So what if the Ripper was Jewish?

[tji]

Hi Christer

I actually think that - apart from Lechmere - Levy is one of the better suspects to have emerged over the last few years.

Lechmere before Jacob......

However, that does not mean that he is necessarily a good suspect. Most suspects that surface are poor ones in most respects.

I tend to think there are bad suspects, but others definitely have potential.

I have read up extensively on your work on Levy, so Iīm up to scratch in that respect. What I find odd, though, is that you seem to argue both that he was a nutter, and so a likely killer, but also that he killed in his lucid moments.

It makes little sense to me.

Apologies if that is how my posts have come across, that was not my intention. I am trying to explain the idea that a few people have of a grunting, drooling basket case 24/7 is incorrect.

He had episodes of mania, spells of insanity, hearing voices, feeling the need to do violence if not restrained, wanders the streets etc. However he also would have been lucid when these moments were over able to perform normal tasks (this would eventually become less over the years.)

Although on that note, wouldn't it be interesting tot think he did commit them while he was lucid and not manic?!

Jacob Levy had reoccuring spells of "insanity", and spent a year in Essex County asylum in 1886, whereupon his wife was left to care for him afterwards. Once we have that diagnosis on him, and once we realize how troubled he apparently was, he becomes a bad suspect in my eyes.

He actually spent 8 months - not trying to be pendantic just pointing out. You say troubled but he spent 8 month in an asylum (which was firstly a sentence to a prison) and was not committed again until a few month before his death almost 5 year later.

I am totally with Errata on this - the axis 2 she mentions will be far, far more credible to have been the mechanism behind the Ripper killings as far as Iīm concerned.

So in spite of Jacob Levyīs relatively sound status as a Ripper candidate, he does not tick my boxes.

Each to their own.......I mean Lechmere?!

Tracy

[Fisherman]

People just don't want to believe that the legendary 'Jack the Ripper' was a local nut who went bananas on a few whores and then got locked away in the loony bin. It completely shatters all the mystique and romance of the field.

"People" - in this case me - will recognize that the diseases that had you put away in asylums in 1888, are not diseases that will easily translate into ripperism.

I donīt think that it would "shatter the mystique and romance" otherwise - it tallies quite well with what high ranking people in the police said, and as such, the accusation had a little of both Dickens and Poe to it, so thereīs mystique and romance enough in it anyway.

Half orangutang, half devious madman - it wonīt get much more mystical than that. Or mythical.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Seems a bit harsh Fish, the people who know Jacob on this thread are trying to point out that he was NOT a raving lunatic, he had a illness that effectively attacked his brain little by little over a space of 5 years, slowly driving him insane, while still leaving him able to function.

In fact I studied syphilis and the effects of it quite in-depth to try and bring a fair argument to the case of Jacob. We didn't just pull his name out of a lucky bag. It is on the Jacob Levy thread.

Tracy

Tracy!

I actually think that - apart from Lechmere - Levy is one of the better suspects to have emerged over the last few years.

However, that does not mean that he is necessarily a good suspect. Most suspects that surface are poor ones in most respects.

I have read up extensively on your work on Levy, so Iīm up to scratch in that respect. What I find odd, though, is that you seem to argue both that he was a nutter, and so a likely killer, but also that he killed in his lucid moments.

It makes little sense to me.

Jacob Levy had reoccuring spells of "insanity", and spent a year in Essex County asylum in 1886, whereupon his wife was left to care for him afterwards. Once we have that diagnosis on him, and once we realize how troubled he apparently was, he becomes a bad suspect in my eyes.

I am totally with Errata on this - the axis 2 she mentions will be far, far more credible to have been the mechanism behind the Ripper killings as far as Iīm concerned.

So in spite of Jacob Levyīs relatively sound status as a Ripper candidate, he does not tick my boxes.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

People just don't want to believe that the legendary 'Jack the Ripper' was a local nut who went bananas on a few whores and then got locked away in the loony bin. It completely shatters all the mystique and romance of the field.

[tji]

And I got to tell YOU, Errata, that you make more sense on this thread than a good number of other posters taken together.

126 years have passed, and we have had all the time in the world to study psychotic and manic people. They make incredibly bad bids for the Ripperīs role, end of story.

Thatīs not to say that they could not kill - clearly they can. It IS, however, to say that they could not approach a person, kill that person, eviscerate that person and leave the killing site cleanly, silently and efficiently and stay undetected. And the more killings of this type we have, the less credible it becomes that a manic or psychotic person have perpetrated them.

The Victorian police bought into the idea that the killer could be raving mad, and thatīs excusable to some extent since they knew a lot less than we do.

We should not fall into such a simple trap, though.

All the best,

Fisherman

Seems a bit harsh Fish, the people who know Jacob on this thread are trying to point out that he was NOT a raving lunatic, he had a illness that effectively attacked his brain little by little over a space of 5 years, slowly driving him insane, while still leaving him able to function.

In fact I studied syphilis and the effects of it quite in-depth to try and bring a fair argument to the case of Jacob. We didn't just pull his name out of a lucky bag. It is on the Jacob Levy thread.

Tracy

[tji]

In fact he was institutionalized in 1886 for a year due to what appears to be a prolonged manic episode

.

Yes he was having 'episodes' that meant that he was also lucid and able to interact. Obviously as the time went on and the illness overtook him he became worse but not yet

Even in 1890 he had good days and is working on the farm and asking when he can go home, it is commented he is eating, sleeping well and has put on weight.

And he was not running a business with his wife and family, he was tanking a business his wife and family were trying to save.

We don't know this, we assume he would have lost his trading license, however Sarah doesn't complain until 1890 that he was ruining her business, not giving out correct change and pocketing anyhting he could.

All the while exhibiting strange behaviors that frustrated his wife enough to dump him in an asylum after two years of freedom

.

What two year freedom?

I think he was likely a raving lunatic a few times, but I think that mostly he was essentially non functional. Not necessarily dysfunctional, which would be acting in a manner that was contrary to his continued survival, health and/or freedom (though manics do bust out with those from time to time), but I don't think he was contributing to his ongoing survival, health, and/or freedom either. Clearly his job wasn't working out for him. Nor his marriage particularly.

I gotta tell you, I don't see a manic person having the concentration necessary to plan and execute a crime in circumstances where 30 seconds could be the difference between freedom and jail.

Have you read the info on him at all?

He wouldn't have been a 'raving lunatic' in 1886 or even 1888, he had neuro-syphilis which was slowly killing him, attacking his brain and eventually after 5 years of slow deterioration, killing him die from paralysis of the insane.
He didn't wake up in 1886 and start drooling at the mouth, unable to talk or function, it took 4 years for him to go from a functioning adult to being admitted to an asylum for good. Even then he was lucid at times.

A passage from his medical records states-

Dec 4 1890 -

Always bright and lively - no despondency since last note.

So while he does get 'episodes' Dr Sequira states on his intake record he feels unless restrained he will do violence to someone he does seem to be able to have lucid moments.

So for all the questions of how could a madman escape notice, this is how, he was slowly losing the fight with a disease of the brain, but could still control his thoughts and actions at times.

[Fisherman]

I gotta tell you, I don't see a manic person having the concentration necessary to plan and execute a crime in circumstances where 30 seconds could be the difference between freedom and jail.

And I got to tell YOU, Errata, that you make more sense on this thread than a good number of other posters taken together.

126 years have passed, and we have had all the time in the world to study psychotic and manic people. They make incredibly bad bids for the Ripperīs role, end of story.

Thatīs not to say that they could not kill - clearly they can. It IS, however, to say that they could not approach a person, kill that person, eviscerate that person and leave the killing site cleanly, silently and efficiently and stay undetected. And the more killings of this type we have, the less credible it becomes that a manic or psychotic person have perpetrated them.

The Victorian police bought into the idea that the killer could be raving mad, and thatīs excusable to some extent since they knew a lot less than we do.

We should not fall into such a simple trap, though.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

All we can surmise about the Ripper's mental state is that he was compos mentis enough to approach women for business, do his thing furtively, and then make a quick getaway. And that's if he even solicited the women for sex in the first place, we don't know that he did. We can debate the peculiarities of his mental illness but none of it is cut and dry. If Jack was a maniac, perhaps he had an episode and let slip he was the Ripper, perhaps he didn't? And if he did, then what of it? That would depend on a whole host of circumstances.

Incidentally, Jacob Levy was still running a business with his wife and family in 1888. He wasn't admitted to the insane asylum until some two years later. So he was still a semi-functioning member of society, and had he been a complete loony tune he wouldn't have lasted as long as that before he was eventually shut away.

In fact he was institutionalized in 1886 for a year due to what appears to be a prolonged manic episode. And he was not running a business with his wife and family, he was tanking a business his wife and family were trying to save. All the while exhibiting strange behaviors that frustrated his wife enough to dump him in an asylum after two years of freedom. I think he was likely a raving lunatic a few times, but I think that mostly he was essentially non functional. Not necessarily dysfunctional, which would be acting in a manner that was contrary to his continued survival, health and/or freedom (though manics do bust out with those from time to time), but I don't think he was contributing to his ongoing survival, health, and/or freedom either. Clearly his job wasn't working out for him. Nor his marriage particularly.

I gotta tell you, I don't see a manic person having the concentration necessary to plan and execute a crime in circumstances where 30 seconds could be the difference between freedom and jail.

One thing I have always wondered is whether or not the neighborhood knew he had been in an asylum. I sort of picture 1888 East End like Harlem in the 70s. Everybody knew everybody's business. So if it was generally well known, I sort of have to wonder if he could solicit a prostitute who had worked the neighborhood for years. Would she have heard the gossip and refuse him on that basis?

[Harry D]

All we can surmise about the Ripper's mental state is that he was compos mentis enough to approach women for business, do his thing furtively, and then make a quick getaway. And that's if he even solicited the women for sex in the first place, we don't know that he did. We can debate the peculiarities of his mental illness but none of it is cut and dry. If Jack was a maniac, perhaps he had an episode and let slip he was the Ripper, perhaps he didn't? And if he did, then what of it? That would depend on a whole host of circumstances.

Incidentally, Jacob Levy was still running a business with his wife and family in 1888. He wasn't admitted to the insane asylum until some two years later. So he was still a semi-functioning member of society, and had he been a complete loony tune he wouldn't have lasted as long as that before he was eventually shut away.

[Errata]

I wonder how many serial killers who's sig was post mortem mutilations (or any serial killer for that matter) wound up having a serious (as errata states-Axis 1) mental illness. Just off the top of my head I can only think of Chase.

Therefor it seems that the chances of the ripper having a serious mental illness would be extremely small.

Axis 2 can be extremely serious. Especially because it cannot be managed with medication. They also tend to be just a neurologically based, but many of them are coping mechanisms a sufferer has no intention of getting rid of. While the suffering of an Axis 2 diagnosis may not be as acute, it is often far more damaging to the people around them. Ed Gein's mother sounds like a classic case of Borderline. And we all know what that did to Ed.

Had Chase lived in the LVP he would have been committed by 12 and never gotten out. He would not have had the chance to kill. Likely the same would hold for Kemper, though in Kemper's case even despite his later actions, it would have been an injustice.

[Abby Normal]

I wonder how many serial killers who's sig was post mortem mutilations (or any serial killer for that matter) wound up having a serious (as errata states-Axis 1) mental illness. Just off the top of my head I can only think of Chase.

Therefor it seems that the chances of the ripper having a serious mental illness would be extremely small.

[Abby Normal]

Not as such. It's not that mental illness rules him out. It's the specifics of his mental illness that rules him out. A person can kill because of a mental illness. It's not common, but it happens. A person can also kill in spite of a mental illness, because the mental illness does not inform the motive or the method. It's like being white and male. Being white does make you male, and being male does not make you white.

Mania rules in violence. Theres no doubt. It's the more common diagnosis in people who lost it and killed someone. It does however rule out planning, logic, and concentration. It's like being on meth without all the hallucinations. Spree killing, sure. Serial killing is a tough sell. Serial killing without getting caught is an even tougher sell. Having no filter, no sense of right and wrong, having a raging high, and feeling like the most powerful person in the universe does not create a careful killer. And the sense of invincibility that goes along with mania is pretty all encompassing. Manic people don't keep secrets, which is why it's tough for Bipolar people to sustain a romantic relationship. If a guy cheats while manic, he will cop to it because he doesn't think anything bad can happen. Shame and secrecy don't kick in until after the mania passes.

And if the Ripper was manic, he would have said he was the Ripper. Not even as a confession, it could be as simple as "give me my tapioca or I will cut you like I cut those whores a few years back. " Mania is like a truth serum. If he thinks about being the Ripper, he is going to talk about being the Ripper. No filter.

So Mania is a bad fit. OCD is a bad fit. Schizophrenia in 1888 is also a bad fit. Schizophrenia now is a better bet, because the disease has changed now that it is relatively understood. Even depression is a better fit for a serial killer. Most serial killers don't even have a genuine axis 1 diagnosis at all. Axis 2 is much more in line. Narcissism. Borderline. Psychopathy. Paraphilias. All routinely found in serial killers. But personality disorders don't make people lose it the way an Axis 1 diagnosis does, and they are far less likely to be treated at all, much less treated successfully. They are far less likely to end up in an asylum, even in 1888. Axis 1 disorders are recognizable as a disease. They have an onset, a period, and a recovery. Axis 2 disorders are just how people are. There is no onset. Their behavior doesn't change. It's always been dysfunctional. Commitments into an asylum were and are largely based on comparing a person's behaviors. I am normal until the onset of depression or mania, and then I am clearly not myself. That doesn't work with Axis 2. They are their behavior, and always were. They don't change. If you know a narcissist, they have been one for as long as you've known them. It's not like a switch goes on and off. So without "sane" behavior to compare to, Axis 2 diseases tends to look like someone is just kind of a dick, instead of being mentally ill.

So I think if we are going to find a mental illness, it's going to be Axis 2.

Good post and I agree.
I think a suspect who winds up staying in an asylum is actually a negative against their viability as a suspect.

[Errata]

would that be the mental illness one?

Not as such. It's not that mental illness rules him out. It's the specifics of his mental illness that rules him out. A person can kill because of a mental illness. It's not common, but it happens. A person can also kill in spite of a mental illness, because the mental illness does not inform the motive or the method. It's like being white and male. Being white does make you male, and being male does not make you white.

Mania rules in violence. Theres no doubt. It's the more common diagnosis in people who lost it and killed someone. It does however rule out planning, logic, and concentration. It's like being on meth without all the hallucinations. Spree killing, sure. Serial killing is a tough sell. Serial killing without getting caught is an even tougher sell. Having no filter, no sense of right and wrong, having a raging high, and feeling like the most powerful person in the universe does not create a careful killer. And the sense of invincibility that goes along with mania is pretty all encompassing. Manic people don't keep secrets, which is why it's tough for Bipolar people to sustain a romantic relationship. If a guy cheats while manic, he will cop to it because he doesn't think anything bad can happen. Shame and secrecy don't kick in until after the mania passes.

And if the Ripper was manic, he would have said he was the Ripper. Not even as a confession, it could be as simple as "give me my tapioca or I will cut you like I cut those whores a few years back. " Mania is like a truth serum. If he thinks about being the Ripper, he is going to talk about being the Ripper. No filter.

So Mania is a bad fit. OCD is a bad fit. Schizophrenia in 1888 is also a bad fit. Schizophrenia now is a better bet, because the disease has changed now that it is relatively understood. Even depression is a better fit for a serial killer. Most serial killers don't even have a genuine axis 1 diagnosis at all. Axis 2 is much more in line. Narcissism. Borderline. Psychopathy. Paraphilias. All routinely found in serial killers. But personality disorders don't make people lose it the way an Axis 1 diagnosis does, and they are far less likely to be treated at all, much less treated successfully. They are far less likely to end up in an asylum, even in 1888. Axis 1 disorders are recognizable as a disease. They have an onset, a period, and a recovery. Axis 2 disorders are just how people are. There is no onset. Their behavior doesn't change. It's always been dysfunctional. Commitments into an asylum were and are largely based on comparing a person's behaviors. I am normal until the onset of depression or mania, and then I am clearly not myself. That doesn't work with Axis 2. They are their behavior, and always were. They don't change. If you know a narcissist, they have been one for as long as you've known them. It's not like a switch goes on and off. So without "sane" behavior to compare to, Axis 2 diseases tends to look like someone is just kind of a dick, instead of being mentally ill.

So I think if we are going to find a mental illness, it's going to be Axis 2.

[Abby Normal]

IF the detective working on the case thought that Levy's inability to identify a suspect was suspicious, which there is no evidence the cops thought it was unusual. The newspapers had a lot of loaded innuendo, insinuating he was afraid to testify. And he did testify, so maybe the papers were not so tuned in to the nature of the witness. So if I'm a detective and some guy saw another guy just long enough to notice that "hey, there's some guy there" but not long enough to commit any details to memory... no I don't think that's suspicious. That happens to everyone dozens of times a day.

You seem to be under the impression that Jacob ticks a lot of boxes as a Ripper suspect. I can think of four, one of which I think actually rules him out as a suspect.

would that be the mental illness one?

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

And what is wrong with that, per se? It looks like pretty solid sleuthing to me. If you were a detective working on the case and one of the witnesses appeared to be hiding something, wouldn't you check out his background and see if there were any family or friends who might be linked to the murders? Even if you object to the line of enquiry that brought us to a Levy, there's still the small matter of Jacob ticking a lot of boxes as a Ripper suspect than the vast majority of names out there.

IF the detective working on the case thought that Levy's inability to identify a suspect was suspicious, which there is no evidence the cops thought it was unusual. The newspapers had a lot of loaded innuendo, insinuating he was afraid to testify. And he did testify, so maybe the papers were not so tuned in to the nature of the witness. So if I'm a detective and some guy saw another guy just long enough to notice that "hey, there's some guy there" but not long enough to commit any details to memory... no I don't think that's suspicious. That happens to everyone dozens of times a day.

You seem to be under the impression that Jacob ticks a lot of boxes as a Ripper suspect. I can think of four, one of which I think actually rules him out as a suspect.