Jacob Levy updated

[Errata]

My objections to Levy as a suspect are philosophical in nature, not because I prefer someone else, or I think Levy is innocent, or even that I think the research on him is incorrect.

I don't think Jack was ever even remotely suspected. While he wasn't the first serial killer, he was the first in what we would consider to be the modern forensic era. The police had no idea that sadists and psychopaths have a habit of injecting themselves in an investigation. A concerned neighborhood leader, a friendly guy at the bar... whatever. And Jack could not remotely function or even kill if he seemed mad. People feared the mad the way they feared rabid dogs. And some people can keep a tight reign on their crazy, but not those suffering from a physiological brain ailment, like Neurosyphilis or Schizophrenia.

But having said all that, there are some anomalies in the life of Jacob Levy. He clearly wasn't well, but he stole for no real reason, was institutionalized for a persistent condition that in him was not persistent, and his uncle clearly didn't do him any favors by ducking an identification of a Ripper suspect. Now, any number of people make a cluster of bad decisions that makes them look guilty of something they are not guilty of, but Occam's razor says that in this case, there should be a single condition that precipitates all of those decisions. In other words, what made him steal is what made him crack, and is what caused his uncle to refuse to make an identification. And yes, him being a serial killer could be that, but there are other reasons. Fear of a common threat is one (which is what made me wonder about the gangs in the area), hatred can do it (feuds especially), institutional paranoia which was pretty common at least in Eastern European Jews.

And the theft may have been an example of a well known phenomenon with people in the early stages of certain mental illnesses, but that's a whole other thing.

[tji]

Hi Dave/Greg

Errata, I agree with you wholeheartedly...it's altogether impressive...I do believe Tracy and Jimi have, between them, identified a serious ripper suspect here (one that, at the very least, should be regarded more seriously than the Sickerts, PAVs, Dodgsons, and other garbage that clutter up this site!)

This is good news, a real show stopper it would certainly be.....

I'm not sure why people are talking about courts of law and downplaying circumstance - since as you pointed out Tracy - there is no hard evidence against anyone. Koz, Druitt, Tumblety, Chapman, all a big Zero.

I don't care if we call this fellow a suspect or a person of interest, to me he's a captivating dude and one I'd like to learn more about....

Tracy and Jimi have done very well and hopefully aren't done yet..

.

Thanks guys - great posts - if I do say so myself


Tracy

[tji]

Hi Eratta

I just hope you guys didn't have to slog through every Levy in greater London.

It certainly felt like it at times!

Tracy

[GregBaron]

Accept viability...

Hi Greg



Great summary and memory!) thanks for that.

I am curious if I could ask the people who are set against Jacob as a suspect, have you all read the article at all, I am not asking this in a patronising way, just curious at to the depth of information you are basing your opinion on?

Tracy

You're welcome Tracy, best I could do at the time...

Hi Abby/Greg/Dave

To be honest we have looked into the witness as being Joseph levy for a couple of years now, not much luck in proving anything as of yet though.

We have some ideas we are looking into though so there is still hope

This is good news, a real show stopper it would certainly be.....

I'm not sure why people are talking about courts of law and downplaying circumstance - since as you pointed out Tracy - there is no hard evidence against anyone. Koz, Druitt, Tumblety, Chapman, all a big Zero.

I don't care if we call this fellow a suspect or a person of interest, to me he's a captivating dude and one I'd like to learn more about....

Tracy and Jimi have done very well and hopefully aren't done yet...


Greg

[Cogidubnus]

Which is why the genealogy on Jacob Levy was so important, and damned impressive. There were likely more than a dozen Levy families in London who were not related to each other. It usually took about 3 or 4 generations of an immigrant family to build up separate related family units (meaning separate households, separate businesses, etc) and this particular Levy family did it in two generations. Which makes finding records harder rather than easier. So establishing the link between Joseph Hyam Levy and Jacob Levy is no small feat.

Errata, I agree with you wholeheartedly...it's altogether impressive...I do believe Tracy and Jimi have, between them, identified a serious ripper suspect here (one that, at the very least, should be regarded more seriously than the Sickerts, PAVs, Dodgsons, and other garbage that clutter up this site!)

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Now my question is...... was Joseph Levy and in this case Jacob Levy related to any of this two John Levy's from Whitechapel ?
I bet you a pound to a penny, that all this Levys were related in some way.


Niko!

Levy is a ridiculously common last name in westernized Jews. About as common as Smith, or Jones. And there's a reason for that, but one that is neither here nor there really. Checking my synagogue's list, there are five Levy families, of which two are cousins and the rest unrelated. And there are maybe 5000 Jews in this city. And there are five synagogues, so there could easily be more Levy's than I know about. And my dad has Levy cousins both on his mother's side and his father's side.

Which is why the genealogy on Jacob Levy was so important, and damned impressive. There were likely more than a dozen Levy families in London who were not related to each other. It usually took about 3 or 4 generations of an immigrant family to build up separate related family units (meaning separate households, separate businesses, etc) and this particular Levy family did it in two generations. Which makes finding records harder rather than easier. So establishing the link between Joseph Hyam Levy and Jacob Levy is no small feat. I just hope you guys didn't have to slog through every Levy in greater London.

[tji]

Hi Bridewell

It's a fundamental principle (in English law anyway) that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has to prove nothing. That only changes when the prosecution case reaches the point where it will succeed if left unchallenged. No suspect (Levy included) has ever reached this point, so there is every likelihood that you won't get any replies at all (apart from this one obviously!).

Thanks for the reply lol. This we understand (if Stephen doesn't mind me speaking for him) but I think what Stephen pointing out was the fact that some posters don't believe Jacob was Jtr because he was - let's say - a Jew and in their opinion there is no proof Jtr was a Jew, but it works the other way, there is no proof he wasn't either (and so on).

(Apologies to Stephen if this is not what he meant)


[QUOTE]

Hi Tracy,

My subscription to Ripperologist commenced with the current issue, so I, for one, haven't had the opportunity to read your article. I wouldn't describe myself as "set against Joseph Levy as a suspect" - he's one of the more likely possibilities - but he remains, like all the other viable suspects, a possibility & no more. Your question is not patronising IMHO, but entirely legitimate.

Not a problem at all Bridewell, however the article goes into so much more detail than we can cover on the boards, it has the asylum records and the court transcripts as well as going in depth on his illnesses etc so it is a lot more informative.

You make sense in what you are saying, and that is what we are trying to do, raise Jacob's profile as a suspect at this time. Short of finding physical proof we understand how difficult it would be to prove he was Jtr, the same problem every suspect has to face.

Tracy

[Cogidubnus]

Whoa!

It's a fundamental principle (in English law anyway) that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has to prove nothing. That only changes when the prosecution case reaches the point where it will succeed if left unchallenged. No suspect (Levy included) has ever reached this point, so there is every likelihood that you won't get any replies at all (apart from this one obviously!).

I rather think, if you look at it in it's original context, it was something of a rhetorical question!

All the best

Dave

[tji]

Hi Abby

thanks for your fair and considered response. Good work and I look forward to more on this chap.

Thank you and hopefully we will have more in the next few months. (Jimi is going to choke when he sees the time limit I just put on lol)


Hi Niko

Hi everyone, firstly I would like to addmit that I am a crap researcher and usually put my foot in it, like in post number 99 in the could be knife thread, where I said that John Levy was a brother of Joseph Levy, what I ment to say was, could be a brother or even a cousin.

The thing is at number 254 Whitechapel road (next door were Thomas Coram found a knife) there was a a cigar manufacturer named John Levy in 1884, Ok, I supose he was there also in 1888, which trully I don't know.

I have found this story of a John Levy in casebook.

Fort Wayne News
Indiana USA
9 June 1896

WM seaman battered to death an old jew, John Levy, aged 75, in his house in Whitechapel at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, April, and afterwards murdered his house-keeper, a woman named Gale, by cutting her throat. Levy was a retired leather dealer, kept his money in gold in his house and seaman when he got into the house thought it's inmates would be at the synsgogue. He was seen climbing on the roof of the house and a cry was raised, he jumped from a wall trying to escape and injured himself.

Now my question is...... was Joseph Levy and in this case Jacob Levy related to any of this two John Levy's from Whitechapel ?

From what we have researched so far I would have to say no, I haven't come across them, but it isn't impossible and I will look into it from John's side, thanks for the info.

One thing we do know is that there were at least 3 different/separate Levy families living in the area at the time so they it could be one of their families.

I must also congratulate Jimi and Tracy on thier work, I for one think that Jacob Levy is a good "could be suspect", great thread, all the best, agur.

Thanks Niko, I am pleased you think so.

Tracy

[tji]

Hi Abby/Greg/Dave

To be honest we have looked into the witness as being Joseph levy for a couple of years now, not much luck in proving anything as of yet though.

We have some ideas we are looking into though so there is still hope


Tracy

[tji]

Hi FM

Not for me to tell you what to look for.

Not to worry FM, we have found what we are looking for. It is you who disagrees.

1) I don't believe Jack necessarily displayed outward signs of mental illness, or was necessarily Jewish, or necessarily had any 'knife skills' beyond knowing how to kill in a fashion which limited blood spray onto his clothes, or necessarily was a local man, or necessarily displayed any sort of charm whatsoever and so on. The one thing you can say with a degree of certainty is that he was capable of praticing extreme violence, and I suppose this places those who are known to have done so at the high end of the list of suspects. Just me, but I think your basis for Levy is in accordance with a list characteristics/qualities which may not ring true for Jack.

So your one opinion of Jack was a violent man and all violent men take precedent over someone who was the correct age, had knife skills, lived in the area, died in an asylum?
Ok fair enough......however I have to tell you but we have an asylum record that describes Jacob as being violent on at least one occasion.

2) Even in the event Jack did conform to the majority of your list, there is no evidence of substance against Levy.

There is no evidence of substance for any suspect, that is why the mystery is still with us today.


Tracy

[Bridewell]

For Me

Hi Greg

Great summary and memory!) thanks for that.

I am curious if I could ask the people who are set against Jacob as a suspect, have you all read the article at all, I am not asking this in a patronising way, just curious at to the depth of information you are basing your opinion on?

Tracy

Hi Tracy,

My subscription to Ripperologist commenced with the current issue, so I, for one, haven't had the opportunity to read your article. I wouldn't describe myself as "set against Joseph Levy as a suspect" - he's one of the more likely possibilities - but he remains, like all the other viable suspects, a possibility & no more. Your question is not patronising IMHO, but entirely legitimate.

Regards, Bridewell.

[tji]

Hi Fish


"...perhaps you can make it easy for me and tell me what you see as the guidelines I should look for in JTR?"

I really don´t think that many such guidelines can be outlined, and the ones that can will be purely practical ones; was the suspect in the East End at the right time, do we know that he was not hindered to do the deeds etc.
All other suggestions, like "was he a certified maniac?", "was he a jew?", "Do we know of him having used violence?", "did he have a police record?" are - though not uninteresting per se - potentially as valuable as the question "could he jump backwards while whistling Ýankee Doodle Dandy and balancing an orange on the top of his head?".

Jacob Levy was in the correct place at the correct time. He walked the streets at hours that potentially tallied with the murders. He wasn´t mentally sane. That´s three good and one decent argument.
We do not know if the Ripper was insane or, indeed, that he acted in a manner that made him look insane. Therefore, the last argument may or may not be a good one. The three others are better.

Taken together, Jacob Levy makes a viable suspect, at any rate - better than many others in my view. But he also proves that a totally viable suspect, better than most other suspects, can be a man who we cannot tie to the Ripper killings in any fashion at all. Goes to show the degree of difficulty involved in unmasking the Ripper!

Great post and I agree this is why we are not trying to say we have solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper but that we believe he is a good suspect that needs looking into.

I am currently reading yours and Tracy´s article on Levy. And no matter if he can be tied to the Ripper case or not (other than peripherally, by being a relative of Hyam Levy´s), it is a thoroughly good read!

Thanks again, I hope you enjoy it

[tji]

Hi Greg

Hi all,

I read Tracy and Jimi's article right when ripper...124 came out so I'm going off the top of my head. I'll just throw out a few curious circumstances about this fellow to spur discussion...

1) A butcher – not a baker nor candlestick maker
2) Had syphilis – probably a frequenter of prostitutes and an anger motive
3) Was a kleptomaniac – Chapman’s stolen rings and no money found on any victim could indicate a similar condition in the killer
4) Was a wanderer – in his wife’s words
5) Lived in the heart of the district – especially close to Mitre Square
6) Was 5’3” – which coincided coincidentally with Joseph Levy’s “3 inches higher” description of the man he didn’t see!
7) Was eventually “caged in an asylum and died shortly thereafter”
8) Was a Jew – not a low class Polish one but a medium class (and falling) Dutch one
9) Was fond of drink – according to his wife
10) Had a bolt hole and experience with blood stains
11) Was possibly the suspect mentioned by Sagar
12) Fell into mental illness

Again, just a few things that come to mind. I believe this character could have been muddled up with the Kozminski mess........speculative of course...


Greg

Great summary and memory!) thanks for that.

I am curious if I could ask the people who are set against Jacob as a suspect, have you all read the article at all, I am not asking this in a patronising way, just curious at to the depth of information you are basing your opinion on?

Tracy

[Bridewell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Thomas
Anybody...

What are the actual arguments against Jacob Levy being JTR?

Good question Stephen, I am interested to see what the answers will be.

Tracy

Hi Stephen / Tracy,

It's a fundamental principle (in English law anyway) that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has to prove nothing. That only changes when the prosecution case reaches the point where it will succeed if left unchallenged. No suspect (Levy included) has ever reached this point, so there is every likelihood that you won't get any replies at all (apart from this one obviously!).

Regards, Bridewell