Wolff Levisohn

[babybird67]

wow

You spotted what you thought was my cloven hoof, Helena. This is the olive branch you never looked up to see.

Regards,

Mark

Very well said Mark.

[The Grave Maurice]

Now that was classy. Well said, Mark.

[m_w_r]

Hi chaps,

Firstly, my sincere thanks to everyone who's joined in on this, but it isn't very gallant of me to sit back and let other people try to help me out. I've got to do it for myself, and so that's what I'm doing here.

Helena,

From what I can fathom out, you're an intelligent and talented woman. But this particular exchange obviously hasn't really done you any good, and so I'm going to suggest that we quit the animosity, and head back to the theme of the thread.

Just before I do, though, let me make a couple of observations. Your track record - not in this particular subject area, but in the areas you've written and published about already - seems to be unimpeachable. You've gained accolades and respect; and how do I know this? I've seen your Wikipedia page. It's impressive stuff. But I note that your acclaimed book about railwaywomen took you sixteen years to research, write and publish. Sixteen years. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine that, at some point during that long process, you met barriers of one sort or another: something you thought you'd be able to find, but couldn't no matter how hard you looked; something you couldn't gain access to for practical reasons; perhaps even people who expressly doubted you, or doubted the validity or practicability of your project. I'd also imagine that there were times when one of these barriers, or another similar barrier, loomed on the horizon, but that, through lateral thinking, or sheer hard work, you broke through it or otherwise eluded it. Speaking as someone who doesn't have your research profile, but who's done the odd thing here and there, it's the excitement and satisfaction of those little victories that often make all the hours of toil worthwhile. No-one, I suppose, not even the most talented researchers on these boards, experiences untrammelled success in their research, find following find in unbroken monotony. Life isn't like that, and research isn't like that. But the pleasure, as I suggested before, is in the hunt, and in the orchestration of problem-solving skills which sometimes, if not always, bear fruit. Other researchers can dispute this point if they'd like - actually, there's probably a whole other thread in it - but, as I said, from my novice perspective, I'd be amazed if you hadn't had that experience, and felt that thrill.

When I first posted to this thread, I thought I'd dropped enough hints to give you a lead into Levisohn, and I genuinely believed that you'd enjoy searching for him yourself from this starting point. I really didn't think - and don't think now - that you just wanted to see the outcomes, without engaging in the process. When I posted subsequently, I believed that I'd given you even more hints and that, now, you couldn't fail to find him. I looked into Levisohn when I had the very great pleasure and privilege of assisting Gareth Williams, in a very minor way, with his excellent presentation on Klosowski, which he delivered at the JtR Conference in 2010. But I didn't have then, and don't have now, any resources at my disposal which you don't seem to have. I still believe that you can find Levisohn by yourself, and I still believe that you'd find that satisfying. However - and stay with me here - I'm still not going to dump all my research onto this thread, unless that really is what you want. If you do, please say so, and I'll see what I can do; in the meantime, let me record my view that to do so would be a reductive and unimaginative method of solving an unnecessary dispute.

Instead, I'm going to try another approach, and one which takes me out of the equation, since I seem to have troubled you so much. Somewhere above, Chris George (himself a fine researcher) noted that Levisohn told the Old Bailey that he lived at 135 Rosslyn Road, in South Tottenham. So the transcript says, but you may have noticed that Rosslyn Road is in Walthamstow; Roslyn Road, on the other hand, is in Tottenham: so there's a mistake, and an understandable one, in the transcript. I recommend that you search Google for "135 Roslyn Road" "Tottenham", and go from there. Chris's suggestion was one which should give you all the ammunition you need to track Levisohn back to 1887, and his sons forward to 1920, and probably beyond. Good luck. But remember - my offer still stands, and, if you'd prefer the data dump, I'll see what I can do.

One more tip - if I were you, I'd splash out on the subscription to Ancestry. If you're going to write a full-length monograph on Klosowski, it'll be worth it.

You spotted what you thought was my cloven hoof, Helena. This is the olive branch you never looked up to see.

Regards,

Mark

[tji]

Helen

Whether Mark decides to put the information to the boards or not is entirely upto him, it's his research, but I get the impression he never intended to keep the information back indefinitely.

It is also not his fault that you have to pay for another months subs on Ancestry and spent a few hours looking for one man, welcome to the joys of researching, it is what is needed to be done and I have no doubt all researchers have been through this endless amounts of times.

So it's OK for MY time to be wasted, then, is it?

erm it's YOUR research, if you class it as a waste of time that is up to you. Do you think you are the only one on the boards who is looking for information others have, no, but they don't demand the other person gives them it, if they do that, great - if they don't that person just knuckles down and finds the information for themselves.

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.)

There is no behaviour to support. My opinion? you have mistaken Mark's teasing as something more than it actually was.

As to the spirit of the boards, speaking for myself, I have put information I have to the boards as much as possible, but have I held information back? yes, I have also done this, will it get put forward, eventually. I have also had the help of many great researchers giving me advice etc on the boards and I know for a fact I would not have the information I have without them, so as to the 'spirit' on the boards I would say it is a generous one. There is a lot to be learned from the people on the boards, however no-one likes it when they are told the moderators will be informed because they have yet to hand information over.

Tj

[babybird67]

Helena

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.

This was Mark's first response to you in which he shared the information that there were records and plenty of them under the correct details. So as for not sharing his knowledge, that accusation is false.

The only thing Mark said he could not establish was a death registration.

It seems to me he was only trying to help you.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena,
The information I told you about that I researched and that is posted here on Casebook under 'Dissertations' entitled,'The Cable Street Dandy' is there for anybody to look at .However I believe it is copyright. Usually when people request information here about ongoing research from others there is the understanding that their work may be copyright and they expect to be credited or asked permission if it is going to be used in another's research. Perhaps Mark is researching Klosowski himself for material regarding a book?

Best,
Norma

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.