Jacob Levy updated

[Jimi]

A Profile

Hi All
During the writing of Jacob the Ripper, I found the need to research profiling. I discovered what I thought were some interesting points.
Fro Robert D. Keppels book 'Signature Killers', a profile of an anger-excitation killer-:
The killer has rehearsed his plan of action over and over in his mind and afterwards implements it with a well equipped travelling murder kit.....
The killer chooses a stranger who fits his needs in a sexually symbolic category,such as nurse,prostitute,chils or matriach. This is a killer looking for sexual excitement based on anger but triggered by a fetish.
In his approach to his prey,the killer always displays a disarmingly charming manner....for the killer,the issue is always sex and sexual control as an expression of anger. The most complete control to the killer is over a dead victim. The stages of violence leading to the victims death excite the the killer but are only a means to an end,rather than the ends themselves.
In anger-excitation murder the killers supreme satisfaction is not at the moment when the victim lies helpless at his feet, but long after when the killer has retuned home,alone with his thoughts and his trophies.
Serial killers troll, they are always on the move, thats how they find victim pools and murder sites.

So Jacob was roaming the streets(trolling?), the prostitutes must have known him, we know he could be charming,at one time he had a succesfull business, he was local,living all his life in the district,he had knife skills, he suffered from syphillis, he had the stressor of his mother dying in May 1888, he was the right age.
Nuff said
Keep Well
Jimi

[Fleetwood Mac]

So Jacob was roaming the streets(trolling?), the prostitutes must have known him, we know he could be charming,at one time he had a succesfull business, he was local,living all his life in the district,he had knife skills, he suffered from syphillis, he had the stressor of his mother dying in May 1888, he was the right age.
Nuff said
Keep Well
Jimi

Hi Jimi,

Jacob was far from the only one walking the streets; prostitutes will have known quite a few punters; a successful business isn't a prerequisite for being Jack; I'm sure 99% of men in the East End were able to do enough talking to get a prostitute to go into a corner with them, and who's to say Jack was charming, anyway, money did the talking; many men lived all their lives in the district, and perhaps it wasn't man who lived in the district; plenty of men carried a knife or instrument capable of doing damage; again, suffering from syphillis was not a prerequisite for being Jack; personal tragedy will have been common to East Enders; many men were the right age.

Not enough there for me, Jimi.

To answer the Levy/'character' point:

I personally would not call my cousin one of 'those characters'. Yet, how did he know he was such a character? Apparently he was simply stood there, and a couple including a prostitute wouldn't have been an uncommon sight. It may suggest Levy knew him well enough by character to deduce one of 'those characters'. I'd imagine a 'character' from work or the pub/club.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Tracy
Very interesting. I dont know about "strong contender" as there is nothing that ties him to the case. But he seems to fit the classic, mentally disturbed type who would commit these murders.

A couple of things-when exactly and how did his mother die?

Also, perhaps he killed his brother

Hi Abby,

I would have thought most serial killers show no outward signs of being 'mentally disturbed'. Sutcliffe, Bundy, Dahmer, Hindley/Brady et al. Which is why they are not suspected until the evidence points to them.

I was saying the other day that Cutbush is a decent suspect, but Lynn was probably right in the sense that serial killers don't tend to attract attention to themselves through carrying on like an idiot in the streets - Bundy, perhaps, being the exception.

I personally think that profiling is useful, because if we want to understand human behaviour then look at the actions of like minded human beings; which suggests that Bond may not have been far wrong in his assessment of the type of man.

[Jimi]

Just Who?

Hi All
Hi Fleetwood
So perhaps you can make it easy for me and tell me what you see as the guidelines I should look for in JTR?
Don't tell me, your next post will be along the lines of not what i've posted on Jacob Levy.
Keep Well
Jimi

[Jimi]

Sorry for the delay

Hi Stephen
Thats a hell of a question. Well done.
Jacob was the wrong height and age......No
Jacob didn't know how to cut up a body......No
Jacob didn't know the area......No
Jacob didn't have relations in the area for bolt holes.......No
Jacob had a secure and stable childhood.......No
Jacob was never certified as insane......No, in fact twice
Jacob was never subjected to the killing and cutting up of animals as a child.....No
Jacob was never diagnosed as violent......No
Jacob was an avid family man...... No,he couldn't remember the name of his youngest child
The list goes on,however....
Jacob was never seen at a murder site with a bloody knife.....YES
Jacob was never mentioned in police reports....YES(although we are still looking)
Best I can do,Stephen, sorry again for the delay in answering.
Keep Well
P.S. Can you make your next query a bit simpler,please.
Jimi

[Fisherman]

Jimi:

"...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!

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!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi All
Hi Fleetwood
So perhaps you can make it easy for me and tell me what you see as the guidelines I should look for in JTR?
Don't tell me, your next post will be along the lines of not what i've posted on Jacob Levy.
Keep Well
Jimi

Hi Jimi,

Not for me to tell you what to look for.

I think we depart in two areas:

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.

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

[John Wheat]

There is actually very little to link Levy to being Jack other than him being around at the time. Having said that he's a more likely suspect than a lot of the famous suspects, Gull, Sickert etc.

[Errata]

Personally, I would have thought it likely that Joseph Hyam Levy's nephew would have been known to the two other witnesses. Perhaps not well, but to the point he should have been recognized or familiar enough to ask Levy "Isn't that your nephew?" And obviously there are any number of ways that would not be true, but given the closed circles immigrant Jews tended to run in, it seems statistically likely.

This whole thing has gotten me wondering, and this may be neither here nor there, is what was the gang activity like in the area? The comments of Levy et. al. sound almost exactly like some neighborhood guys complaining about how it's gone downhill since the dealers moved in. We know there were gangs in Jewish neighborhoods. And we know that there were Jewish gangs. The protection racket was not invented in New York. I bring it up because it could explain some things. Firstly, a man's reluctance to testify, especially if he thought he had been seen and recognized. Second, it could explain some of the more inexplicable behavior by Joseph Levy. He stole, apparently for no reason. He was running his wife's business into the ground, but without doing anything intrinsically wrong. And just because a man is paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get him.

If he was getting shaken down, it could answer some questions, but it could also be a significant trigger to violent behavior. If a man thinks he's dying because of prostitutes, that's one thing. If he thinks he can't provide for his family because he is too impotent to stand up to criminals, that's another. Combine the two, and that's some serious rage. That doesn't require any kind of insanity. He couldn't very well lash out at the gangs. But it also might explain why the hospital didn't keep him in 1886, which was their habit for victims of neurosyphilis. He didn't have it yet. He is described as being manic and possibly psychotic. Which could be a psychotic break due to stress. It would explain why he got better, where people with straight Mania don't get better. And Neurosyphilis is degenerative. They don't get better either. Neurosyphilis also has a great number of symptoms that would preclude someone from being a serial killer. Tremor, halos, loss of balance, etc. that just gets progressively worse.

Or maybe I watch too many mob movies.

[tji]

tji, are you familiar with William Bury? He 1) murdered a woman, 2) performed abdominal and genital mutilations with a knife on a woman, 3) possessed mysterious cheap rings that could have come from Chapman (Tumblety is not the only major suspect with "mystery rings"), 4) very possibly chalked messages at his residence that could tie him to the Goulston Street graffito, 5) matches well some of the witness descriptions, including those of seemingly reliable women Long and Maxwell, and 6) can be associated with relevant suspect profiles. Further, the murders began after he arrived in the area and ceased after he left. Do you think that the circumstantial case for Levy is as good as that?

Yup.

Hi Tracy
Thanks for the response.

I disagree Abby he is tied to the area, he is tied to the case by Joseph Levy, whether you believe Joseph knew anything or not, he is tied by having some knife skills, etc.

IMHO none of these things factually "tie him to the case". The closest might be being the couson of Joseph Levy, but being related to a witness does not tie someone to a case.

Guess that is a matter of opinion and how you view the facts we have given.

Tell me can you name any other suspect that is circumstantially as good as Jacob?

I didn't really want to go down this road but since you asked:
Kosminski
Tumblety
James Kelly
Bury
Blotchy
Chapman
Le Grand
Piggot
Puckridge
Cutbush.....and so on.

And that would just be for starter, i have not even included people who are actually tied to the case as witnesses- like lechmere, Hutch etc.

The main difference between these folks and jacob levy is that they were actually suspects or at least persons of interest.

How do you know Jacob wasn't a person of interest? Just because we haven't got it written down doesn't mean he wasn't - are you saying that if we had a piece of paper that a Police Official had written Jacob's name on then he would then be a person of interest to you - or if not then why not?

One of the main factors that you seem to place on the "suspecthood" of Levy is the crazy issue. I dont-but that just me because i dont think JtR was schizo or had any kind of mental illness that manifested itself outwardly in his daily life. Again just my speculation.

No we have said he had a mental illness, there is a difference.

Another question I ask you is what put you on the path to researching jacob levy as a suspect?? Did you set out looking for all institutionalized (insane)men or just Jews?

And i will be very frank in giving you the motivation for this question. Andersons "definitely ascertained fact" seems to have set off a hundred years of people looking for crazy jews as suspects from kosminski to David Cohen to now Jacob Levy. And honestly that bugs me a bit.

I'm sorry I am not sure how I should be taking this question, are you asking me if I would have researched him if he had been British?

The answer to that is I have researched a few people, my research along with ChrisP proved that Hyam Hyams had been mistakenly identified for years. I have also looked in to Druitt and Tumblety to name a few, so no the fact that he was A 'crazy Jew' was not my motive.

Also, Not sure if it is accurate that you call jacob levy "a"suspect-he may be your suspect but I dont think he fits the criteria of being a valid suspect. Alot of people have put forth names of people in recent years and it seems to be getting out of hand. most recent its Van Gogh and other artists. just because someone puts out a name and gives what they beleive is circumstantial evidence, does that make them "a" suspect. Is Van Gogh now "a" suspect?I think not. But only the test of time will tell i suppose.

Jacob is not a new suspect, we have always acknowledged the fact that Mark King brought him to people's attention and have included that in the article. We have just managed to take what he learnt and add to it. Jacob has been around longer than quite a few suspects.

Now, I would remiss having said all that-if i did not also say that i really do appreciate what you all have done in researching this very interesting charactor, who definitely is worth further research. Good luck and i will for one be looking out for any other findings you come up with.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks you.

Hi tracy
Im a bit confused by this response. So who said Abraham cut his own throat-Sarah or Jacob?

In my opinion Jacob.

[tji]

Wyatt
Bury is a more likely suspect than Levy. In fact in my opinion in 'The Crimes Of Jack the Ripper' by Paul Roland where Jacob Levy is originally suggested. Roland makes a better case for Bury being Jack.
John

Paul Roland wasn't the first to put Jacob forward as a suspect, Mark King was, Scott Nelson has also done a lot of research into him. Jacob has been about for quite a few year (not that I am tryong to say you are old Scott )


Tracy

[tji]

[QUOTE]

Tracy/Jimi I only just realised I hadn't thanked you for sharing your quite outstanding research...Thanks... another one to add to the list of "real" suspects!

Thanks Dave - I am glad you found it interesting.

I knew that. I know you don't read the books, the articles, the informational part of Casebook. Whatever we don't put up here in front of you on the message boards you assume doesn't exist, while you get your riffs in. Until we put it up here for you.

Roy

I may start charging for the pamphlets

You can still get a free one by sending a self addressed stamped envelope to

Roy Corduroy
14 Mud Island Cutoff
Trailer D

c/o the Flora-Bama Lounge

Can I get one too

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

[Abby Normal]

Yup.




Guess that is a matter of opinion and how you view the facts we have given.



How do you know Jacob wasn't a person of interest? Just because we haven't got it written down doesn't mean he wasn't - are you saying that if we had a piece of paper that a Police Official had written Jacob's name on then he would then be a person of interest to you - or if not then why not?



No we have said he had a mental illness, there is a difference.



I'm sorry I am not sure how I should be taking this question, are you asking me if I would have researched him if he had been British?

The answer to that is I have researched a few people, my research along with ChrisP proved that Hyam Hyams had been mistakenly identified for years. I have also looked in to Druitt and Tumblety to name a few, so no the fact that he was A 'crazy Jew' was not my motive.



Jacob is not a new suspect, we have always acknowledged the fact that Mark King brought him to people's attention and have included that in the article. We have just managed to take what he learnt and add to it. Jacob has been around longer than quite a few suspects.

Thanks you.




In my opinion Jacob.[/QUOTE]

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

[Abby Normal]

Hi Tracy/Jimi
Has anyone looked into whether the witness in the Swanson/Anderson ID might have been Joseph levy and not Lawende as most everyone assumes? it would certainly help explain the whole "and he knew he was identified" bit.

[GregBaron]

Witness?

Hi Tracy/Jimi
Has anyone looked into whether the witness in the Swanson/Anderson ID might have been Joseph levy and not Lawende as most everyone assumes? it would certainly help explain the whole "and he knew he was identified" bit.

I thought this too Abby and mentioned it some time back. I don't believe there is any evidence of such but if it were found, the veil would be lifted and we could all go home...


Greg