Jacob Levy

[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.

[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

[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, isn´t it a fact that they give us that he was jewish, mentally ill and a butcher living locally?

And aren´t 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

[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.

[curious4]

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

And aren´t 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

[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?

[tji]

Hi Mystery singer


Even more circumstantial when you find Hyman Samson died very shortly after Jacob was released from the asylum in 1886


I can't say it's impossible but the 1888 business directory has his business at 36 Middlesex street and Sarah was still having children then so I think the Jacob Levy of Wentworth street was a different Jacob - it was quite a common name at the time.

[tji]

[QUOTE]

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

I saw nothing wrong with Steve's post and it's not like he was smacking his opinion round Erratta's head. He has every right to explain his opinion when it's being questioned.

QUOTE=Pierre;379974]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[/QUOTE

No you believe we have a biased sample - that isn't mathematical theory that is your own opinion applied.
You can't know that all the people of the time thought it was a Jew so you can't put that as fact. Did you ask every single person of 1888 their opinion, what fraction believed it, what fraction didn't?

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.

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

.......Or he could go into an area where the population was mainly Irish or English and stick out like a sore thumb

[Errata]

[QUOTE=tji;380040]

I saw nothing wrong with Steve's post and it's not like he was smacking his opinion round Erratta's head. He has every right to explain his opinion when it's being questioned.

Thanks for the implicit belief that I might be smart enough to make up my own mind, no matter what opinions might be thrown my way.

I'm sturdy, lads. I can take a hard sell as well as anyone and come out unmoved. I try to only be swayed by the success of an argument, not just side with the last person to speak. And if anyone was going to persuade me on this suspect it would be TJI. And probably no one else. Nothing personal, but I tend to favor horse's mouths whenever possible. Though I love a good argument.

So I'm good. I promise. Bring on the hammers. I can take it.

[curious4]

Was the East End that segregated?

Both Liz and Kate cleaned for Jewish families. I doubt there were border controls.


Best wishes
C4

[Errata]

Was the East End that segregated?

Both Liz and Kate cleaned for Jewish families. I doubt there were border controls.


Best wishes
C4

Segregation can happen in pretty subtle ways. Take Nashville for instance. There is a surprising number of Jews in Nashville, and a considerable number of Irish Catholics. And of course, black people. Now the richest neighborhood in town could have said "No blacks, Jews, or Irish" but post Reconstruction that would be problematic. So they borrowed from the English and declared that no house in Belle Meade can have more than three bedrooms. Black people, Jews and the Irish tended to have more kids, so needed more bedrooms. And they bought elsewhere. In the meantime, you had the occasional English Protestant building extra parlors to accommodate their uncharacteristically large family. Leading to some fairly peculiar structures. The law was taken off the books maybe 5 years ago? And Jews, Catholics and black people still tend not to live there.

effective segregation without technically segregating.

[tji]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Errata;380080]

Thanks for the implicit belief that I might be smart enough to make up my own mind, no matter what opinions might be thrown my way.

Take note of it Errat, people allowing you your own opinion doesn't happen very often round here

I'm sturdy, lads. I can take a hard sell as well as anyone and come out unmoved. I try to only be swayed by the success of an argument, not just side with the last person to speak. And if anyone was going to persuade me on this suspect it would be TJI. And probably no one else. Nothing personal, but I tend to favor horse's mouths whenever possible. Though I love a good argument.

Wow that's quite the compliment, thank you Errata

(I do understand you haven't said I have changed your mind lol but still the compliment was gladly received!)

I enjoy a good argument too as long as the information is factual and people don't use 'their opinion' to dispute facts, I'm not saying you do this but it does happen.
Now I will accept that some people have enough information/experience to be able to hazard guesses or the logical outcome at times and i'm fine with this but if someone who knows nothing about a subject demands you listen to them, just becasue, it gets tiring very quickly.

Tj

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Errata;380080]

Thanks for the implicit belief that I might be smart enough to make up my own mind, no matter what opinions might be thrown my way.

I'm sturdy, lads. I can take a hard sell as well as anyone and come out unmoved. I try to only be swayed by the success of an argument, not just side with the last person to speak. And if anyone was going to persuade me on this suspect it would be TJI. And probably no one else. Nothing personal, but I tend to favor horse's mouths whenever possible. Though I love a good argument.

So I'm good. I promise. Bring on the hammers. I can take it.

Dear Errata,

that is the point of these boards surely , to discuss ideas, and form views.

Of course we will never agree with each other all the time, and I say now as always that i am happy to agree to disagree with you on this particular point.


I do however echo your view TJI, certainly the expert here on Levy.

steve

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;380118]

Dear Errata,

that is the point of these boards surely , to discuss ideas, and form views.

Of course we will never agree with each other all the time, and I say now as always that i am happy to agree to disagree with you on this particular point.


I do however echo your view TJI, certainly the expert here on Levy.

steve

One would hope... which is why I don't feel like I need protection from opposing views.

I have always seen TJI as the expert here. Where we differ is when I plug in my experiences and knowledge of mental health issues, and I come up with a different answer. Not a better one, just a different one. We can easily agree to disagree.

[lilyofthevalley]

I was glad you raised the question Errata (my background is in mental health too). I believe the killer possibly suffered some kind of trauma in early childhood. Neurosyphilis in my mind cannot be the main cause for his actions. If anything, I would think that the illness it may have aggravated his behavior, making him more erratic, and maybe it even stopped him in his tracks altogether.