known killer (albeit by poison - which some people think should be discounted anyway as the MO is too different for him to be the Ripper.)

So, I am just wondering why Levisohn never appears in any suspect list (that I have seen, anyway).