Why only two threads?

[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 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

[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?

[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

[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.

[Ben]

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

[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

[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

[Wickerman]

Joseph Hyam Levy was an uncooperative witness described as having something to hide. Possibly because the person he saw on the night in question was his relation?

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.

[tji]

Hey Harry

Yes we do. Joseph Hyam Levy's father (Hyam Levy) and Jacob's father (Joseph Levy) were brother's, their parents being Isaac and Sarah Levy of 36 Middlesex Street.

Tracy

[Harry D]

Hello Tracy,

Thanks a lot for your input!

The fact the he was cousin to Joseph Hyam Levy I think is a great connection...

Do we know this for a fact?

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?

[tji]

Hi Dvv

I'm pretty confident that Lawende and Schwartz have seen the same individual. As for Smith, Brown and Marshall, one of them, at least, has possibly described JtR.

I really don't want to turn this into another dissection of witnesses thread, and just to show I am not saying that cos I can't beat your argument I will admit that I just don't know enough about the witnesses to be confident in challenging your argument.

I always think witness statements should of course be noted but be used in conjunction with other evidence. Humans are so unpredictable in what we believe we see or hear.

Regarding the Anderson theory, bear in mind that for the people of 1888, Jewish or not, JtR was the ultimate monster, a creature that nobody would have protected.

Yes but it wan't just one person that they would have felt needed protecting, it was the Jewish community as a whole. They already suffered prejudice etc then the Lipski case had everyone up in arms. Don't forget the reason the graffiti was wiped off was because of the worry of riots, that is just writing on a wall. What would happen if an actual person was put forward?

That is a lot for another Jewish person to contemplate being the cause of. I am not saying they would not have come forward, I am saying I would think they would want to be 100% certain before bringing all that down on the community as a whole.

Tracy

[tji]

Hi Sam/Brenda

I don't think Jack was a drooling imbecile roaming the streets but I also don't think he would have functioned normal in society. I personally would be very surprised anyone could mutilate a body like they did Mary Kelly and be normal afterwards.

Jacob in 1888 would have been feeling the affects of the syphilis mentally and physically I would imagine but not to the extent that he couldn't function or converse yet.

Tracy

[DVV]

Hi Tracy,

I'm pretty confident that Lawende and Schwartz have seen the same individual. As for Smith, Brown and Marshall, one of them, at least, has possibly described JtR.

Regarding the Anderson theory, bear in mind that for the people of 1888, Jewish or not, JtR was the ultimate monster, a creature that nobody would have protected.

Cheers

[Brenda]

I'd wager that the Ripper was in full possession of his mental faculties and, to all intents and purposes, entirely "normal" in his demeanour.

I am in agreement with you, Sam.

I also don't believe the theory of the Ripper's mind completely imploding after the murder series. Whoever he was, the Ripper was a sociopath and I doubt the murders ever even made a scratch at his conscience. I think he was just "fine" afterwards.