So what if the Ripper was Jewish?

[Roy Corduroy]

But searching Jews who lived in London in 1888 isn't going to find him. Which is pretty much how Levy as a suspect came about, and also through a series of assumptions that have no facts backing them up.

I thought the impetus to research Jacob Levy was the recollections of City of London Police detectives Henry Cox and Robert Sagar. They watched a man. Jacob Levy in some ways fits their scenario. It could have been him.

Apropos of that, Scott Nelson wrote an article entitled 'The Butchers Row Suspect' which can be read here on Casebook, although he suggested a different possibility.

I consider the Jewish suspect to be a valid avenue of research. But it's only one area. I'm still a little perplexed by Abby's comments on the other thread - 'why haven't researchers looked at any gentile madmen' when in fact James Kelly had an entire book written about him.

Roy

[Errata]

Insane, yes. But not necessarily gibbering, violent and of an uncontrollable nature. See Dr. Bond's profile to Anderson, for example. But, of course, several suspects kept under close surveillance did display some of these aspects. Many newspaper reports of the crimes remarked on the killer's great daring or cunning abilities.

Yes, but actual cunning or animal cunning? Because animal cunning was a popular thing back then, often applied to the mad, the non Christian, the Non White... In fact it persisted until Brown vs. The Board of Education here and it was the basis for "separate but equal" schools. Whites were considered to have intelligence, blacks were considered to have "animal cunning".

And newspapers were also publishing Ripper letters that they themselves wrote, so I'm not sure how in line the papers were with police theory.

And I don't mean to pick on this one theory with this. I happen to think it was less likely that the Ripper was Jewish than other people do. If I'm wrong I will lose no sleep. It's a problem I have with most suspect oriented posts. What we don't know is an ocean to the teacup of what we do know. Basic criminology is something most of us understand, because we've seen movies and stuff, but they didn't understand in 1888. We have a lot of information on serial killers available to us that the police in the LVP did not have. And while we might understand some basic assumptions (like a serial killer has to be mad to be a serial killer) we also know that 99% of serial killers aren't at all the way we pictured them to be. In 1888, these guys were way more often wrong than right. So in addition to having very few resources, we can't even trust the opinions of the people in a position to know, because they were looking for the wrong thing.

It's like someone gave them a sketch of a guy they dreamed did the murders, and the cops took that as fact. The sketch might resemble the actual killer, but only because of astonishing luck, not any actual knowledge. So if 100 years later you stumble on a picture of a guy who resembles that sketch, what are the real odds that guy you found is actually the killer? And how do you back that up other than pointing out how much he looks like a sketch of dubious origin?

[Scott Nelson]

They had a profile for Jack the Ripper. They thought he was insane. Gibbering, violent, uncontrollable wild beast insane.

Insane, yes. But not necessarily gibbering, violent and of an uncontrollable nature. See Dr. Bond's profile to Anderson, for example. But, of course, several suspects kept under close surveillance did display some of these aspects. Many newspaper reports of the crimes remarked on the killer's great daring or cunning abilities.

[Abby Normal]

I shouldn't complain if I am not contributing myself, but I am afraid that I don't have the necessary amount of time at my disposal.

Hi Colin
I have also very much enjoyed your posts and the research that you have provided.
I was especially intrigued by the statistical work you gave on the number of women killed by knife and the spike it showed for the year 1888 that pretty much matched up with the number of possible/probable ripper victims.

For a relative noob that I am, I for one have learned much from your posts. Hope you stay.

[Abby Normal]

Hi errata
Good post. Especially the last two sentences.

[Errata]

I think one of the problems we run into looking for a Jewish suspect is that we have a little bit of a logical fallacy happening here. Two witnesses use language that indicates the possibility of a Jewish suspect. And the language is a little suspect because we aren't sure how much whitewashing was used, if any. Neither of these two people saw the crime committed. They are talking about someone they saw on the street, or with the victim well before they died. And the two descriptions don't particularly match, but that's not uncommon. They may well have seen the murderer. But there is no reason to believe that they saw the murderer and the person who saw Blotchy did not. Or the person who saw a sailor did not. We have no reason to choose the person they saw as the killer over the men the other witnesses saw. Why would we believe in the Jewish suspect over Blotchy, or sailor, or anyone else any witness described? Two witnesses may or may not have seen a Jew. The person they saw may or may not have been the killer.

The crime scenes were in neighborhoods with a comparatively high Jewish population. This could be significant. It could be significant because of the Jewish population. It could be significant because of the concentration of alchoholic and compromised streetwalkers that trawled the neighborhood. Or because of the layout with private courtyards and alleyways in close proximity to escape routes. Or all of the above. We really have no way of knowing.

Anderson certainly thought the killer was Jewish. He refers to a Jewish man institutionalized who he was certain was the Ripper. Of course he also thought that suspect was dead (according to the MM) which he was not, he thought the killer was insane, which we know he could not have been, and he also thought that serial killers are created by masturbation. So we have the autobiography of a man laboring under many false assumptions, including the actual disposition of the man he apparently suspected, telling us the Ripper was Jewish. Anderson was not an idiot. He was however apparently either pretty confused, or a product of his generation. In profiling they talk about why you never ever use it as a bible. If the profile says that the suspect is a man who was abused by his mother, and you pass over a guy who was bullied by his big sisters, you just let the killer get away. You also have thrown some poor schmuck in jail for being beaten by his mom. They had a profile for Jack the Ripper. They thought he was insane. Gibbering, violent, uncontrollable wild beast insane. Something they were convinced was caused by masturbation and kinky sex. If that's what they were looking for (and they were) they were way off. And if that's what they found, that was not the Ripper. So that's a problem.

So we have two witness statements that have nothing that makes them stronger witness statements than any other witness statement. We have a Jewish neighborhood that also hosts the kinds of victim the killer is looking for, and the places he wants to kill them at. And we have the statement of a man who is apparently confused about his own suspect, was looking for entirely the wrong things, and makes a statement about the disposition of the suspect that is untrue.

Yes. Jack the Ripper could have been Jewish. But he was statistically more likely to have been Christian, and based on what we know (which is almost nothing) he could have been Sufi. The only thing we have that tilts the scales more towards a Jewish suspect is Anderson's book. A book that has three wrong statements for every correct one. There is no evidence pointing towards a Jewish suspect. So either he was or he wasn't. But searching Jews who lived in London in 1888 isn't going to find him. Which is pretty much how Levy as a suspect came about, and also through a series of assumptions that have no facts backing them up.

[Observer]

Okay, let's say we had a Ripper-esque murderer in the heart of Harlem, or any particular suburb with a large demographic of people from one ethnic group. We'd be looking for someone with a good knowledge of the area and someone who'd be able to blend in without attracting too much unnecessary attention. It doesn't necessarily follow that the murderer would be black/Asian/Jewish etc. but the probability is that they would be.

That's a very poor analogy Harry. In Harlem the ethnic majority (is it?) of peoples, are of a different colour than our model in Whitechapel 1888. A non Jew, living in the killing area in Whitechapel in 1888 would blend into that area as well as any Jew. And looking at Colin Roberts excellent work on the proportion of Jews to gentiles residing in the killing zone, it appears you are mistaken in your belief that Jews far outnumbered gentiles in the area mentioned.

So, the probability that a Jew was responsible,(owing to your assertion that they were in the majority in that area)seems to be melting away. You don't seem to have made any comment regarding this fact. I wonder why?

Ad homimem. What I personally believe doesn't matter. The salient fact is that there IS a Jewish connection to the Ripper case, whether people like it or not.

Ah, a Catesque Latin swerve ball! Puto enim te, iam. There is also an English, Russian, German,(need any more?)connection to the Ripper case, whether you like it or not.

And if the Swanson marginalia is to be believed, then it couldn't have been Kosminski, because the guy didn't die until 1919. Whatever way you slice it, we have a Jewish suspect who certain police officials at the time believed to be the Ripper. Whether he WAS the Ripper is indeed debatable, but that wasn't the original point, was it.

What do mean it couldn't have been Kosminski? He identified him by name. He got the date of his demise wrong.

Good point. Political correctness certainly complicates matter.

Make no mistake, Long did not state that it was a Jewish man she saw with Chapman.

What is it about Jacob Levy that doesn't impress you as a suspect?

There is not an iota of evidence which suggests that he was Jack The Ripper. Oh, and Levy was five feet three inches in height. Unless he gained three inches in height on the night of the Eddowes murder then it could not have been him whom Lawende sighted.

[Ginger]

Sure,
http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliver...002.25/0/1.pdf

What a wonderful map! Thank you for posting that!

[tji]

Hi all

Few things if I may, The killings were done in a widely based Jewish living/working area. So while I agree that Colin's map work ( ) shows it may not have been considered pre - dominantly Jewish I think that the radius of the murders may have been. (Families living close to each other etc.) I know from looking into the Levy family they were all a stone throw away from each other.

Hi Colin - hope you are well?

I have, funnily enough just come across this today and not sure if it is any use to you but thought I would post just in case.

Apparently the general rule of thumb between Ashkenazi Jew's and Seraphic is the synagogues they choose to went to

The Great Synagogue was used for Ashkenazi's and Bevis Mark's for the Seraphic.

From what I gather the majority of Dutch Jews would be Ashkenazi's.

Hi Observer

You keep picking at Harry for his belief Jacob Levy was Jack. You are correct in saying there is no factual evidence but as the case is over 120 years and there is no factual evidence on any suspect, if by that standard none of us should be here trying to figure it out.

Plus up to a few year ago there was no definite link between the Joseph Hyam Levy and Jacob Levy's either, who is to say what can happen down the line if we keep chipping away at it.

Tracy

[Harry D]

Oh and one more thing,that annoys the hell out of me,there IS NOT a "Jewish look",its a stereotype.They have all ranges of complexion and all eye colours.My first love had blonde hair and blue eyes.

If I was a witness and saw a Ben Stein lookalike at the time of the murder, I'd have no objection to using the phrase 'Jewish looking'. One I believe that Ben Stein has even used when referring to himself.

[Errata]

An abundance of seemingly Jewish (Sephardim (?)) immigrants claiming to have emanated from Hamburg and Amsterdam were enumerated in the 1871 and 1881 census reports, in various quarters of London's inner East End.

If they were Sephardic that really is surprising. Sephardic Jews are African, Middle Eastern, South American, and some Spanish. Now during the Inquisition a ton of Spanish Sephardic Jews fled to Holland. But the Jews already in Holland and in the rest of Europe were Ashkenazi. And since the differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are very subtle, it's easy to lose one to the other. I would have thought that after almost 500 years that the lion's share of the Sephardic population would have become Ashkenazi.

It's surprising enough that I feel almost sure that you have confused Ashkenazim and Sephardim, but given Holland's history as a haven for Sephardim I'm now racking my brain to figure this out.

[ianincleveland]

The blue is the highest concentration of Jews, the red is the lowest all the way down to the total absence. So significantly, but not predominantly.




There are any number of historical situations in which religious doctrine is changed to acquire power. This does not apply to serial killers, nor to the LVP. A religious person didn't do this. Although ironically there are some faithful Christian serial killers who believe that they are possessed by the devil, but that's how they explain why they were serial killers. It's not why they kill.





In a heartbeat. First of all, they were in fact looking at each other because they weren't stupid. It might have been deemed a long shot, but no one was under the impression it was impossible. Especially given the anger some immigrant Jews expressed at the behavior of English women. Rabbis especially. There is some suggestion that the Chief Rabbi of London requested that rabbis keep their eye out, because one thing the Jews of this time were intimately familiar with was their entire community being punished for the acts of a single member. They got rid of their "problem children" in the Pale, they would do it in London. In a cold second. It was a very tight knit community. But as sort of generally socialist, they protected the whole community. Not individual members.

Granted, that didn't necessarily mean turning lawbreakers over to the cops. Typically it meant expulsion. My great great uncle was expelled from his little village in the Pale because he was a radical and took a shot at some Russian bureaucrats. He got sent to London in 1878 (the East End, which is where the family story intersects JTR). My grandfather remembered a rapist cousin actually being killed by a member of the family rather than turn him over to the authorities, because at that point the authorities were the Nazis, and their Jewish community in Southern Austria had managed to stay invisible up to that point. They refused to shelter him, but there was no way in hell they were going to alert the authorities that there were a few hundred Jews a couple hours outside Vienna. But that was extreme. It's not that there aren't other examples of judicial murder in Jewish communities. They exist although it is very rare. But my family is the only story I've ever heard where a family member performed the execution, and not some community authority.

We also have a fine tradition of not just disowning children, we declare them dead. Mourning ritual and everything. And people who do it mean it. It cannot be undone. Marrying outside the faith used to be a big one, my father was threatened with it. Finding out your kid is a prostitute mutilating serial killer? People could be declared dead for talking to a prostitute. Murdering one is so far outside acceptable behavior... a mother might try to conceal her only son if the relationship was one of those creepy super close ones (the kind that seem to breed serial killers), but the father would never do it, and it's his call. Plus this is information that immediately goes to the Rabbi, who does not especially have a confessional seal. A rabbi is like a shrink. If you are going to kill someone, he will report you. He's not going to discuss it with others in the congregation, and he is unlikely to report something after the fact, say if someone confessed to the murders 10 years later. But if he thinks there is a chance you might kill again, it does not stay with him. At the very least he confers with the rabbinical council as to what to do, and we know the Chief Rabbi of London was in communication with the police, and was English. Not an immigrant. If you cheat on your wife, it stays with the Rabbi. But not murder.

One of things about being a part of a Jewish Community is that no one got to jeopardize the safety of that community. They might not go to the cops, but they will get rid of the killer somehow. Which may be what happened. But the Jewish community would not shield Jack the Ripper. They did shield socialists, separatists, minor criminals, they might shield a killer if they decided it was self defense or unavoidable. But not the Ripper. Anymore than the Christian community would have shielded him.

Its very true jews will disown their children if they marry outside the religion.my first love was jewish,and i was told even when i was just 15,id never ever be allowed to marry her.We were together 3 yrs and her and family went back to USA(she in Florida now).Now shes married to a non Jew and they live a secular lifestyle,and her mother didnt disown her.Dont think she could bring herself to in the end.Her brother who in Alabama,also very secular.I actually wrote to my love but her mother never passed letters on.Shame there was no internet then,took me half hour to find her when i tried.30 yrs later it still hurts to an extent.But it shows that even non orthodox Jews dont like their family marrying outside the faith.

I dont think JTR was Jewish,i think they would have turned him in,probably as insane.Which whoever was the culprit they were.I dont think the GSG had anything to do with the crimes at all,just some disenchanted person who was,or thought they were,ripped off by a Jew.Because of what theyd fled,and to some extent how they were treated when they got here,they were very close knit.Anyone acting strangely would have been sussed out.

Oh and one more thing,that annoys the hell out of me,there IS NOT a "Jewish look",its a stereotype.They have all ranges of complexion and all eye colours.My first love had blonde hair and blue eyes.

[Mr Lucky]

I'm still stuck on how many Dutch Jews there were.

Hi Errata

The Schneider family who owned the cap factory on Buck's-row, were Jews from Holland (actually his wife was born in Belgium ) they had arrived in Britain during the 1840's

[Colin Roberts]

I'm still stuck on how many Dutch Jews there were. I mean, Poland and Russia are obvious because of the Pale and because of exceptionally brutal conditions. Holland was traditionally a place Jew fled TO. Not from.

An abundance of seemingly Jewish (Sephardim (?)) immigrants claiming to have emanated from Hamburg and Amsterdam were enumerated in the 1871 and 1881 census reports, in various quarters of London's inner East End.

[Errata]

I needed that

Thank you Thank you.

I'm here all week.