change in modus operandi

[babybird67]

podcast

I've been listening to the podcast on this topic...extremely interesting.

Wouldn't it be interesting to find some Polish records pinning SevK down to an area and to perhaps examine what crimes were around him as such. If it could be established that he had killed anyone else in a similar manner to the Ripper/Torso/poisoning murders, would that strengthen the case for him as Ripper? I would imagine so.

What argues the case so persuasively for me, is that he IS a serial killer, a really nasty piece of work...some of the other suspects are just "in the area", or other circumstantial evidence. I dont know how common murder is, but serial murder must be even less common, so to find a suspect who is a known serial killer of women, who threatened to cut off his wife's head, who was geographically close to suspicious murders throughout his known lifetime, who had the medical knowledge that some commentators believe the Ripper would have had in reference to the Rippings...i dont know but for me all these elements add up to a very persuasive case. I dont have any problem at all with the differing MO...i think SevK would have had no problem varying his MO to suit his particular circumstances. From my (limited) reading, it was more the element of control of his own reality that motivated him, and such control would have been present in any of the murders...for me, the element of control would have been GREATER in relation to the poisonings, since he was orchestrating every single move to the point where he was his wife's murderer and yet regarded by those around him as a thoroughly nice chap and devoted husband...i can imagine him experiencing the utmost pleasure and pride at his skills in bringing that about.

bb x

(well done to those of you on the podcast...so nice to put voices to names!)

[Sam Flynn]

On the matter of the 24 Cranbrook Street address

... it has another thread, Nats. Best not carry on with either the 54 Cranbrook Street discussion, or "la di da" for that matter, on a "Change in MO" thread. (It's only just occurred to me that we're way off topic )

[Natalie Severn]

I love the song you posted Sam,so thanks for that and I confess I had never heard of it and certainly it does give quite a different slant to the phrase than current usage does.But seriously Sam,when you are so consistent at finding a spanner to throw in the works whenever a discussion begins about Klosowski or whenever the slightest point is made about him,it can serve to stifle and divert discussion rather than progress it.What is needed concerning Klosowski is the gathering together of more factual information particularly with regard to how as a newly arrived immigrant,he came to be able to afford a lease for the Barber shop of which he was the manager/proprietor at the 126 Cable Street address in 1888/89.Something must have convinced the owner of the premises or the estate agents who managed the property that he could afford it.I hope in time we can unearth some of these transactions and find out who paid out what etc On the matter of the 24 Cranbrook Street address , surely we dont need just to dismiss it as being a first UK address -----but rather check the whole matter out more thoroughly ?

[Sam Flynn]

With respect Sam,Levishon did not say,as you write immediately above," He became the," la di da" .

I was paraphrasing in order to draw out the meaning a little more clearly. I never said that Levisohn used those words, and I thought that would have been obvious from the fact that I prefixed it with "The import is quite clear", rather than "Levisohn said precisely this".

As I've said (too) many times now, and have demonstrated as much using original (unexpurgated) sources, that when he made his "La di da" comment, Levisohn was responding to a specific question about his meeting with Klosowski in 1894.

In ordinary English usage "La di Da" is a term used to describe someone trying to SPEAK " POSH" its not about how you have dressed yourself or what you are wearing.

Not then, Nats - heck, I've even given the lyrics to the song that popularised the phrase in the 1880s. At that time, being "la di da" had nothing to do with speaking posh, but everything to do with poorer people giving an impression of sophistication by means of their dress (hence "Zagowski's" patent leather boots and high hat).

Here are the original verses to the chorus I posted earlier:

Let me introduce a fellah, La-di-dah!
A fellah who's a swell-ah, La-di-dah!
As he saunter through the street,
He is just too awful sweet,
To observe him is a treat,
Though of cash he lacks complete, La-di-dah!

His shirt is very tricky, La-di-dah!
It's a pair of cuffs and dickey, La-di-dah!
His shoes are patent leather,
But they never stand the weather
For they're paper glued together,
Yes they're paper stuck together, La-di-dah!

His bogus diamonds glitter, La-di-dah!
But the girls all smile and titter, La-di-dah!
If he stays out late at night,
And comes home rather tight,
But his luncheon's very light,
That old city-swell so slight, La-di-dah!

[Malcolm X]

we need to see exactly what was said in court NATALIE, posted up here

because i have no idea what Sam is refering too, he's got other info that's not available to us and definitely not available to Sugden, unless Sugden has misinterpreted what's been said....either by bias or by mistake!

whatever the case you will have trouble linking Chapman to Kelly, because Hutch's statement is rubbish and i have never heard a convincing arguemt in its favour.... there are lots of reasons to explain it yes; but never one that has captured my attention!

as time passes i'm noticing flaws in Sugden's once great book..... it needs updating with recent developments, and the biggest of these is:- Hutch is lieing about seeing Kelly/la di da. .... and the second is maybe Fleming!

HUTCH's lies are almost a book in itself, it would run to at least 200 pages....including everything else...sorry i'm going off topic yet again..

[Natalie Severn]

With respect, it isn't, Nats. The excerpt I posted demonstrates quite clearly that Levisohn was asked to comment on what Klosowski looked like when he saw him in 1894.

"You saw him in Tottenham? What kind of a man was he?"

"He was 'la de da' then..."

The line of questioning was necessary to ensure that Levisohn had the right man - he knew Klosowski as "Ludwig Zagowski", remember - which puts the "he has not changed a bit" comment in its proper context. The import is quite clear: "Even though he used a different name, I am confident it is him because he became the 'la de da' I saw in 1894, and that's him in the dock".

With respect Sam,Levishon did not say,as you write immediately above," He became the," la di da" .This changes its meaning entirely.If I remember correctly Levishon had been asked about Severin"s LINGUISTIC SKILLS during these interrogations.You and I have had several discussions about whether or not Levishon as his Polish speaking compatriot,would have been able to "assess" Severin"s command of English since they would almost certainly have been speaking Polish together-their mother tongues ,when the met up in England after knowing each other in Warsaw.In ordinary English usage "La di Da" is a term used to describe someone trying to SPEAK " POSH" its not about how you have dressed yourself or what you are wearing.

[Malcolm X]

yes maybe Sugden got his information wrong...but the trouble is i cant comment fully without seeing all of the court records, which i dont have.

whatever the case, Hutch's statement is a load of rubbish anyway; so there you go.

[Sam Flynn]

i dont agree, he sais in court ````there he sits, he has not altered since he came to England, the same la di da and umbrella``

... but I've given you the direct quote. The passage you cite comes from Adam's Introduction to his book - the selfsame Introduction that gave us the confusing account of the mysterious "Polish wife" and the (almost certainly spurious) story about Abberline's telling Godley "You've got Jack the Ripper at last!".

Apropos the "high hat and umbrella" episode, it's perhaps unfortunate that Sugden chose to latch onto this passage, and it seems to have been taken out of context ever since. Reading the line of questioning taken at the Police Court, however, one clearly sees that Levisohn was responding to a direct question about what Klosowski was like when he saw him at Tottenham in 1894.

Stanislaus Baderski's evidence, at the same hearing, bears this out: "[Baderski] had not seen the accused from [1892] until he saw him in the dock - an interval of ten years. The accused had not changed in appearance."

Incidentally, the expression "La-di-da", it seems to have taken off after it had been popularised by the Music Hall singer, Nelly Power, in the 1880s:

He wears a penny flower in his coat, La-di-da!
And a penny paper collar round his throat, La-di-da!
In his hand a penny stick,
In his tooth a penny pick,
And a penny in his pocket, La-di-da!

... not that it has much to do with the price of fish, but I thought you might find it interesting.

[Malcolm X]

i dont agree, he sais in court ````there he sits, he has not altered since he came to England, the same la di da and umbrella``...Levishon first saw Chapman back in 1890....he's refering to 1980 and not 1894 .....Sugden goes on to say ``but by 1890 he had already cultivated a taste for fastidious dressing, complete with......``..according Levishon's testimony Chapman was calling himseld Zagowski back in 1890, so Levishon is refering to 1890, when he sais in court that he hasn't changesd at all, the same LA DI DA

i'm not happy about this at all Sam !

[Sam Flynn]

Nontheless, Sam, the impression one gets from the arrangement of word order by Levishon,is that Chapman has always "looked" exactly the same.

With respect, it isn't, Nats. The excerpt I posted demonstrates quite clearly that Levisohn was asked to comment on what Klosowski looked like when he saw him in 1894.

"You saw him in Tottenham? What kind of a man was he?"

"He was 'la de da' then..."

The line of questioning was necessary to ensure that Levisohn had the right man - he knew Klosowski as "Ludwig Zagowski", remember - which puts the "he has not changed a bit" comment in its proper context. The import is quite clear: "Even though he used a different name, I am confident it is him because he became the 'la de da' I saw in 1894, and that's him in the dock".

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

I think the salient point is that there's no evidence that Klowoski dressed - or even could dress - "La di da" in 1888.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Nontheless, Sam, the impression one gets from the arrangement of word order by Levishon,is that Chapman has always "looked" exactly the same and indeed this does seem to be born out by the fact that in a photo taken in 1901 when he had just married the teenage Maud Marsh and was wearing smart tailored suit and tails complete with black tie and a carnation in his lapel, he was approaching 40,yet he looks younger than he did in the photo of him wearing the sailor cap ,taken several years previously, with Bessie Taylor.
The "la di da" would surely have been in reference to his use of the English language ,since "la di da" actually means: "pretending to a higher social position than one actually is BY USE OF unnaturally delicate manners,ways of speaking---------
Longmans Dictionary.

[Sam Flynn]

ok thanks, this does not tally with Sugden does it Sam, page 442, ``there he sits, he has not altered since he came to England, the same la di da and umbrella``

After answering questions about his earlier meetings (in the late 1880s) with Klosowski, Levisohn moves on to detail his seeing him in Tottenham, much later. He is questioned specifically about this meeting:

Q: You saw him in Tottenham? What kind of a man was he?

A: He was 'la de da' then, with black coat, high hat and patent boots. There he sits. He has not changed a bit. He has not a grey hair on his head.



... I reiterate that Levisohn said: "he was a la de da then" (this was 1894, remember). There's no mention of an umbrella, and the phrase "he has not altered since he came to England" does not get used, either. And Jon's quite right - I'm quoting the transcript of the Police Court hearing as printed in HL Adam.

[jmenges]

Not speaking for Gareth, but I believe his source would be H.L. Adam's Notable British Trials Series The Trial of George Chapman, rather than Sugden.

JM

[Malcolm X]

... that Wolf Levisohn says, of meeting Klosowski again in Tottenham (North London) in 1894: "Oh, he was 'la di da' then". NB, "he was la di da then". Levisohn is telling us that Klosowski's appearance had made quite an improvement since he'd first met him in East London in the late 1880s.

ok thanks, but this does not tally with Sugden does it Sam, page 442, ``there he sits, he has not altered since he came to England, the same la di da and umbrella`` but this Levisohn didn't know Chapman till 1890, which is more than a year later...............uuuumm

this Levishohn is not telling us that Chapman had made quite an improvement since he first met him, because at the trial, he's telling us that chapman looked exactly the same in 1890......even his hair!

can you please confirm your source, because he could've been saying ``he was LA DI DA back then``....thanks