Jacob Levy

[Errata]

Okay. I would challenge some of these things thusly. And by challenge, I mean ask questions..

I would agree that the Ripper was comfortable with a knife, but I would say that he was not that comfortable with a long knife. Most Butchers would be able to use a long knife with ridiculous ease. Jack appears to have some problems. Do you disagree? Do you think that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for some of the problems he had?

I would say that anyone suffering from Neurosyphilis would be a poor candidate. The first symptoms are tremors and loss of balance. So I would be leery of attributing murders to a man whose paranoia and delusions came from neurosyphilis. Someone who suffered from them before the onset of tertiary syphilis is a better bet. Which Levy evidently did. But mental illness follows a set of rules. If he wasn't violent and delusional in the asylum, say he was simply grandiose, but was with the onset of neurosyphilis, then I would say that mental illness should be taken off the table as a factor. If delusion is a factor, and he wasn't delusional until his brain had deteriorated to the point where he would have had problems holding onto a glass of water, then delusion can't be a factor. If that makes sense. So then I would want to know if delusion has to be a factor. Could it be simple revenge? Could he be like a majority of serial killers who have no particular mental illness, certainly no spectacular symptoms other than murdering people, they just engage in ragingly inappropriate behavior in pursuit of a goal? Could Levy simply be a serial killer without being a mentally ill serial killer? And if so, what would tell us that?

Violent is an extremely subjective term. And we all use it rather loosely. I would never consider a mental patient who fought off orderlies to be violent. I would consider him to be very scared. Now a mental patient who hid in another patients shower and then beat the crap out him while laughing, that I would consider violent. A guy who gets in fights isn't necessarily violent, but he could be. A guy who beats his wife is violent, even if he never lays a hand on anyone else. So there's a lot of grey. What do you consider violent? What did an asylum consider violent? Who in Levy's life deemed him violent, and how far did it go? Was he generally violent? Was he just stubborn so he never backed down from a challenge? Was he frightened? Was he angry? Did he prey on the powerless?

And I ask these questions because I think they make a difference. There could be many reasons, many ways Levy could be the Ripper, I just want to hear what they are. With most suspects there is a very obvious reason they are a suspect (Klosowski for instance) and mostly an equally obvious reason why they probably aren't the Ripper. I will never accept Kosminski as a legitimate suspect, because the reason he is seen as a suspect is the reason he can't be one. He was a very sick man. Levy is different. In my heart I shy away from the idea that someone could be a suspect because they were Jewish, or because they were mentally ill. I don't think that's a good enough reason to build a case against someone. I can't be academically honest without admitting that. But I also know that Jack could have been a Jew. Could have been mentally ill. But I want to know the whys. And I want to know what place the case is coming from. If someone thinks it's Levy because they think Jack had to be a Jew, that's not good enough. Or if they think it's Levy because of the old wives tale about children with congenital syphilis coming out of the womb with death masks. Also not good enough. And I won't lie. Sometimes this gets personal for me. Sometimes I find it hurtful. And there is no place for that here. But more than that, I think that when we are talking about real people, we owe them the courtesy of not building a case against them based on assumptions and half truths. And some people do exactly that. I want to hear reasoned arguments. TJI has a reasoned argument, and even if I don't think in the end that it makes Levy a killer, I accept the logic of the argument. I have no problem with it. I have a problem with theories that pay no attention to the timeline of syphilis, that do not even remotely accurately represent mental illness, or are drawn up for the sole purpose of proving some long dead cop right. I think if we have the balls to say that someone could have been the Ripper, then we should have the balls to expose our reasons, our feelings, and our prejudices.

And now I'm getting both preachy and whiny, and really I just want a good, logical discussion.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Oh, one more.

Middlesex Street. On every geoprofile map(I know, I know)I've seen Middlesex is a hot spot. Not ever the hottest, but still. And it isn't ever mentioned for some reason. FBI profile(again, I know, I know) number 3 for occupation is butcher. Just throwing some stuffs out there to be torn assunder.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Erata. Scott if I may?

Cousin a winess who may have spotted "JTR". Brother lived in dwellings where apron was discovered. Not gonna go into GSG. I find the latter more interesting of the two. Now look at them in conjunction. Lied, GSG a message to JHL. Or threat/warning. Admission even maybe. Pure speculation. Something along those lines for me presently. Butcher I think is a big one. The murderer of at least some of these women was comfortable with a knife. Very comfortable. IMO.

[Scott Nelson]

Skilled use of a knife
Suicidal
Classed as insane, delusional
Violent
Mother died a couple of months before killings started
Brother committed suicide
Had criminal record, thief.
Lived in the heart of Whitechapel -- Middlesex St.

Not to say all serial killers have these traits/circumstances.

He's a pretty good suspect.

request: see if he knew George Bolam (cow keeper) or John Levy (cigar dealer)

[Errata]

Lets play a game.

Let's say that Levy did not have syphilis. Or that he did but accepted in the ways millions of others did. And let's say he had a mental illness that doesn't result in delusions, paranoia or violence. Say, severe depression.

We know his cousin (I thought he was his father's cousin, but in the end I don't think it matters) was unwilling to testify. We know Levy had a record of theft.

What makes this man a serial killer? Take away the two common notions about motive. What in his life points to this being a possibility? What warning signs are there? What puts this guy on your radar?

This isn't about right and wrong. We all to a certain extent rely on gut when combing through suspects.

So for example, nothing really puts this guy on my radar. The only thing that could have was the reaction of his cousin. But then I had to ask myself why he would protect his cousin (who was a disgrace) or why he would be afraid of him, and I couldn't come up with anything. I can say that if Levy had beaten the crap out of his cousin the guy's whole life then sure, but there isn't evidence of that. Basically, I never saw anything that made me think this guy was in any way special enough to make me think he could be a serial killer. Without a revenge motive or insanity, I can't find something to make him stand out from the hundreds of other guys in his neighborhood.

Clearly other people have read things that make them think this guy was or could have been a killer. But what I want to know is what makes this guy feel "off" to you. What pings your radar? There is something about this guy that people think is not right. I want to know what it is. I want to know why your gut reacts when mine doesn't.

[tji]

Hi Abby

Dave is correct it was in Ripperologist 124.

Hi Greg

Thanks for the kind words and yes I am hoping to post up a summary of the asylum records sometime over the next few days. I know I said I would do it before and I apologize unfortunately things got in the way.

Hi Digger

Lol me too

[tji]

Hi Errata

That is fair enough, money is tight for a lot of us and I certainly didn't mean to infer people had to read the article to understand Jacob, the majority of the information is on the boards it is just a lot more concise in the article.

And I don't mean to sound short in return, but I don't think you understand some pretty basic things. If I ask a question, it's because I don't know the answer. It's not a set up. I don't know the answer. So if you want to get huffy about my not reading an article you published, that's fine. But you also have the option of just answering the question. Even if you've answered it before. It isn't that I didn't "bother" to read it. It's that I am not in a position to read it.

Yes Eratta I do understand the basic things, we have put information onto the boards numerous time with regards to Jacob, some with accounts from the time and yet you still try and tell us it is wrong.
It is stated in his medical records, from a Doctor of the time, who I would assume treat numerous syphilis victims, that he died from syphilis and yet you still tell us it is wrong.

Numerous times we have corrected you on your take of Jacob's syphilis and yet you still say he isn't a good suspect based on your fact....your facts not the ones we have researched.

I am not huffy about you not reading the article - your choice - but I believe if you are going to question everything you would want to be sure you knew as much about it as the person who wrote it, but maybe that is just me.

Of course we don't mind people asking us questions or even questioning our theories, but when the same person questions us on the same things numerous times when we have answered numerous times it gets a little old.

And here is the other basic thing I don't think you understand.

Wow I don't seem to understand a lot here do I?

There are a lot of assumptions made about every suspect, or even what the Ripper "had" to be like that frankly are crap. Millions of people had syphilis. Why was this the only guy killing in revenge? Less than 2% of the mentally ill population are ever violent. About 15% of the sane population are. Why is Jack mentally ill? There are preconceptions I object to. Now if Jacob Levy is the Ripper, then I assume there are reasons other than a possible syphilitic infection and a mental illness. What I object to is the idea that he HAS to be the Ripper because he was in an asylum and died of syphilis. As if the Ripper HAD to have syphilis and HAD to be crazy. I assume you have a well reasoned theory on Levy that relies on far more than assumptions about crazy people and sexually transmitted diseases. I'm fine with that. What I am not fine with is theories that rely on nothing but that. Because we both know that's nowhere near enough.

Yet again something that we have answered before, we haven't put Jacob forward because he had syphilis, our initial interest was because he may have been related to Joseph. The syphilis find came later. If you had read the post Greg did a few pages back you would see some of the reasons he interests people. The fact that he had syphilis AND died in an asylum are bonuses. (well, obviously not for poor Jacob )

So as we do have a well reasoned theory that relies on more than assumptions I don't see the problem?

Because I challenge an assumption based on rumor and misinformation does not mean that a: that the suspect is innocent and b: that I'm challenging YOU. It means I'm challenging false preconceptions. Don't tell me Jack was crazy, this guy was crazy, ergo this guy was Jack. Tell me why Jack was crazy. Tell me why this crazy guy bucks the odds and becomes a killer. Give me something more than grossly incorrect assumptions on mental illness. In other words, give me something specific. YOU can do that, I assume. Many others can't. And if they can't then their assumptions deserve to be challenged, even if they end up being correct.

[/QUOTE]

I don't take it personally if people question Jacob's validity as Jack, it is what make people good researches, what I do take personally is when they question our research. Question the fact that Jacob is Jack, but question the fact that he had syphilis over and over when asylum records show he had it and died from it seems a little redundant.

Tracy

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo!

I think the most compelling aspect of any of this is that his brother lived where the apron was found. I have always thought the most likely way it got there was that the murderer deposited it there. Thanks for all the hard work. I've been waiting on it. Hope you gots lots more to come in the future.

[Cogidubnus]

Levy in Rip

It was in Ripperologist 124 I believe

All the best

Dave

[GregBaron]

Sorry it flew into a black hole...

Hi Greg and tji
I agree. Great article and I am going to go back and read again. What issue was that in again?

Can't help you there Abby, I had a laptop blow up a while back, but I expect tji or Jimi or one of our fine Ripper editors can point you to the source..

It's been a while, seems like a year or two...


Greg

[Abby Normal]

Thanks tji....I think you and your colleagues have done a great job with
your Jacob research. I hope more is forthcoming...........I'm very happy
to use Abby's term here, a very intriguing fellow (VIF) indeed...



Your all's Ripperologist article should be required reading by all on this thread..
A real doozy that one...


Greg

Hi Greg and tji
I agree. Great article and I am going to go back and read again. What issue was that in again?

[Errata]

I don't mean to sound short Eratta but did you ever bother to read the article we wrote on Jacob?

No I didn't. I don't subscribe to the newsletters, and the articles are not published here on the site. My money has to go to other things. Every penny. And I don't mean to sound short in return, but I don't think you understand some pretty basic things. If I ask a question, it's because I don't know the answer. It's not a set up. I don't know the answer. So if you want to get huffy about my not reading an article you published, that's fine. But you also have the option of just answering the question. Even if you've answered it before. It isn't that I didn't "bother" to read it. It's that I am not in a position to read it.

And here is the other basic thing I don't think you understand. There are a lot of assumptions made about every suspect, or even what the Ripper "had" to be like that frankly are crap. Millions of people had syphilis. Why was this the only guy killing in revenge? Less than 2% of the mentally ill population are ever violent. About 15% of the sane population are. Why is Jack mentally ill? There are preconceptions I object to. Now if Jacob Levy is the Ripper, then I assume there are reasons other than a possible syphilitic infection and a mental illness. What I object to is the idea that he HAS to be the Ripper because he was in an asylum and died of syphilis. As if the Ripper HAD to have syphilis and HAD to be crazy. I assume you have a well reasoned theory on Levy that relies on far more than assumptions about crazy people and sexually transmitted diseases. I'm fine with that. What I am not fine with is theories that rely on nothing but that. Because we both know that's nowhere near enough.

Because I challenge an assumption based on rumor and misinformation does not mean that a: that the suspect is innocent and b: that I'm challenging YOU. It means I'm challenging false preconceptions. Don't tell me Jack was crazy, this guy was crazy, ergo this guy was Jack. Tell me why Jack was crazy. Tell me why this crazy guy bucks the odds and becomes a killer. Give me something more than grossly incorrect assumptions on mental illness. In other words, give me something specific. YOU can do that, I assume. Many others can't. And if they can't then their assumptions deserve to be challenged, even if they end up being correct.

[GregBaron]

Solid VIF...

Great post Greg, I agree, if we had solid information on a suspect then we would have 'solved the case' years ago

Thanks tji....I think you and your colleagues have done a great job with
your Jacob research. I hope more is forthcoming...........I'm very happy
to use Abby's term here, a very intriguing fellow (VIF) indeed...

I don't mean to sound short Eratta but did you ever bother to read the article we wrote on Jacob?

Your all's Ripperologist article should be required reading by all on this thread..
A real doozy that one...


Greg

[lynn cates]

L A

Hello TJ. Thanks. Hope you are well also.

"Yeah this is just another tease when it comes to Jacob, so near.......yet so far.
Butcher's Row is along the bottom of Middlesex Street."

Indeed. And I still place a good bit of faith in the wandering "Leather Apron" tale.

Cheers.
LC

[tji]

While this seems quite reasonable Abby the problem is there are no valid suspects....there's a few conflicting and contradictory names thrown about by supposed authorities......there's a few conflicting and contradictory descriptions uttered by unreliable witnesses...............

We've got nothing.......zero.....nada...zilch....again if you want to only allow the word suspect to names mentioned by authorities I suppose you could argue that.........but my view is that the perp or perps are probably none of the above...........there is no solid connection of anyone to the crimes.................therefore deciding who is a suspect versus a person of interest is a zero sum game in my view...

Greg

Great post Greg, I agree, if we had solid information on a suspect then we would have 'solved the case' years ago

Indeed. I have wondered whether he were either Sagar or Cox's man. And it would make more sense for the City CID to watch him instead of the alternative.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, how's you?

Yeah this is just another tease when it comes to Jacob, so near.......yet so far.
Butcher's Row is along the bottom of Middlesex Street.

Hi Abby

(mucked up the quote box sorry)

We have never stated Jacob was a suspect because he was a crazy Jew, that is not our aim, we say he is a suspect because of all the points he has against (some kindly labelled by Greg on his previous post)


Hi Paddy

Just had a quick glance and found a tree that has Mordicai (isaac) Levy and Sarah his wife and family.
Children stated as Hyam 1810
Esther 1814
Elias 1816
Moss 1818
Joseph 1822
Elizabeth 1826

All born at Aldgate St Botolph Middlesex.
So Joseph Hyam Levy could likely have been Jacobs uncle......
As there are no source records and I have not found any yet, it would have to be verified. But looks highly likely..
Pat...

Some great research here, however this is actually an incorrect tree, that has been posted about, these are actually 2 seperate names/people.

Mordecai Levy did actually marry a Sarah Levy who was born around 1777 but this is not our Sarah. I believe this Mordecai is actually a baker. (this is from memory so apologies if not 100% correct)

Our family is Isaac Levy who married Sarah Levy born 1777 Amsterdam,
The children are the correct ones. There are 2 threads Jacob the ripper? and Jacob updated that have the information in the suspects thread.

I kinda think the notion of him killing Eddowes and going home to deposit his spoils then going the next street over and leaving the apron and GSG as a warning to cousin or maybe brother. Someone suggested before that the message may have been directed at a specific individual. Interesting indeed.

Hi Digger

Well complete hypothesis on my part but a fun fact (that have yet to corroborate) Hyam Sampson, who was the person Jacob stole from in 1886, owned a butcher's in Wentworth Street prior to this. The area the GSG is in would be round the area where Hyam's butchers shop was.