Jacob the Ripper

[MrBarnett]

I’d add to my first post though that Levy’s mother died in May so the house was either empty or more likely occupied by someone else.

I don’t have the book with me at the moment Abby and I’m not good at following genealogy but what I couldn’t understand was that it appeared to me that that Jacob’s father was Hyams brother which would make Hyam his uncle. I’ve obviously misunderstood something though. Someone will be able to explain it. Maybe Gary Barnett might know?

I wouldn’t want to take the thread too far off-topic. It’s about nicknames, isn’t it? ;-)

I wonder whether the tradition of naming first-born children after their parents had something to do with the mucking about with names. I had an uncle Henry, named after his father, who was always called Jim or Jimmy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael. It was taken by Paul Harrison sometime before 1991, maybe further research can confirm whether it's "kosher." Cheers.

Thanks Roger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A slide from Tracy's 2018 conference talk.

JM

Cheers Jon

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wouldn’t want to take the thread too far off-topic. It’s about nicknames, isn’t it? ;-)

I wonder whether the tradition of naming first-born children after their parents had something to do with the mucking about with names. I had an uncle Henry, named after his father, who was always called Jim or Jimmy.

Do you have the book Gary? Looking at the tree posted by Jon I can see that they were cousins - no problem. But when I look at the tree in the book it has Hyam highlighted but only as a sibling of Jacob’s father, Joseph. On the tree posted by Jon, Hyam married Francis to produce our Mitre Square witness.

So to me, and I’m probably missing something, the book tree shows Hyam as the uncle of Jacob (because Hyam is highlighted it gives the impression that he is the MS witness.) But the tree posted by Jon shows the extra line (Hyam’s marriage and son) and that Jacob and the MS are cousins.

So what I’m asking (in this clear-as-mud way) haven’t the authors posted a misleading tree? Shouldn’t that have posted the one that Jon posted above ?

[Abby Normal]

Do you have the book Gary? Looking at the tree posted by Jon I can see that they were cousins - no problem. But when I look at the tree in the book it has Hyam highlighted but only as a sibling of Jacob’s father, Joseph. On the tree posted by Jon, Hyam married Francis to produce our Mitre Square witness.

So to me, and I’m probably missing something, the book tree shows Hyam as the uncle of Jacob (because Hyam is highlighted it gives the impression that he is the MS witness.) But the tree posted by Jon shows the extra line (Hyam’s marriage and son) and that Jacob and the MS are cousins.

So what I’m asking (in this clear-as-mud way) haven’t the authors posted a misleading tree? Shouldn’t that have posted the one that Jon posted above ?

yeah id like to know too. so were they cousins or uncle/nephew? and what is the evidence that they were related based on. we seem to be going backward

[Herlock Sholmes]

yeah id like to know too. so were they cousins or uncle/nephew? and what is the evidence that they were related based on. we seem to be going backward

They appear to have been cousins Abby. It was just that the family tree in the book made it appear (to me) as if they were nephew and uncle. I’m hoping that someone with a better handle on genealogy will be able to comment on the validity of the claim though.

[Abby Normal]

They appear to have been cousins Abby. It was just that the family tree in the book made it appear (to me) as if they were nephew and uncle. I’m hoping that someone with a better handle on genealogy will be able to comment on the validity of the claim though.

thanks herlock. if it can be conclusively shown they were cousins, then i would consider him a valid suspect especially in light of the comment in the paper of his reticence to say anything. amd of course it would finally give him a pretty solid connection to the case.

im surprised how little comment this thread is getting especially since alot of people seem to be interested in him lately.

[Herlock Sholmes]

thanks herlock. if it can be conclusively shown they were cousins, then i would consider him a valid suspect especially in light of the comment in the paper of his reticence to say anything. amd of course it would finally give him a pretty solid connection to the case.

im surprised how little comment this thread is getting especially since alot of people seem to be interested in him lately.

I was thinking the same thing about the lack of comment Abby. I’m wondering how many have bought/read the book?

I intend to re-read the summary section which is basically the case for Levy which is around 47 pages but, put briefly, we have:

A 32 year old man.
A butcher.
Certified insane in 1886 and admitted to Essex Insane Asylum.
’Violence’ mentioned but nothing specific.
Re-admitted to Stone House Asylum in 1890.
Had epilepsy-type attacks.
Alcohol problem.
Died of general paralysis of the insane (syphilis) in 1891.
Lived in Middlesex Street at the time of the murders (yards from Goulston Street)
Knew someone called Kosminski (not Aaron though) - it’s suggested by the authors that he might have used the name.
Related to a witness who was apparently unwilling to identify the man with
Catherine Eddowes

Im sure we can all name ‘suspects’ with far less going for them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for the mention of violence, on his admission to Stone House it said: ‘Feels that if he is not restrained will do some violence to someone.’

Im not keen on there suggestion that it might have been easy to have mistaken ‘juwes’ for ‘Levys’ in the dawn light though. In fairness it’s not a point that they push but more of a passing mention.

They've put a lot of work into this so they deserve credit. This suspect certainly isn’t in the Hardiman, Mann, Bachert category of people simply alive at the time being shoehorned in.

[Abby Normal]

I was thinking the same thing about the lack of comment Abby. I’m wondering how many have bought/read the book?

I intend to re-read the summary section which is basically the case for Levy which is around 47 pages but, put briefly, we have:

A 32 year old man.
A butcher.
Certified insane in 1886 and admitted to Essex Insane Asylum.
’Violence’ mentioned but nothing specific.
Re-admitted to Stone House Asylum in 1890.
Had epilepsy-type attacks.
Alcohol problem.
Died of general paralysis of the insane (syphilis) in 1891.
Lived in Middlesex Street at the time of the murders (yards from Goulston Street)
Knew someone called Kosminski (not Aaron though) - it’s suggested by the authors that he might have used the name.
Related to a witness who was apparently unwilling to identify the man with
Catherine Eddowes

Im sure we can all name ‘suspects’ with far less going for them?

had family member/s that lived in the Wentworth building also, correct?

[Herlock Sholmes]

had family member/s that lived in the Wentworth building also, correct?

Behind it.

His mother was dead by the time of the murders though. The authors suggest the possibility of an empty house as a kind of bolt hole but admit that it was more likely to have been occupied because of the housing situation at the time.

His is brother lived close by his mothers house to and was there at the time of the murders I believe.

The authors have searched but have found no evidence that it was possible to walk through the building and out the back though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just been reading saucyjack.wordpress on Levy.

I don’t know if this is true or not but it says that Robert Anderson’s wife said that the ripper was once detained in an asylum near Stone. Levy was admitted to Stone House Hospital which was in Stone, Kent.

[Scott Nelson]

That came from the late theorist Steward Hicks. His source remains unknown.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Scott.

I noticed from Wolf Vanderlinden’s article that Hyam Hyams had also been detained there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With a new book out I wonder why Tracy I’Anson doesn’t post on here any more?