Wolff Levisohn

[HelenaWojtczak]

I've just done a search for Wolff Levisohn on Ancestry and got only one hit - marriage in Whitechapel in 1887 To either Alice or Rebecca.

So I searched for just Levisohn hoping to see some forename similar to Wolff but there is nothing - not even one starting with a W. Can't find any living in the East End, either, who are in the hairdressing supplies business.

This is really weird - no birth, no death, no incoming passenger on a ship, no census record not even 1881, 1891, 1901, nothing, absolutely nothing. It's as though he didn't exist, or never registered anything, except his marriage.

I have found an Adolf W. Lewisohn, general dealer, in Tottenham in 1891. And his wife is Alice.

I also tried searching for his wife after 1887, but there are also no records for Rebecca Levisohn (nee Mercer) or Alice Levisohn (nee Sutton) either before or after her marriage, with the exception of a death record for an Alice Levisohn, so I guess it was Alice Sutton he married in 1887.

Mr Gordon says in his books what a mysterious even sinister man W.L. was. But even if a man refuses to register on the census, once he's dead he cannot prevent his next of kin from registering his death - so how come no death record?

Can anyone shed any more light on him for me?

Helena

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Helena

At Klosowski's trial he stated:

WOLFF LEVISOHN. I live at 135, Rosslyn Road, South Tottenham, and am a traveller in hairdressers' appliances.

See trial transcript posted by Howard Brown at JtR Forums

Chris

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello Helena

At Klosowski's trial he stated:

WOLFF LEVISOHN. I live at 135, Rosslyn Road, South Tottenham, and am a traveller in hairdressers' appliances.

See trial transcript posted by Howard Brown at JtR Forums

Chris

Indeed that is where I got his name from.

But his absence from records is odd.

I think the correct spelling of his name is Lewisohn.

[m_w_r]

Hi Helena,

But his absence from records is odd.

Yes, apart from the marriage records when he marries, the 1891 census, the 1901 census, the 1911 census, his son's war records as next of kin, and his other son's marriage certificate (1920), when he is recorded as deceased, and, no doubt, countless other sources, including the sources linked to the Klosowski trial, where he appeared at the police court, and then at the Central Criminal Court, under his own name, and giving the correct details. Shady? Missing from the records? I don't think so.

I mean, I'm with you to the extent that I can't find a death registration either, but I haven't looked very hard. But I think we can dispose of the idea that Levisohn was a man of secrecy who excluded himself from universal records.

Regards,

Mark

[HelenaWojtczak]

the 1891 census, the 1901 census, the 1911 census...

Mark

I have just this moment searched for "Wolff Levisohn" on ancestry (all records including censuses) and get NO hits apart from his marriage.

There are 22 Levisohns in the 1891 census and none of them is Wolf or Wolff or anything like that. There are 15 in the 1901, ditto. There are 27 in 1911, again no Wolf or Wolff or anything resembling it.

There are 37 men called Wolff in the 1901 census, and 32 in the 1891 but none of them is Levisohn or anything resembling it. There is a Wolff Levison (ie different spelling) in the 1881 census.

I think that can safely be described as "missing from the records."

Unless of course his name is misspelt in all the censuses but you thought it was fun to tell me he's in them, but withhold the vital part of the info from me so I can't find him?

Helena

[m_w_r]

Unless of course his name is misspelt in all the censuses but you thought it was fun to tell me he's in them, but withhold the vital part of the info from me so I can't find him?

Yes, quite.

More tomorrow, if I can find the time - or if you get there first ...

Would you be prepared to resile from your appropriation of R. Michael Gordon's view of Levisohn as a "mysterious even sinister" man, supposing that I provided all the references to which I've referred? If you would, then the whole thing has some moral value, I suppose.

Regards,

Mark

[HelenaWojtczak]

Yes, quite.

More tomorrow, if I can find the time - or if you get there first ...

Would you be prepared to resile from your appropriation of R. Michael Gordon's view of Levisohn as a "mysterious even sinister" man, supposing that I provided all the references to which I've referred? If you would, then the whole thing has some moral value, I suppose.

Regards,

Mark

I am about to write a piece that criticises and refutes every unsupported "fact" that Mr Gordon writes in his series of books about S.K. I am his biggest critic.

You speak of morals, yet seek to blackmail me by refusing to release important information unless I change (what you think is) my mind about something?

I thought this was a place to share information, not withhold it till people change their opinions to suit you.

[m_w_r]

I am about to write a piece that criticises and refutes every unsupported "fact" that Mr Gordon writes in his series of books about S.K. I am his biggest critic.

You speak of morals, yet seek to blackmail me by refusing to release important information unless I change (what you think is) my mind about something?

I thought this was a place to share information, not withhold it till people change their opinions to suit you.

Hi,

How extraordinary - you think this is blackmail? I'm refusing to release important information? It isn't anything you can't access yourself. It hasn't come to me privately; it isn't classified. But likewise I'm under no obligation to share anything with anyone.

I actually thought that I'd dropped strong enough hints in my first post in this thread to enable you to find all the documents to which I'd referred. And, since the fun of research is really in the hunt - the mental test of man against database, or whatever - I preferred not to dump all the information here without availing you of an opportunity to find the information by yourself. I'd have thought that this would have been, for you, a satisfying project, and one which you'd have taken on with relish.

So - blackmail? I don't think so. Besides, it doesn't really matter to me whether you'll change your opinion or not - I simply said that that was where the moral value of providing these secret documents you've conceptualised resided. I'm quite comfortable doing things of no moral value if you'd like me to. You said that Levisohn's omission from the records was "odd". I begged to differ, and still do. Kindly let me know how you wish to proceed.

Yours sincerely,

Moriarty

[Robert]

Hi Mark

I know nothing about Chapman, but I'll have a stab in the dark that Mr Lewisohn died March 10th 1912 in Berlin aged 62.

Of course, he could have died anywhere else on a different date. I just got drawn to this mystery.

[m_w_r]

Hi Robert,

I'm afraid that's not the answer, but your stab in the dark has at least prompted me to correct my egregious error from a few posts ago.

I'm afraid to say that I was mistaken when I said that Wolff Levisohn was in the 1911 census. He's not. I should have checked before I said that. On the plus side, this misapprehension on my part has, incidentally, permitted me to locate Wolff Levisohn's death registration. That takes us conveniently back to the theme of this thread.

Helena - problem solved - death registration found! Great - what shall we do next?

Regards,

Mark

[HelenaWojtczak]

Mark,

Seems you just want to be deliberately nasty to a newbie because you can get away with it.

You haughtily tell me to go and do the research myself, when I have already told you that I have spent many hours logged into ancestry.co.uk and freebmd searching for him in all the censuses and imputting every possible variation of spellings of both his names, to no avail.

I really dislike your tone and your unhelpful arrogance. We are here to share information not to waste each other's time acting like teasing children in a playground.

I note with disgust that you yourself have thanked people on this forum for sharing information with others, which makes it even worse that you subsequently get much pleasure and delight from refusing to help another. I shall certainly be complaining to the moderators.

You should not have even joined this thread if you did not want to help by sharing what you know. All you are doing is wasting my time and I will henceforth ignore all your messages.

[tji]

Hi Helen

I think Mark was maybe more 'teasing a newbie' I don't think he meant any malice in his post, I aslo don't believe he originally refused to help, he just didn't have time for an in-depth search at that time.

Some people do enjoy to be just 'guided' in the right direction and find the facts themselves if possible, it's more satisfying that way.

Tj

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena,



Yes, apart from the marriage records when he marries, the 1891 census, the 1901 census, the 1911 census, his son's war records as next of kin, and his other son's marriage certificate (1920), when he is recorded as deceased, and, no doubt, countless other sources, including the sources linked to the Klosowski trial, where he appeared at the police court, and then at the Central Criminal Court, under his own name, and giving the correct details. Shady? Missing from the records? I don't think so.

I mean, I'm with you to the extent that I can't find a death registration either, but I haven't looked very hard. But I think we can dispose of the idea that Levisohn was a man of secrecy who excluded himself from universal records.

Regards,

Mark

The trial transcript suggests he was rather extrovert in fact.

[babybird67]

hi Helena

Don't take Mark too seriously. He's a good man, although don't spread that around too much as he like to keep his reputation in tact.

Seriously, I am sure he meant no harm. He has a wicked sense of humour and I think you have just crossed wires here somewhere.

Jen

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helen

I think Mark was maybe more 'teasing a newbie' I don't think he meant any malice in his post, I aslo don't believe he originally refused to help, he just didn't have time for an in-depth search at that time.

Some people do enjoy to be just 'guided' in the right direction and find the facts themselves if possible, it's more satisfying that way.

Tj

But I did not ask him to do any searching. He already has all the information and simply refuses to give it to me, unless I conform to certain demands.

As regards his "not having time" -- he has spent a great deal MORE time leaving annoying messages on this thread than it would have taken him to simply say, for example, "Levisohn's name is mis-spelled this way ..........."

And because of his refusal to share what he already has, and would cost him nothing to tell, I am going to have to pay another month's sub to ancestry. I have already spent a further two hours today, on top of probably 4 hours previously, just looking for this one man. So it's OK for MY time to be wasted, then, is it?

I cannot believe that you can possibly support Mark's behaviour.

If this is the "spirit" of these boards then I will also not be sharing a single thing that I have discovered (and I have already discovered a LOT of new things.)

And if everyone else follows suit, then this board becomes totally pointless.