Why only two threads?

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Wickerman,

Being uncooperative with the press is not the same as being uncooperative with the police.
Dr. Phillips was uncooperative with the press.

Believe it or not, people did view the reporter as a nuisance even back then.

Do does this mean that:

(1) You are not aware Levy the witness was related to this suspect? You didn't read the post right above yours?

(2) You are aware of that, but you choose to ignore it.

(3) You are aware of it, but you are convinced it doesn't matter.

Because I don't understand your post. What does a police surgeon have to do with a civilian witness who may be related to the man he saw that night? What do people's relations with reporters have to do with it?

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Oh it's OK. No answer required, Wickerman. I see what you did. You read the first post of the thread, ignored the part about Levy being related to Levy, and answered on that basis.

Roy

[Ben]

Stop distracting him, Roy - can't you see he's busy with Hutchinson threads?!

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,



Do does this mean that:

(1) You are not aware Levy the witness was related to this suspect? You didn't read the post right above yours?

(2) You are aware of that, but you choose to ignore it.

(3) You are aware of it, but you are convinced it doesn't matter.

Because I don't understand your post. What does a police surgeon have to do with a civilian witness who may be related to the man he saw that night? What do people's relations with reporters have to do with it?

Roy

This is the second time you've jumped in under the wrong assumption.

While you are here, be good enough to show where Levy was uncooperative with the police.
Where do they make this complaint?

This is not a challenge, but you may as well make your presence worthwhile.

[Roy Corduroy]

While you are here, be good enough to show where Levy was uncooperative with the police.
Where do they make this complaint?

Yes I would be happy to answer your question, Wickerman. I know of nowhere the City of London police complained that Joseph Hyam Levy the witness was uncooperative.

And since you've not seen fit to bestow an answer to my question to you, please don't bother yourself in the least bit now. I could care less if you have actually read the thread, or if you are aware of the research TJI and her dad have done. It's much better this way.

Roy

[tji]

Hi Harry

I missed this piece yesterday - apologies.

For me, Joseph Hyam Levy and his evasive behaviour is a serious red flag. There was a distinct impression that he was hiding something, but what?

We can not know if or what he was hiding unfortunately Harry, he may just not have wanted to be a part of a Police investigation.......or he might have seen Jacob with Catherine Eddowes, unfortunately we just don't have enough information to answer with any certainty either way.

I am not sure if you have read the other threads on Jacob, or if you know there is an article on him in the Ripperologist magazine (same info that is on the boards just in one piece.) That is not to say you shouldn't feel like you can't ask questions, feel free, I am always happy to talk about Jacob

Being uncooperative with the press is not the same as being uncooperative with the police.
Dr. Phillips was uncooperative with the press.

Believe it or not, people did view the reporter as a nuisance even back then.

I too am a little unsure of your argument here Wicker, I am not sure of the significance of your point?

[tji]

Hi Harry

I think I know why it may be a little confusing for you, as you are new you probably won't have seen the first thread we made on Jacob.

When we first started our research on Jacob he was just in the other suspects thread so our first thread on him is found in there not in the Jacob Levy thread.

Here is a link to it -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4238

Tracy

[Wickerman]

I too am a little unsure of your argument here Wicker, I am not sure of the significance of your point?

Hi Tracy.

In post No. 1 we are presented with a list of points in support of Levy's candidacy.
Some of the points are, in my opinion, arbitrary (Nos. 2, 3), they could be applied to any number of locals, and some may or may not be relevant (Nos. 1, 4, 5).

So my interest was on No. 6, where the suggestion is made that Levy was being uncooperative with the police (ie; as a witness), and therefore being deceptive, because he had something to hide that concerned him greatly.

I don't see any Inquest testimony that would suggest he was uncooperative, but I think we all know that the Evening News published a story where they complained that Levy was uncooperative with their reporter.
And, this was two days before Levy was required to appear at the Inquest.
So, to my mind, Levy was doing the correct thing in saying nothing to the press, very likely in compliance with a request from police.

Therefore, point No. 6 (post 1), that Levy was being deceptive because he was overly concerned about the family relationship, is based on a false premise.

Levy was not an uncooperative witness, just uncooperative with the press, prior to his appearance at the Inquest.

[tji]

Hi Wicker

Some of the points are, in my opinion, arbitrary (Nos. 2, 3), they could be applied to any number of locals, and some may or may not be relevant (Nos. 1, 4, 5).

Not sure why you think 2 and 3 are arbitrary to be honest, they don't fit into the all the suspects of the time, therefore they do need to be pointed out.

As for 1, 4 and 5 not being relevant I am not really sure how to answer that, besides to ask what type of suspect you are looking for - According to your post he must have to be a stranger to the area, but has knowledge of the patrols, be perfectly sane but can almost decapitate and disembowel women as soon as look at them. Have no knowledge of knives but be able to cut up and dissect women in a short amount of time?

So my interest was on No. 6, where the suggestion is made that Levy was being uncooperative with the police (ie; as a witness), and therefore being deceptive, because he had something to hide that concerned him greatly.

Well in Harry's defense he never mentioned being the Police in No 6 post. He was just questioning the circumstances between Joseph and Jacob.

Therefore, point No. 6 (post 1), that Levy was being deceptive because he was overly concerned about the family relationship, is based on a false premise.

Well, without being pedantic, yeah it is, the false premise you put forward as Harry stating something he didn't.
However I will state that I disagree with your assumption, I think there is a high chance that Joseph would have some reluctance.

Levy was not an uncooperative witness, just uncooperative with the press, prior to his appearance at the Inquest.

[/QUOTE]

You can't state this as fact Wicker, only assume it.

Tracy

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker
Not sure why you think 2 and 3 are arbitrary to be honest, they don't fit into the all the suspects of the time, therefore they do need to be pointed out.
.
.
As for 1, 4 and 5 not being relevant I am not really sure how to answer that, besides to ask what type of suspect you are looking for ...

Hi Tracy.
I'm not taking issue with 1-5, similar lists have been offered in connection with various suspects. They may or may not be relevant, and yes, at the end of the day Levy may be the one.
And so may any of the others much debated on these boards. I don't see Levy as being more likely, just as likely.

According to your post he must have to be a stranger to the area, but has knowledge of the patrols, be perfectly sane but can almost decapitate and disembowel women as soon as look at them. Have no knowledge of knives but be able to cut up and dissect women in a short amount of time?

Oh no, he doesn't 'need' to be an outsider, I see no reason to think he was, and the prostitutes knew the patrols, it was in their best interest to do so. The killer had no need to.
This point was observed at the time, that the victims are willing accomplices in their own demise.
As for being sane or insane, a contemporary quote provides my thoughts in a nutshell:

"The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

Well in Harry's defense he never mentioned being the Police in No 6 post. He was just questioning the circumstances between Joseph and Jacob.

And quite possibly Harry did not mean to write "witness", which strictly speaking suggests, "in his role as a witness", therefore in discussions with police or at the inquest.

There is little value for the theory in someone being uncooperative with the press, many people snubbed the reporter, that in itself suggests nothing.
Though, if Levy had been uncooperative with the police, that would cause concern, and I think the list was created to shows points of concern.

[Roy Corduroy]

City of London Police

While you are here, be good enough to show where Levy was uncooperative with the police.
Where do they make this complaint?

I told you, nowhere.

So, to my mind, Levy was doing the correct thing in saying nothing to the press, very likely in compliance with a request from police.

So you show me, where do the police make this request?

Roy

[tji]

Hi Wicker

I'm not taking issue with 1-5, similar lists have been offered in connection with various suspects. They may or may not be relevant, and yes, at the end of the day Levy may be the one.
And so may any of the others much debated on these boards. I don't see Levy as being more likely, just as likely.

I can't see how you can say that Wicker, you are saying that Jacob is no better a suspect as Tumbelty or Prince Albert or Gull to name but a few? I definitely think he is more likely than those and most other suspects.

Oh no, he doesn't 'need' to be an outsider, I see no reason to think he was, and the prostitutes knew the patrols, it was in their best interest to do so. The killer had no need to.

Again I disagree, the fact that the prostitutes were dead would not have helped him escape, I think they would be a little unwilling to go with him if he quizzed them about the best way to escape after killing them!!

This point was observed at the time, that the victims are willing accomplices in their own demise.

Yes I don't disagree with this, unfortunately the type of work prostitutes do means that they are high risk for many things.

As for being sane or insane, a contemporary quote provides my thoughts in a nutshell:

"The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

Yes but the point that has been made with Jacob is that in 1888 Jacob probably wasn't completely insane, he would be feeling the effects of the tertiary syphilis but he would have had lucid periods, he still had a few year until it killed him - time line normally shows around 5 years - the onset being 1885/6 when he was first arrested and imprisoned. It was downhill form there on but he should have still been functional in 1888. In my older posts or the article I have posted a more indepth description of this.

And quite possibly Harry did not mean to write "witness", which strictly speaking suggests, "in his role as a witness", therefore in discussions with police or at the inquest.

No, I meant you assumed Harry was on about the Police witness when he never specified Police or Reporter. I was pointing out you were stating a false premise on an assumption.

Tracy

[Wickerman]

Again I disagree, the fact that the prostitutes were dead would not have helped him escape,

He didn't need any help to escape. It is well accepted that the killer had to have been seen on the streets, quite simply no-one knew what the man who just passed them had done.

Why do you think he needs help to escape?

[Wickerman]

So you show me, where do the police make this request?

Roy

In the same paragraph we read, regarding Lawende (Levander), "having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy".
Harris then claims the other two know no more than he does but he is also telling the press nothing of value, and Levy being obstinate. Followed by reference being made to the police "imposing their idiotic secrecy".

As I said, "very likely", all are complying to the same police request.

[Roy Corduroy]

In the same paragraph we read, regarding Lawende (Levander), "having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy".
Harris then claims the other two know no more than he does but he is also telling the press nothing of value, and Levy being obstinate. Followed by reference being made to the police "imposing their idiotic secrecy".

As I said, "very likely", all are complying to the same police request.

Okay, thanks, Jon. So you find it very likely a blanket request for secrecy made to all three witnesses made by the City of London Police. Here's the entire paragraph, The Evening News Oct 9 -

In Deeke (sic) street, opposite Mitre square, there is a club called the Imperial, the members of which are exclusively Jews. On the Sunday morning of the murder, between 1.30 and 1.40, three of the members named respectively Joseph Levy, butcher, 1 Middlesex street, Aldgate; Joseph Levander, commercial traveller in or manufacturer of cigarettes, whose business premises are in St. Mary Axe, corner of Bury street; and Mr. Henry Harris, furniture dealer, of Castle street, Whitechapel, left the club. They then noticed a couple - man and woman - standing by the iron post of the small passage that leads to Mitre square. They have no doubt themselves that this was the murdered woman and her murderer. And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about. One of the two detectives is Foster. Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man. Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air. The fact remains, however, that the police, in imposing their idiotic secrecy, have a allowed a certain time to elapse before making the partial description these three witnesses have been able to give public, and thus prevent others from acting upon the information in the event of the murderer coming under their notice.

It is Lawende alone who is sequestered and has a secrecy pledge imposed, according to this report. You have decontextualized "idiotic secrecy" to mean something it doesn't. It refers to the police not releasing the descriptions to the public via the press. A scoop denied them by the blue meanies. Harris and Levy are obviously available for the interview, but Mr. Levy in particular is being obstinate. He seems not to relish the whole experience in the least bit.

That's how I read it anyway,

Roy