Jacob Levy

[MysterySinger]

Circumstantial, even if true, but I suspect Jacob Levy felt a huge sense of injustice at his conviction in 1886 that could cause him to hold a grudge against Woolf, Phillips, Simpson, the Police and also the Mayor of London since one presided over the case at the OB if I'm not mistaken. It could also be one of the trigger points that led to his incapacity.

There were several Jacob Levy's around at that time. However, one such was recorded as living at 29 Wentworth Buildings in 1887 and 1888. I wondered whether, upon his release from asylum in 1887, our Jacob was forced to live separate from his wife and children (another stressor) at least for the time being (and at the crucial time as far as JTR is concerned). I know he got back into butchery but is there a period of time where he could have been left alone to do these deeds?

[curious4]

But Steve, if we analyse the sources connected to Levy, isnīt it a fact that they give us that he was jewish, mentally ill and a butcher living locally?

And arenīt those established facts the basis for the theory about Levy being Jack the Ripper?

Or was there any evidence found at the murder sites that was connected to Levy?

Regards, Pierre

The murderer (if jewish) would have to have been extremely stupid as well as mad to commit a murder in his own back yard, so to speak, particularly as it had already been suggested that this was the case.

Best wishes
C4

[David Orsam]

Hi,

causality is another thing. It can be described as x > y.

The hypothesis of Jack the Ripper being a jew is a matter of selection, where the sample is biased.

Although in 1888 people who thought Jack the Ripper was a jew probably were thinking x > y.

Regards, Pierre

From the posts you have made on this forum so far, would I be correct in thinking that the proper approach is:

x + y = z

where x is 1, y is 3 and z is 5.

[Pierre]

The issue was and is not, was Levy a butcher, a lunatic of a Jew, but is he a person of interest in the case.

The only way of doing that is to look at the sources relating to him.
This obviously requires a considerably time if one is to do it correctly.

I do not see any indication this has been done in posts 85,87,89, 91,94, 96,105 or 109.

steve

But Steve, if we analyse the sources connected to Levy, isnīt it a fact that they give us that he was jewish, mentally ill and a butcher living locally?

And arenīt those established facts the basis for the theory about Levy being Jack the Ripper?

Or was there any evidence found at the murder sites that was connected to Levy?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

At the end of the day if Jacob was jtr it wasn't caused by him being a Jew it was more the fact that being a Jew would have helped him blend into an area that was highly populated by Jews.

Hi,

causality is another thing. It can be described as x > y.

The hypothesis of Jack the Ripper being a jew is a matter of selection, where the sampling frame is biased.

Although in 1888 people who thought Jack the Ripper was a jew probably were thinking x > y.

And therefore we have a biased sampling frame (jews), and a biased sample (suspected jews), today.

Levy is one of the men in that sample.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Pierre

I merely asked Errata if they have read those post I quoted.


Errata will certainly not be swayed by my post if they had already read all the posts and reached the view posted having done that.

Is it now wrong to attempt to persuade others of a view?

If one quotes the words posted, how is that misrepresenting?

indeed I finish the post by saying if that is their view so be it.

steve

It's wrong to do anything Pierre says is wrong, it's his way or the highway.

[Errata]

It's not that there aren't conditions that could rule out someone as the Ripper. A paraplegic for example could not have done it. But barring something that extreme, conditions only reduce the odds. They don't rule out anything. And of course, people defy the odds every day. So even a good mathematical case for something is only good in theory. The reality may be much different.

[John Wheat]

I'd like to make it clear that I don't believe Jacob Levy was Jack the Ripper however I'm not sure how anyone can say with 100% certainty that Jacob Levy wasn't Jack the Ripper because he was Jewish. Jack could have been of almost any faith.

[Elamarna]

At the end of the day if Jacob was jtr it wasn't caused by him being a Jew it was more the fact that being a Jew would have helped him blend into an area that was highly populated by Jews.

Hi

No arguments from me on that.

steve

[tji]

At the end of the day if Jacob was jtr it wasn't caused by him being a Jew it was more the fact that being a Jew would have helped him blend into an area that was highly populated by Jews.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

You just contradict me for the sake of contradiction now.

And you make lists of old posts.

Also, the use of strong words like "absurd" is redundant.

Of course we would have known if the poor sod Jacob Levy was Jack the Ripper, since he was ill and had nothing to defend himself against the police, would they have investigated him.

But they did not, or they did and found nothing, so he was not Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

pierre

I have not contradicted the post for the sake of it, but because the post is wrong .

There is nothing wrong in listing the post numbers of posts which do not answer the questions asked. it makes it easy for others to check the points.

There is no attempted to address the points raised in post 111 or post 106

The fact the police appear not to have investigated does not preclude Levy from being the Killer.

Show analysis of the subject (Levy), based on the sources available has been carried out and make an argument based on that.

So far all that as been provided is an inaccurate quote, and details which not specific to Levy.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Now you are trying to change the view of Errata. Let people use their own brains, Steve.

And again you misinterpret me - even though I have told you what I meant with my discussion about ideal types.

Your misinterpretations do not become true just because you repeat them.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I merely asked Errata if they have read those post I quoted.


Errata will certainly not be swayed by my post if they had already read all the posts and reached the view posted having done that.

Is it now wrong to attempt to persuade others of a view?

If one quotes the words posted, how is that misrepresenting?

indeed I finish the post by saying if that is their view so be it.

steve

[Pierre]

Dear Errata,

did you read the posts below ?

post 84

"The 1888 serial killer view = The 1888 serial killer jew."

post 87

"No, Steve. It is the incredible degree of bias of 1888. Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen, Joseph Isaacs, Michael Ostrog (described as a Polish Jew), Jacob Levy and all the rest."



That seems obvious that people are being excluded because of a group they belong to.

If you don't see that fair enough, but it is clear to me.

cheers

Steve

Now you are trying to change the view of Errata. Let people use their own brains, Steve.

And again you misinterpret me - even though I have told you what I meant with my discussion about ideal types.

Your misinterpretations do not become true just because you repeat them.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

There was no attempt to use "Reductio ad absurdum" in my argument,

Such a claim is indeed absurd.

The post # 94

"If he was Jack the Ripper we would have known it."


Is the closest I have seen to such an argument on this thread.

This discussion began, because of the remark

"The 1888 serial killer view = The 1888 serial killer jew."

That statement gives the impression that indeed the post did exclude certain groups per definition.
Further to that it gives the impression that person under discussion was not being subjected to any criticism and analyse.

The issue was and is not, was Levy a butcher, a lunatic of a Jew, but is he a person of interest in the case.

The only way of doing that is to look at the sources relating to him.
This obviously requires a considerably time if one is to do it correctly.

I do not see any indication this has been done in posts 85,87,89, 91,94, 96,105 or 109.

steve

Hi Steve,

You just contradict me for the sake of contradiction now.

And you make lists of old posts.

Also, the use of strong words like "absurd" is redundant.

Of course we would have known if the poor sod Jacob Levy was Jack the Ripper, since he was ill and had nothing to defend himself against the police, would they have investigated him.

But they did not, or they did and found nothing, so he was not Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I personally don't make the extension to exclude people, maybe I should, but I just didn't see it that way.

Dear Errata,

did you read the posts below ?

post 84

"The 1888 serial killer view = The 1888 serial killer jew."

post 87

"No, Steve. It is the incredible degree of bias of 1888. Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen, Joseph Isaacs, Michael Ostrog (described as a Polish Jew), Jacob Levy and all the rest."



That seems obvious that people are being excluded because of a group they belong to.

If you don't see that fair enough, but it is clear to me.

cheers

Steve