Jacob Levy

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Do not make reductions in absurdum. The point is not that we should exclude certain groups per definition.

The point is that certain groups are overrepresented in ripperology and therefore should be subjected to criticism and analyse.

For example, we could ask:

What are the hypothetical patterns in theories about Jack the Ripper The Lunatic? What do they have in common? What sort of sources are these theories drawn upon?

What are the hypothetical lines in theories about Jack the Ripper The Jew? What are the basic assumptions? What sort of ideas prevail in these theories?

What are the foundations for theories about Jack the Ripper The Butcher? What sort of explanations are constructed in these theories?

What are the foundations for theories about Jack the Ripper The Local Guy? What sort of explanations are constructed in such theories?

So we could start to look at those aspects - or go directly to the sources to try and disprove the theories. Whatever you prefer.

Ripperology is full of ideal types. When we deconstruct them, we learn a lot about our own bias and about how theories about this particular serial killer are constructed.

Regards, 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

[Errata]

Errata,
I am a little surprised at that.

yes part of the post is fairly good, thats the impression which is trying to be created.

The points about someone not being JtR because they are part of a group is indeed very true. .
However the problem I see, is the extension of the idea to say that we discard people from certain groups because of perceived bias in 1888.

That is a very dangerous course to follow.

There is No research demonstrated on Levy at all.
Which after all is the point of the thread.

And the quote from Macnaughten is inaccurate.


steve

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

[Pierre]

Errata,
I am a little surprised at that.

yes part of the post is fairly good, thats the impression which is trying to be created.

The points about someone not being JtR because they are part of a group is indeed very true. .
However the problem I see, is the extension of the idea to say that we discard people from certain groups because of perceived bias in 1888.

That is a very dangerous course to follow.

There is No research demonstrated on Levy at all.
Which after all is the point of the thread.

And the quote from Macnaughten is inaccurate.

steve

Hi Steve,

Do not make reductions in absurdum. The point is not that we should exclude certain groups per definition.

The point is that certain groups are overrepresented in ripperology and therefore should be subjected to criticism and analyse.

For example, we could ask:

What are the hypothetical patterns in theories about Jack the Ripper The Lunatic? What do they have in common? What sort of sources are these theories drawn upon?

What are the hypothetical lines in theories about Jack the Ripper The Jew? What are the basic assumptions? What sort of ideas prevail in these theories?

What are the foundations for theories about Jack the Ripper The Butcher? What sort of explanations are constructed in these theories?

What are the foundations for theories about Jack the Ripper The Local Guy? What sort of explanations are constructed in such theories?

So we could start to look at those aspects - or go directly to the sources to try and disprove the theories. Whatever you prefer.

Ripperology is full of ideal types. When we deconstruct them, we learn a lot about our own bias and about how theories about this particular serial killer are constructed.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Holy crap that made sense. A little rigid for the discussion at hand, but it was cogent. I'm a little impressed.

Errata,
I am a little surprised at that.

yes part of the post is fairly good, thats the impression which is trying to be created.

The points about someone not being JtR because they are part of a group is indeed very true. .
However the problem I see, is the extension of the idea to say that we discard people from certain groups because of perceived bias in 1888.

That is a very dangerous course to follow.

There is No research demonstrated on Levy at all.
Which after all is the point of the thread.

And the quote from Macnaughten is inaccurate.


steve

[Errata]

Hi Steve,

Will do.

Joseph Hyam Levy gave the following descriptions for the person that you think might be Jacob Levy in the original inquest papers:

"...a man..." - "...about 3 inches taller than the woman...".
(Evans & Skinner, p. 237-238).

Joseph Lawende said:

"...a man..." - "The man was taller than she was." - "The man had a cloth cap on with a cloth peak."

(ibid., p. 237).

Report by Swanson 19 October 1888:

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor.

(according to "two men coming out of a club close by")

(ibid., p 138)

Report by Swanson 6 November 1888:

"Mr. Lamende states that he could not identify the man".

(ibid., p. 207)

Macnaghten 1894:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer..."

(ibid., p 347)

Problems:

There are no sources for Jacob Levy's hair color or skin complexion, so we do not know how he looked. Therefore we can not compare him to the sources above.

The witnesses do not know who the woman they described was, since she was standing with her back against them. Therefore we do not know if the woman was Eddowes.

The clothes worn by the woman they saw are described as black. Many women dressed in black, not just Eddowes. Therefore we can not know if the woman was Eddowes. It could have been any woman or any prostitute.

Therefore it is impossible to say if the man was the killer of Eddowes. He could have been any man talking to any woman or any man talking to any prostitute.

Macnaghten can not be referring to the man seen together with a woman on the night of the double event, since that man was seen.

There are no sources connecting Jacob Levy to any of the murders. There are no witness statements describing him, no communications pointing towards him, no confession made by him.

A part of the English populations was living in Whitechapel 1888. Living in Whitechapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel consisted of jews. Being a jew in Whitechapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel 1888 consisted of butchers. Being a butcher in Whitehapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel 1888 was defined as lunatics/maniacs and a part of the population was institutionalized in asylums. Being in an asylum in 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel/England/the world had syphilis 1888. Having syphilis in Whitechapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

Other problems:

The 1888 antisemitism gave people a reason for suspecting jews for having committed the serial murders.

The 1888 idea of "anatomical knowledge" needed to perform the mutilations gave reason for suspecting butchers for having committed the serial murders.

The 1888 belief that the murderer was "insane"/"a lunatic"/"mad" and so on and so forth gave reason for suspecting people in asylums.

These ideas are now the ghosts from 1888, dictating our thinking and making people believe in ghosts, although it is obvious that there are no historical reasons for doing so, when we analyse the original sources high up in the source hierarchy from 1888.

Kind regards, Pierre

Holy crap that made sense. A little rigid for the discussion at hand, but it was cogent. I'm a little impressed.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

So as normal when it comes to research on the murders themselves and basic knowledge of such, there is a great deficiency.

None of the sources quoted are directly related to Levy and therefore are of little use.


In addition partial quotes are given. Here we have the quote from Macnaughten as:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer..."



That is from the Scotland yard version of the memoranda, the copy held on this site if my memory is correct.



However the Aberconway version says:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the city P.C who was a beat[sec] near Mitre Square)"



That is basic knowledge on the subject, either this was not known, which demonstrates a very serious failing or it was intended to mislead!
I assume the former.



There are no comments about Levy himself or possible motive- how surprising.

It is there if one bothers to look? But not in Skinner and Evans or on this site!


Obviously there has been No research on the man; despite the impression given at the start of post 105.




Post 105 then gives a list of points which are a repeat of what was said yesterday.

Such points do not provide evidence to exclude anyone!.



The final comments about "ghosts from 1888" are more of the views given yesterday.

As general points that there was a bias over these issues in 1888, I tend to agree.

However a view is taken in post 105 on those points, that we should not consider any person from those groups as a viable person of interest, because of said bias!


However to exclude on that basis:

Is not scientific!
Is not based on research!
Is not the work expected of an academic historian.

It demonstrates an incredible level of bias!




The so called research given in post 105 is from a copy of Skinner and Evans and possibly this site.

No other sources appear to have been even looked at- lazy in the extreme!

At least 5 minutes cut and paste- truly serious research.



The point proposed is that people should be excluded and rejected because of race and faith!

This is because of preconceived ideas held about the Identity of the killer.



Its a bit like the police in the "Yorkshire Ripper" case, discarding people who did not have a Newcastle accent, because they believed the tape recording sent to them.

Of course this allowed the real killer to carry on untroubled, even when he had been interviewed numerous times by the police.


That's the very approach demonstrated in post 105.


Steve

[Pierre]

By all means dismiss an idea; but please at least do the research to back up that viewpoint.

steve

Hi Steve,

Will do.

Joseph Hyam Levy gave the following descriptions for the person that you think might be Jacob Levy in the original inquest papers:

"...a man..." - "...about 3 inches taller than the woman...".
(Evans & Skinner, p. 237-238).

Joseph Lawende said:

"...a man..." - "The man was taller than she was." - "The man had a cloth cap on with a cloth peak."

(ibid., p. 237).

Report by Swanson 19 October 1888:

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor.

(according to "two men coming out of a club close by")

(ibid., p 138)

Report by Swanson 6 November 1888:

"Mr. Lamende states that he could not identify the man".

(ibid., p. 207)

Macnaghten 1894:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer..."

(ibid., p 347)

Problems:

There are no sources for Jacob Levy's hair color or skin complexion, so we do not know how he looked. Therefore we can not compare him to the sources above.

The witnesses do not know who the woman they described was, since she was standing with her back against them. Therefore we do not know if the woman was Eddowes.

The clothes worn by the woman they saw are described as black. Many women dressed in black, not just Eddowes. Therefore we can not know if the woman was Eddowes. It could have been any woman or any prostitute.

Therefore it is impossible to say if the man was the killer of Eddowes. He could have been any man talking to any woman or any man talking to any prostitute.

Macnaghten can not be referring to the man seen together with a woman on the night of the double event, since that man was seen.

There are no sources connecting Jacob Levy to any of the murders. There are no witness statements describing him, no communications pointing towards him, no confession made by him.

A part of the English populations was living in Whitechapel 1888. Living in Whitechapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel consisted of jews. Being a jew in Whitechapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel 1888 consisted of butchers. Being a butcher in Whitehapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel 1888 was defined as lunatics/maniacs and a part of the population was institutionalized in asylums. Being in an asylum in 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

A part of the population in Whitechapel/England/the world had syphilis 1888. Having syphilis in Whitechapel 1888 is no indication of being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

Other problems:

The 1888 antisemitism gave people a reason for suspecting jews for having committed the serial murders.

The 1888 idea of "anatomical knowledge" needed to perform the mutilations gave reason for suspecting butchers for having committed the serial murders.

The 1888 belief that the murderer was "insane"/"a lunatic"/"mad" and so on and so forth gave reason for suspecting people in asylums.

These ideas are now the ghosts from 1888, dictating our thinking and making people believe in ghosts, although it is obvious that there are no historical reasons for doing so, when we analyse the original sources high up in the source hierarchy from 1888.

Kind regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Am I missing something here? Why was his name on almost all threads if he isn't here to learn and discuss, what can he possibly talk about?

To be a troll is my guess, but he made it clear as that he refuses to read anything written by what he terms non Academic Historians.

Now as every historian I've shown his methodology too, has said "That's no historian" he may not even read his own stuff.

Has nothing but contempt for "Ripperologists" does Pierre.

[tji]

His first day here he told us he refuses to read anything, nothing has changed.

Am I missing something here? Why was his name on almost all threads if he isn't here to learn and discuss, what can he possibly talk about?

[Elamarna]

His first day here he told us he refuses to read anything, nothing has changed.

Yes GUT

we continue to be told there is no history unless we analyse each individual source, and that is how all real historians work. BUT then there is a refusal to follow those very same "RULES" which have been laid down. Truly Bizarre.
I am open about it and say my top suspect is Kosminski, but add, or someone like him, and Levy is very much in that category.

In many respects he is a better fit to Anderson's suspect than AK, unlike many named persons he does have a real trigger to the murders.

It is shameful to dismiss a whole group of persons based on faith/race, all to do with preconceived views, nothing to do with History or the evidence (sources).

Steve

[GUT]

Pierre


Its already been done, Ripperologist #124 I think, is a good place to start.

The comment just proves no research as been done!

By all means dismiss an idea; but please at least do the research to back up that viewpoint.
Instead we have a view, based on preconceived ideas, themselves based on data, the contents of which there is a refusal to disclose or even prove the existence of.

steve

His first day here he told us he refuses to read anything, nothing has changed.

[tji]

Hi Pierre

You can't demand people give you information you want, if you feel Jacob is not worthy suspect maybe try researching him first and then try arguing the case - you know with a valid argument.

As Steve rightly points out you're expecting them to supply you with all the info and then just basically ignoring his attempts at trying to discuss it with you.

If you're genuinely interested in Jacob either for or against him then fine we will discuss it, otherwise you're just wasting everyones time.

[tji]

Hi Lily

Thank you TJI for answering some questions and also for the excellent work on Levy so far. We may never know the real name of JtR, but I think Levy is worth the investigation.
I think 1881 is too early for Levy to be mixed up with Kosminksi.

Thanks for your kind words, I too believe Jacob is a worthy candidate

Tj

[Elamarna]

I'm of the opinion that at the time everything was done to hush the fact that the suspect may have been a Jew, rather than the other way around. Not withstanding the appalling anti-semitism of yesterday and today, not to look at Jewish suspects on account of them being Jewish, now that would be silly and biased.

hi there Liilyofthevalley,

I agree with you 100%.

levy is certainly a person of interest.

To just dismiss him based on his faith/race is ridiculous.

regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

I happen to think that the police had brains in 1888. The killer did not think so.

I think that was a mistake.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

That reply has nothing to do with the points I raised. or the quote included in the reply, it is normal if a quote is given, for the reply to comment on that quote.
Neither does it have anything to do with excluding Levy.

Obviously no wish to answer those points. I can see that and so can everyone else.

steve