So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Harry D]

Plus its andersons prejudiced theory anyway a crazy jew. Lol. Cmon.

Anderson had his reasons. There's a strong possibility the killer was a Jew when we examine the characteristics of the murders. The throat-cutting, for instance, may have been ritualistic rather than a simple practical matter.

[Batman]

Incredulously, the medical implications do not change in retrospect on account of added victims.

They most certainly can and one function of the Coroner is to legally recognize the need to amend previous findings when new information arrives.

This can happen in a series of events, such as with disease, epidemics or a series of violent homicides.

It is exactly this sort of series in which a serial offender is at large that can undergo such amendments the more we learn.

A meta-review can and does revise/amend the content it is reviewing.

This most certainly applies the most to historical situations.

[Abby Normal]

What needs to "tie him" to the case? How many serial killers are witnesses? How many serial killers are on modern police radar, let alone in the 19th century?



I'm pretty sure Tracy Ianson's research proved they were related.



Middlesex Street.

Hi harry
At the very least there needs to be something that ties them to the case. Posibly being related to a witness dosnt cut it. You could pick anyone out of a hat and fit them up to be the ripper but with no known connection to the case its a pretty useless.

Plus its andersons prejudiced theory anyway a crazy jew. Lol. Cmon.

We could take any lame profile crazy jew, butcher, american, doctor, insane etc or any combo of these and find hundreds of people who fit the bill. Its really just a glorified parlour game.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi harry
I think levy could be a compelling suspect but theres nothing that ties him to the case... Hes really just one of a long list of crazy jew profile types started with andersons theory , through Fido and carried on through today.

The good news is that it's not only Jews that were crazy. Indeed, the list of 38 contemporary Whitechapel Infirmary "lunatics/maniacs" I posted the other day contained no Jewish names at all, as far as I can remember.

[Harry D]

And THAT is how long it took before Harry had to resort to the "Griffiths was probably kept in the dark" card!

Thankīs Harry! End of the road, finally. All other options emptied out and found insufficient.

Griffiths' word carries no more weight than anyone else's if we aren't privy to the information he was provided with when forming his opinion, otherwise it's what we call an argumentum ad verecundiam.

[Fisherman]

You ignore that Baxter is considering more than one doctor's opinion on the murders and has correctly LINKED them, and then sided with the opinion that Nichols had actually had her throat cut first like Chapman.

Baxter was correct.

You also ignore Bond, a doctor who was given a meta-analysis, agreed with Baxter.

Instead, you want Cross to now be confused over his MO and signature. You bend reality to have Cross slicing a throat that isn't bleeding out when he calls a witness over to see him practically at it.

Incredulously, the medical implications do not change in retrospect on account of added victims.

Who would have thought that?

As for bending reality, I canīt do that. Reality is unbendable, try as you might.

I cannot work up the will to exchange any further with you tonight. Iīll leave you to play with your profiling toys.

Goodnight.

[Fisherman]

You can keep pulling your expert out of the box, if you like. Frankly, I am not impressed. It's remarkable how documentarians and writers never fail to discover experts who support their theory. We don't even know if Mr Griffiths was briefed on the full facts of the case.

And THAT is how long it took before Harry had to resort to the "Griffiths was probably kept in the dark" card!

Thankīs Harry! End of the road, finally. All other options emptied out and found insufficient.

[Fisherman]

What needs to "tie him" to the case?

The police and the judicial system need to tie him to the case. They must. It is the most vital of all parameters, not if you have shouted "death to fallen women" in the street.

[Harry D]

Sorry. There is not a iot of connection to the sites or the victims - just as you wisely point out yourself.

Less wisely, you claim that such trivialities are of much less interest than how Levy appeals to you and your idea about what the killer must have been like.

Is Levy somebody who there is a prima faciae case against? Ho-hum...?

Is he, as Griffiths put it about Lechmere, "completely relevant"? No. Is he relevant at all? No. Is he irrelevant? Yes, until any small smidgeon of evidence appears that points to him having been in place.

Sorry, but that is how it works. It is not as if being mad or bad takes you an inch closer to the sites. There is not a thing connecting Levy to the Ripper murders. Not one. If the police had gotten it into their heads that he was a good suspect - and they may well have, since the combination weird and foreign appealed a whole lot to them for no good reason at all - they would have been faced with the task of putting him on or near the spots before any sort of case could be built.

Maybe they could have at that remove in time. But we canīt do that today, and so we have nothing on him in terms of caserelated evidence. Myself, I note that he was 16 in 1873, and totally unlikely to have killed the torso victim who died then. And since I think that the killer moved on to kill Kelly fifteen years later, he is ruled out on that score, as far as Iīm concerned. Instead of trying to squeeze him into the Ripper slippers on account of having not adjusted to the rule of normality, I rule him out on account of being too young to have killed in 1873.
But thatīs just me.

I enjoy reading about Levy, and he fascinates me. But finding a killer is a practical matter, not an ideological one.

You can keep pulling your expert out of the box, if you like. Frankly, I am not impressed. It's remarkable how documentarians and writers never fail to discover experts who support their theory. We don't even know if Mr Griffiths was briefed on the full facts of the case.

[Batman]

Yes, why would we not take a medically ignorant coronerīs word over an experienced doctorīs?

You ignore that Baxter is considering more than one doctor's opinion on the murders and has correctly LINKED them, and then sided with the opinion that Nichols had actually had her throat cut first like Chapman.

Baxter was correct.

You also ignore Bond, a doctor who was given a meta-analysis, agreed with Baxter.

Instead, you want Cross to now be confused over his MO and signature. You bend reality to have Cross slicing a throat that isn't bleeding out when he calls a witness over to see him practically at it.

[Fisherman]

Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene...

But 100 per cent of them is actually there.

[Harry D]

Hi harry
I think levy could be a compelling suspect but theres nothing that ties him to the case-

What needs to "tie him" to the case? How many serial killers are witnesses? How many serial killers are on modern police radar, let alone in the 19th century?

and i dont think its been conclusively shown that he was related to one of the mitre square witnesses.

I'm pretty sure Tracy Ianson's research proved they were related.

We dont even know where he was during the murder series.

Middlesex Street.

[Fisherman]

For one, I find Jacob Levy to be a more compelling suspect.

• Lived in the epicenter of the murders
  
• Had a traumatic childhood: witnessed his eldest brother's suicide
  
• Had the required butchery skills for the murders (a disputed point but one that is still in Jacob's favour)
  
• Was related to Joseph Levy, a witness who purportedly had something to hide
  
• Had a brother living in Goulston Street
  
• Wife said he wandered the streets at night and had compulsions of a violent nature
  
• Life deteriorated around 1886, after he was arrested for theft and almost ruined the family business
  
• Died of syphilis (wife was clean, so probably from a whore)

Ah, but Levy was never placed at one of the murder sites, so he cannot compare to the suspect par excellence that is Lechmere! Funnily enough, we don't need to place Levy there. Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene, nor do they approach passers-by. It's enough to know that he lived in Whitechapel, had a traumatic childhood, butcher skills, violent thoughts, wandered the streets, and had known ties to a fishy witness and location of the graffito/rag.

Does it mean I think Levy WAS the ripper and not just one of several mad jews that have come under suspicion (Cohen, Hyams, Kosminski)? I'll leave that up to you to work out, but based on the above I find him to be a much more convincing suspect than the carman.

Sorry. There is not a iot of connection to the sites or the victims - just as you wisely point out yourself.

Less wisely, you claim that such trivialities are of much less interest than how Levy appeals to you and your idea about what the killer must have been like.

Is Levy somebody who there is a prima faciae case against? Ho-hum...?

Is he, as Griffiths put it about Lechmere, "completely relevant"? No. Is he relevant at all? No. Is he irrelevant? Yes, until any small smidgeon of evidence appears that points to him having been in place.

Sorry, but that is how it works. It is not as if being mad or bad takes you an inch closer to the sites. There is not a thing connecting Levy to the Ripper murders. Not one. If the police had gotten it into their heads that he was a good suspect - and they may well have, since the combination weird and foreign appealed a whole lot to them for no good reason at all - they would have been faced with the task of putting him on or near the spots before any sort of case could be built.

Maybe they could have at that remove in time. But we canīt do that today, and so we have nothing on him in terms of caserelated evidence. Myself, I note that he was 16 in 1873, and totally unlikely to have killed the torso victim who died then. And since I think that the killer moved on to kill Kelly fifteen years later, he is ruled out on that score, as far as Iīm concerned. Instead of trying to squeeze him into the Ripper slippers on account of having not adjusted to the rule of normality, I rule him out on account of being too young to have killed in 1873.
But thatīs just me.

I enjoy reading about Levy, and he fascinates me. But finding a killer is a practical matter, not an ideological one.

[Abby Normal]

For one, I find Jacob Levy to be a more compelling suspect.

• Lived in the epicenter of the murders
  
• Had a traumatic childhood: witnessed his eldest brother's suicide
  
• Had the required butchery skills for the murders (a disputed point but one that is still in Jacob's favour)
  
• Was related to Joseph Levy, a witness who purportedly had something to hide
  
• Had a brother living in Goulston Street
  
• Wife said he wandered the streets at night and had compulsions of a violent nature
  
• Life deteriorated around 1886, after he was arrested for theft and almost ruined the family business
  
• Died of syphilis (wife was clean, so probably from a whore)

Ah, but Levy was never placed at one of the murder sites, so he cannot compare to the suspect par excellence that is Lechmere! Funnily enough, we don't need to place Levy there. Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene, nor do they approach passers-by. It's enough to know that he lived in Whitechapel, had a traumatic childhood, butcher skills, violent thoughts, wandered the streets, and had known ties to a fishy witness and location of the graffito/rag.

Does it mean I think Levy WAS the ripper and not just one of several mad jews that have come under suspicion (Cohen, Hyams, Kosminski)? I'll leave that up to you to work out, but based on the above I find him to be a much more convincing suspect than the carman.

Hi harry
I think levy could be a compelling suspect but theres nothing that ties him to the case-and i dont think its been conclusively shown that he was related to one of the mitre square witnesses.

Hes really just one of a long list of crazy jew profile types started with andersons theory , through Fido and carried on through today. We dont even know where he was during the murder series.

[Harry D]

Itīs illuminating, though, that nobody is suggesting REAL alternative suspects - to try and find some competition for Lechmere, we need to dig into conjecture ground and make people up

For one, I find Jacob Levy to be a more compelling suspect.

• Lived in the epicenter of the murders
  
• Had a traumatic childhood: witnessed his eldest brother's suicide
  
• Had the required butchery skills for the murders (a disputed point but one that is still in Jacob's favour)
  
• Was related to Joseph Levy, a witness who purportedly had something to hide
  
• Had a brother living in Goulston Street
  
• Wife said he wandered the streets at night and had compulsions of a violent nature
  
• Life deteriorated around 1886, after he was arrested for theft and almost ruined the family business
  
• Died of syphilis (wife was clean, so probably from a whore)

Ah, but Levy was never placed at one of the murder sites, so he cannot compare to the suspect par excellence that is Lechmere! Funnily enough, we don't need to place Levy there. Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene, nor do they approach passers-by. It's enough to know that he lived in Whitechapel, had a traumatic childhood, butcher skills, violent thoughts, wandered the streets, and had known ties to a fishy witness and location of the graffito/rag.

Does it mean I think Levy WAS the ripper and not just one of several mad jews that have come under suspicion (Cohen, Hyams, Kosminski)? I'll leave that up to you to work out, but based on the above I find him to be a much more convincing suspect than the carman.