special k and George yard

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello everyone.

I'm not going to comment on the meat of the arguments here because I have said everything in my book.

I've just popped in to register my dismay at seeing the names and spellings that were established after a great deal of painstaking research on my part being misspelled on this thread.

"Stanislaus" is not a Polish name and it's not a female name, either.

Lucy Baderska's siblings were Stanisław Baderski and Stanisława Rauch (nee Baderska). I also see reference to a Mrs Baderska. The only Mrs Baderska was Stanisław Baderski's wife, Władysława. Is that the person who is being cited?

There is nobody in this story called "George Sterman". The barber who worked with Kłosowski was George Schumann.

There is nobody in this story called "Haddin". The barber in Tottenham that Kłosowski worked for was John Haddon.

All this information is available in the biographical index at the end of my book.

Thank you all very much for resurrecting my pet suspect and I look forward to a flurry of book orders in due course ;-)

The book is currently in its 4th imprint, having been updated with 20 extra pages (mainly of Kłosowski's family history) in 2017, and now totals 292 pages.

All the best to you all and keep up the excellent "ripperologing"!

Helena

[Batman]

Post #5 broken down...

Levisohn"s statement that he remembered meeting Klosowski in 1888," when he was "working" in a shop under the White Hart Public House, 89 High Street,Whitechapel " in Adam"s book entitled ,"The Trial of George Chapman" is not contradicted anywhere in that book by anyone.

This should put to rest claims that Levisohn was talking about Chapman living in White Hart Public House. He clearly says working. Got evidence he said something else? Reference it.

I have searched through this book several times trying to find remarks by anyone that contradict this specific statement and have not found any,either by Stanislaus Baderski or Mrs Stanislaus Rauch or by George Sterman,a travelling salesman for hairdressing products.

This points out that there is no contradiction between Levisohn and Baderski. There is probably not a contradiction with Schumann either. They can all be right about where he lived and worked in those years.

In the case of the first two there would have been no reason for them to have known Klosowski in 1888 as their relative Lucy,who married him,did not herself meet him until the August of 1889,when he was living at 126 Cable Street and her relatives did not meet him until a little later around the time they married in October 1889.

Mrs Baderski stated at court that she met him in a public house in the Whitechapel Road and that " I came over 13 years ago and at the time my sister was already married".So as I said ,there would have been no reason for her to know Klosowski in 1888.

This rules out Lucy and her relatives knowing Chapman before August of 1889.

In the case of George Sterman,he said that he too had met him in the barber"s shop under the White Hart Public House in High Street ,Whitechapel.He said he knew The White Hart from about 13 years ago when IT WAS KEPT by a man with a name like "Klosowski".What Sterman does not say is that he knew either Chapman/Klosowski or the White Hart before 13 years ago.

Stermann's claims do not contradict Levisohn.

Moreover Wolf,we dont know that Abberline had only got his information "from newspapers".We dont know that at all.Indeed it seems to me to be highly unlikely that this was the case.What seems most likely is that after having such a crucial role in the ripper investigation, Abberline would have been anxious to discuss such a dramatic new development as this Chapman trial with his ex colleague Inspector Godley who had arrested Klosowski/Chapman and had worked under Abberline on the Ripper investigation. Undoubtedly Abberline would have retained contact with several of the police colleagues from the Ripper Investigation.But Godley appears to be the most obvious contact he would have had as Godley had himself worked on the Nichols murder when he was a young detective sergeant ,and Godley"s name later appeared on several pieces of ripper evidence.

That completely destroys the idea that Chapman is working in a vacuum of just journalist information. He would have known Godley very well.

6. He worked (and possibly lived) at George Yard when Mrs Tabram was murdered there
- WOJTCZAK, HELENA. Jack the Ripper at Last? The Mysterious Murders of George Chapman.

In this part of her book Wojtczak dismisses Levisohn, but obviously her reasons for doing so are incorrect in that she presents a false dichotomy that Levisohn is contradicting other witnesses here. He isn't at all and this was established even as far back as 2008 on Casebook, here.

[Batman]

I can't post links, because the information I have is in the form of hundreds of pages of court transcripts, all of which are available in the UK National Archive, for those who want to plough through them.

I even predicted you won't reference your own claims to having new facts which contradict what Natalie Severn said in this very thread. Now you are claiming that we have to go and support your claims by trawling through hundreds of documents that you won't even reference except to elephant dump a "national archive" on us.

The burden of proof is on you to support your claims, not us.

You can't just allude to an archive and then expect anyone just to accept that. That doesn't work in any form of criticism anywhere. You support your claims (if you call them facts) with proper referencing, or not at all.

That aside, the timeline and trajectory for Klosowski's tenure in the East End I posted on the other thread make perfect logical sense in their own right. I'll sum up my argument here:

Resident in Poland until late 1887 or possibly early 1888
At West India Dock Rd from early 1888, poss. until Aug Bank Holiday (anecdotal evidence that this is when Radins held a party for a homesick K)...

Why are you talking about where he was living when clearly post #5 (which you claim is in error) disputes that Levisohn is claiming he lived there and is saying he was working there!

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=113075&postcount=5

That post confounds all your claims here.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't post links, because the information I have is in the form of hundreds of pages of court transcripts, all of which are available in the UK National Archive, for those who want to plough through them.

That aside, the timeline and trajectory for Klosowski's tenure in the East End I posted on the other thread make perfect logical sense in their own right. I'll sum up my argument here:

Resident in Poland until late 1887 or possibly early 1888
At West India Dock Rd from early 1888, poss. until Aug Bank Holiday (anecdotal evidence that this is when Radins held a party for a homesick K)
Moves to Cable Street in 1888 either during August or a little later
Definitely resident in Cable Street by late 1888 and through 1889 (verified by the PO Directory)
Marries Lucy Baderska Oct 1889, whilst still living at 126 Cable St (verified by marriage certificate)
The Klosowskis move to Commercial St for indeterminate period either late 1889 or sometime in 1890 (witness testimony at K's trial)
The Klosowskis set up a barber shop in the White Hart in 1890, sometime before September
Wladyslaw Klosowski born 5th September 1890 in the White Hart (verified by birth certificate)

Mostly, these dates and locations can be verified by data that are in the public domain; Kelly's Post Office Directory, marriage/birth certificates, newspaper/court reports etc.

It is obvious to me that the earliest we can place Klosowski in the White Hart is sometime in 1890, and that is ALL I'm going to say. If Klosowski fans want to play at inventing ingenious Ptolemaic epicycles to keep their man in the same orbit as Jack the Ripper, that's up to them.

[Batman]

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10991&page=7

Sam claims the information on this page from Posts #5 and #7 and #9 are incorrect.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10991&page=8

Here Sam explains why they think it is incorrect.

Sam claims to have access to new information to dispute this.

So can Sam post the relevant links to that new information so we can all look at it?

I hope it doesn't turn into these "special privileged" claims that someone has all this new info but nobody else can look to corroborate it, sort of thing. Although this is starting to sound this way.

[Natalie Severn]

Wolf,
I agree that all the witnesses at the George Chapman/Klosowski murder trial of 1903 had had difficulties remembering with exactitude what they were doing in 1888 and that only the Post Office Records give any indisputable facts.
Yes,you are right, Levisohn may have been wrong.
But there is one scenario that may support Levisohn"s court and police testimony of 1903 where he stated he had met him in the basement of the White Hart public House in 1888: he could have worked originally at the White Hart pub immediately after leaving his five month stay at Mrs Radin"s at West India Dock Road some time around the middle of 1888 and first got a job as an assistant barber at The White Hart "s basement barber shop moving later in 1888 to open his business at 126 Cable Street.He could have still been helping out there as well as trying to build up his business in Cable Street up until about 1890.I remember he took over the management of one of Haddin"s barber shops in 1894 in Tottenham and he had previously worked for the Haddin"s in another of their shops as an assistant barber.
Looking at Cable Street, even today,it makes you wonder about his motives for having leased a barber shop in such a dark and shadowy location.Talk about its potential for " clandestine "activites ! That part of the World,then as now,is a kind of wasteland, bordered by great stretches of railway and railway arches on one side,the docks and the River Thames just behind it---- very useful indeed for a murderer to have stored his bag of tricks.

But I do accept,as I said above,that Levisohn could have been wrong about his dates.

Regarding Abberline,again,quite right he lived in Bournmouth but that doesnt prove he didnt go to London at some stage in 1903 to discuss this case with his old cronies and if he didnt how could he have "interviewed " Klosowski"s wife Lucy ? I always understood Abberline had stated that he himself had interviewed her.
Best Wishes
Norma

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Levisohn"s statement that he remembered meeting Klosowski in 1888," when he was "working" in a shop under the White Hart Public House, 89 High Street, Whitechapel " in Adam"s book entitled ,"The Trial of George Chapman" is not contradicted anywhere in that book by anyone. I have searched through this book several times trying to find remarks by anyone that contradict this specific statement and have not found any, either by Stanislaus Baderski or Mrs Stanislaus Rauch or by George Sterman, a travelling salesman for hairdressing products.
In the case of the first two there would have been no reason for them to have known Klosowski in 1888 as their relative Lucy, who married him, did not herself meet him until the August of 1889, when he was living at 126 Cable Street and her relatives did not meet him until a little later around the time they married in October 1889. Mrs Baderski stated at court that she met him in a public house in the Whitechapel Road and that " I came over 13 years ago and at the time my sister was already married". So as I said ,there would have been no reason for her to know Klosowski in 1888.
In the case of George Sterman, he said that he too had met him in the barber’s shop under the White Hart Public House in High Street ,Whitechapel. He said he knew The White Hart from about 13 years ago when IT WAS KEPT by a man with a name like "Klosowski". What Sterman does not say is that he knew either Chapman/Klosowski or the White Hart before 13 years ago.

It’s posts like this that leave me scratching my head. As I posted earlier, the only scrap of evidence of any kind that even remotely suggests that Klosowski/Chapman had any dealings with the White Hart pub in 1888 comes from only one source: Wolf Levisohn. There is absolutely no corroborating evidence to support this and no actual proof that this was true.

Indefensibly, Norma, you have decided to ignore the absence of any corroborating proof (and, indeed, evidence that Levisohn was wrong) and, instead, state that the absence of any contradictory evidence equals evidence of truth. This is the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” logical fallacy which no one should be using on these boards.

You have totally ignored what Levisohn himself said at the Police Court, which I posted above, that “Until 1889 the accused was an assistant to a hairdresser at this shop (under the White Hart pub). Then he became the proprietor.” This did not happen as Levisohn states.

Post Office Directories for 1889 list Klosowski as living and working at 126 Cable Street. As the information found in the Directory was obtained in late 1888 and the Directory appeared in early 1889 then Klosowski wasn’t working under the White Hart from 1888 to 1889. Levisohn was wrong. Also, according to the testimony of Stanislaus Baderski, Klosowski and Baderski’s sister, Lucy, lived at Cable Street for about six months after their marriage until they moved to Commercial Street. This would mean that they didn’t move from the Cable Street barbershop until the spring of 1890.

The simple fact that Klosowski was working under the White Hart pub by at least September, 1890, seems to point to a simple error in timing on Levisohn’s part, something which can be seen by the testimony of several witnesses who were trying to remember incidents that had happened 13 to 15 years earlier.

Moreover Wolf, we don’t know that Abberline had only got his information "from newspapers". We don’t know that at all. Indeed it seems to me to be highly unlikely that this was the case.

Although Abberline states in the 24 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview that “…I had just commenced, not knowing anything about the report in the newspaper, to write to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. Macnaghten…” he also states “'I have been so struck with the remarkable coincidences in the two series of murders,' he continued, 'that I have not been able to think of anything else for several days past – not, in fact, since the Attorney-General made his opening statement at the recent trial, and traced the antecedents of Chapman before he came to this country in 1888.'” Since Abberline wasn’t at the trial, but home in Bournemouth, it is obvious that he did read the reports in the newspapers. Add to this the fact that his stated reasons for suspecting Klosowski are filled with errors and it becomes apparent that he was not using official sources. Unless, of course, the official sources were filled with elementary errors.

Wolf.

[Natalie Severn]

Furthermore, the most logical reading of the facts as corroborated by those who knew Klosowski far more intimately than Wolf Levisohn, travelling salesman in appliances - namely his landlady Mrs Radin, his fellow barber and co-worker George Sterman and his in-laws, Stanislaus Baderski and Mrs Rauch.

Not really Sam.If you re-read the Adam"s book you will see for yourself that none of the Baderski family,including Lucy, who was to become his wife, had the faintest idea Klosowski even existed in 1888.Mrs Radin did ,ofcourse but that was clearly only for the five months early in 1888 about which she gave testimony ,for, as Wolf also quite correctly points out above,Klosowski was living at 126 Cable Street later in 1888.
And btw,this George Sterman you seem to value so greatly , was not a "co-worker" at all but was also a travelling salesman of hair products like Levisohn and was in fact very closely cross -questioned at the trial by an apparently disbelieving judge about his own statement that he had also known George Chapman when he lived in Hastings.The judge seems to have considered him to be an unreliable witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Theres a fair bit that Abberline has said that raises an eyebrow....good explanation Wolf.

Furthermore, the most logical reading of the facts as corroborated by those who knew Klosowski far more intimately than Wolf Levisohn, travelling salesman in appliances - namely his landlady Mrs Radin, his fellow barber and co-worker George Sterman and his in-laws, Stanislaus Baderski and Mrs Rauch.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Dave.

Actually, no, it cannot.

Abberline actually stated that Klosowski “occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road…” and was basing this observation on the newspapers of 1903 rather than any first hand knowledge dating from 1888. Although several newspapers printed this as fact, the information comes from only one source: Wolf Levisohn.

Levisohn stated at the Police Court in January, 1903, that he first met Klosowski “in a shop under the White Hart public-house, 89 High Street, Whitechapel, in 1888.” This was at the corner with George Yard (this is what Abberline was talking about) and later newspapers stated that this was where Klosowski lived. However, Levisohn also said “Until 1889 the accused was an assistant to a hairdresser at this shop. Then he became the proprietor.” This is not true.

Klosowski worked for Abraham Radin in the West India Dock Road for about five months when he first came to London before he moved to 126 Cable Street. He lived at this address between 1888 and 1890 according to both post office directories and eyewitness accounts. Klosowski didn’t move to the White Hart Pub until 1890. Levisohn got the years wrong.

Wolf.

Hello Wolf,

Levisohn"s statement that he remembered meeting Klosowski in 1888," when he was "working" in a shop under the White Hart Public House, 89 High Street,Whitechapel " in Adam"s book entitled ,"The Trial of George Chapman" is not contradicted anywhere in that book by anyone.I have searched through this book several times trying to find remarks by anyone that contradict this specific statement and have not found any,either by Stanislaus Baderski or Mrs Stanislaus Rauch or by George Sterman,a travelling salesman for hairdressing products.
In the case of the first two there would have been no reason for them to have known Klosowski in 1888 as their relative Lucy,who married him,did not herself meet him until the August of 1889,when he was living at 126 Cable Street and her relatives did not meet him until a little later around the time they married in October 1889.Mrs Baderski stated at court that she met him in a public house in the Whitechapel Road and that " I came over 13 years ago and at the time my sister was already married".So as I said ,there would have been no reason for her to know Klosowski in 1888.
In the case of George Sterman,he said that he too had met him in the barber"s shop under the White Hart Public House in High Street ,Whitechapel.He said he knew The White Hart from about 13 years ago when IT WAS KEPT by a man with a name like "Klosowski".What Sterman does not say is that he knew either Chapman/Klosowski or the White Hart before 13 years ago.

Moreover Wolf,we dont know that Abberline had only got his information "from newspapers".We dont know that at all.Indeed it seems to me to be highly unlikely that this was the case.What seems most likely is that after having such a crucial role in the ripper investigation, Abberline would have been anxious to discuss such a dramatic new development as this Chapman trial with his ex colleague Inspector Godley who had arrested Klosowski/Chapman and had worked under Abberline on the Ripper investigation. Undoubtedly Abberline would have retained contact with several of the police colleagues from the Ripper Investigation.But Godley appears to be the most obvious contact he would have had as Godley had himself worked on the Nichols murder when he was a young detective sergeant ,and Godley"s name later appeared on several pieces of ripper evidence.

Best
Norma

[protohistorian]

Thank you Wolf! Dave

Theres a fair bit that Abberline has said that raises an eyebrow....good explanation Wolf.

My best regards

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Dave.

Actually, no, it cannot.

Abberline actually stated that Klosowski “occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road…” and was basing this observation on the newspapers of 1903 rather than any first hand knowledge dating from 1888. Although several newspapers printed this as fact, the information comes from only one source: Wolf Levisohn.

Levisohn stated at the Police Court in January, 1903, that he first met Klosowski “in a shop under the White Hart public-house, 89 High Street, Whitechapel, in 1888.” This was at the corner with George Yard (this is what Abberline was talking about) and later newspapers stated that this was where Klosowski lived. However, Levisohn also said “Until 1889 the accused was an assistant to a hairdresser at this shop. Then he became the proprietor.” This is not true.

Klosowski worked for Abraham Radin in the West India Dock Road for about five months when he first came to London before he moved to 126 Cable Street. He lived at this address between 1888 and 1890 according to both post office directories and eyewitness accounts. Klosowski didn’t move to the White Hart Pub until 1890. Levisohn got the years wrong.

Wolf.

[protohistorian]

In his comments in the Tuesday, 24 March 1903 Pall Mall Gazette Abberline remarks," The fact that Klosowski when he came to this country occupied a lodging George-yard...". While I am reticent to ask, could this be interpreted as implying primacy of address? Respectfully Dave