Klosowski docs wrongly translated

[Batman]

What about all the cases where the number of victims is like 5-20 suspected or something strange like that. Where signatures deviate but DNA links some together so they don't exclude cases based on these deviating because victomology is the same or suspect lived near an incident? I'm sure there are lots.

[John G]

Hello Batman,

You would be talking about a radical change of signature, not just MO! I mean, it would surely require a complete personality change. Frankly what you would be arguing for would be totally unprecedented in recorded crimonological history. Put simply, I am not aware of a single documented case of a serial poisoner committing violent serial murders, let alone a killer like JtR suddenly transforming himself into a slow, calculating poisoner!

[Batman]

Btw - If Klosowski was interviewed/questioned he must have been let go. Now Nichols was killed far east and Annie Chapman somewhat north. The MOs are different, but Keppel suggests Tabram is by the same psychological personality disorder called Piquerism. However the MO appears to change, something Klosowski would also have to have done if he is JtR. As a wife poisoner it would have to be practically deliberate. MO/Signature change that is. A whole change to one's life almost.

The press and investigators appear to drop Tabram and drop Smith at around the same time they take up a Nichols/Annie Chapman connection. With Eddowes and Kelly and finally Bond's C5, Klosowski would have been well out of frame.

Until...

[Batman]

What would one want to hide that is greater than the murder of 3 wives?

I have given this some thought and despite their being lots of reasons why Chapman isn't JtR, this is interesting.

Let's say we reject the 1888 Martha Tabram residence connection and give over to the other sources that put it at a post 1888 date, like post 1890. Can we agree there is some historical evidence he is at White Hart around this time?

So in 1902/1903 we have a man in custody, a wife poisoner, with the surname of a Ripper victim (which he took from a common-in-law wife?), who lived in Whitechapel. He has lived basically a few doors down the road from two Whitechapel murders (Smith/Tabram). Now even if he wasn't interviewed for living there in 1888, surely someone would want to dig into that once the connection was made? There appears to be, as you say, no evidence he was interviewed in 1888, but is there any post-1903 evidence that they looked into this and he lived there? Or it is just trust in one witness saying this?

So if the papers where making the link, he knew this was going to surface... and maintained he is Chapman, and not Klosowski, if the police did show some connections, wouldn't that maintain a level of distance from his life as Klowsowski, which makes me beg the question... what on earth could he be hiding that is greater than the murder of 3 wives?

BTW - Wasn't the death of his wives quite horrible? Like they wasted down to near bone.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Chapman did indeed deny being Klosowski...What would Klosowski reveal that would be a problem for Chapman at the trial?

what was he hiding? Is it because therein lurks the possible JtR connection?

I agree that it is intriguing that he refused to admit to being or even knowing Klosowski, despite Klosowski's documents being found in his pub, AND being positively identified in court by his wife, his wife's brother and sister, and Levisohn.

He'd signed the poisons book as "Chapman", and that was the most incriminating piece of evidence for the poison murder(s). Hmmm... maybe he didn't want the feldsher training to be cited, as it might make him appear to be au fait with poisons?

I also want to know if he was questioned about Tabram's death under the name Klosowski.

I dealt with that in the book. There isn't a shred of evidence that he was ever questioned by the police about anything whilst living in the East End.


Helena

[Batman]

Let me expand on this point. I have actually read elsewhere that Chapman did indeed deny being Klosowski, even though he had been identified as such by several witnesses. However there doesn't appear to be any good reasons for why he would do this, if he was being charged with poisoning his wives. What would Klosowski reveal that would be a problem for Chapman at the trial?

The hypothesis going around, is that the reason why he didn't want to be connected with Klosowski is because Klosowski has a history of something that Chapman wanted to stay hidden. So what was he hiding? What else other than his entire history of his feldsher experience in Poland could he want to suppress and why? How could Klosowski sow the seeds of Chapman's destruction?

Is it because therein lurks the possible JtR connection?

I also want to know if he was questioned about Tabram's death under the name Klosowski.

[Batman]

Okay that makes more sense if they are the same person, but why did Chapman not want to be identified exactly?

[HelenaWojtczak]

he didn't correct this, nor his counci.... Yet is his silence on the matter not also consistent with it being correct and therefore not in need of correction?

Batman, how could Chapman possibly have corrected this in court when he totally denied being Klosowski, or even knowing who Klosowski was?

It seems you have no problem accepting the translation of Dr. Olstetiski talking about cupping by means of glasses, leaches and other assistance....

Correct.

Wouldn't this all get answered very quickly if we just figured out exactly what was being taught in these schools? If either Rappaport or Olstetski covered invasive surgery then that would be sufficient grounds to say Chapman learned this no?

Yes. If either Rappaport or Olstetski covered invasive surgery then that would be sufficient grounds to say Chapman learned this.

P.S - I don't think one's medical knowledge is irrelevant in a trial involving murder by poison.

It was to Chapman, since he claimed not to be Klosowski, so whatever was read out from those Russian documents, he wasn't going to argue, since it wasn't him (he said).

P.S.S - It is JOSEPH BETRIKOWSKI who is making the statement to the court, not Petrykowski. In fact doesn't this lend more credibility to the translation given we have not just one, but 2 polish/russian speaking experts on the topic.

As I said, the online document is chock full of typos, and BETRIKOWSKI is one of them. There was no such person. His name was Petrykowski. All this is explained in the book. Only one person. And not an expert, just some random Pole I expect. Funny how this "expert" doesn't turn up anywhere else as an interpreter for the police, and is absent from any census, death record, etc.

There is no such name in Polish as BETRIKOWSKI. Imagine you read that the name of an Englishman in Russia was written down by non-English speaking clerks as "Kicharbson". You'd know instantly that this isn't a real name, and must be a typo for Richardson. Hence, BETRIKOWSKI is actually PETRYKOWSKI, written down by English clerks from the speech of a Polish man in the witness box.

There is written knowledge about what feldshers learned. I'd believe them that over some random, untraceable "interpreter", any day. From the books we know for a fact that feldshers did not perform invasive surgery. This is all included in my book.


Helena

[Batman]

So you accept that even though his education was presented to the court as an assistant surgeon, that he didn't correct this, nor his council, because you think it might have worked in his favour due to good character. Yet is his silence on the matter not also consistent with it being correct and therefore not in need of correction?

It seems you have no problem accepting the translation of Dr. Olstetiski talking about cupping by means of glasses, leaches and other assistance.... The documents seized and translated are your reference correct? Yet at the same time, you have a problem with the document over its translation accuracy. Also with respect to Olszanski of Praga hospital in the summer of 1885 you said the course 'probably presented the latest techniques in removing warts, furuncles, verrucas, etc). Do you have a reference for this?

By the way I don't think the cupping by glasses and leaches is the limit of that schools' science of surgery because Olstetiski says '... and other assistances comprised in the science of surgery' so these are just in addition to other functions. What are those other functions?

Wouldn't this all get answered very quickly if we just figured out exactly what was being taught in these schools? If either Rappaport or Olstetski covered invasive surgery then that would be sufficient grounds to say Chapman learned this no?

P.S - I don't think one's medical knowledge is irrelevant in a trial involving murder by poison.

P.S.S - It is JOSEPH BETRIKOWSKI who is making the statement to the court, not Petrykowski. In fact doesn't this lend more credibility to the translation given we have not just one, but 2 polish/russian speaking experts on the topic.

[HelenaWojtczak]

The claim that he studied "the science of surgery" with zeal, dated June 27th, 1885 is important.

What sort of translation error could be made here?

I explained this in great detail in the book.

I am still at odds trying to figure out why one should reject any surgical experience on the part of Chapman, given he doesn't seem to object to it during his trial and neither does his council.

Counsel did not object because it was irrelevant to the trial, which was on a charge of poisoning. Chapman didn't seem to object to much, other than to deny being Klosowski. In this respect, why would he care what was being claimed about the employment history of "this Klosowski fellow", whom he had never met?

I am trying to falsify my idea that its a modern view to say he had no experience in surgical assistance but I can't see this in the historical record.

Another thing is, how can one say with certainty that there has been a mistranslation if the original is gone?

I also explained that in great detail in the book. I am certain, and I put forth my reasons, but anyone is free to disagree. As I said in the book, what was meant by "the science of surgery" was described by one of Klosowski's medical tutors.

Best regards

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

I have the book and I don't see where this is answered.

At the Old Bailey there was no cross examination of JOSEPH BETRIKOWSKI statement. It was accepted. As you see the subject of his surgical experience is brought up.

1882—the next paper is a certificate issued to the surgical apprentice Severin Antoniovich Klosowski was in die surgery in the village of Zvolen from December 1st, 1880, to June 1st, 1885, that he had accurately discharged his duties, and that he was diligent, of exemplary conduct, and studied the science of surgery with zeal, dated June 27th, 1885—the next is a certificate dated October 22nd, 1885,. to the effect that Severin Klosowski had been employed for 4 1/2 years in the village of Tymenitsa, as a surgery pupil, and had given skilful assistance to patients—there is also a certificate dated January 2nd, 1886,

Where is the defense objection to this?

There would not be cross examination of Petrykowski as Klosowski didn't offer any defence to anything that was said in court. Petrykowski's evidence was, if anything, on Klosowski's side because it repeatedly speaks of his good character.

I don't think Petrykowski was considered a hostile witness who needed cross examination, more of an impartial expert; after all, he had no axe to grind.

As I said in the book, the trial transcript (in Adam's book and online) is only a precis of the evidence, plus it is absolutely riddled with typos.

Helena

[Batman]

Paramedic = Feldsher

Doesn't seem there is a whole pile of difference between the historical paramedic and a Feldsher. From the Imperial Legions of Rome, through to the medieval barber-surgeons, we have this developing in the 1800s/1900s to assisting during a triage because of the shortage/rationing of field doctors. The claim that he studied "the science of surgery" with zeal, dated June 27th, 1885 is important. What sort of translation error could be made here? The science part is important. As hairdressing isn't a science.

I am still at odds trying to figure out why one should reject any surgical experience on the part of Chapman, given he doesn't seem to object to it during his trial and neither does his council. I am trying to falsify my idea that its a modern view to say he had no experience in surgical assistance but I can't see this in the historical record.

Another thing is, how can one say with certainty that there has been a mistranslation if the original is gone?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello Helena,

Didn't the last practising barber-surgeon die in 1821?

John

Yes indeed.

Helena

[Batman]

I have the book and I don't see where this is answered.

At the Old Bailey there was no cross examination of JOSEPH BETRIKOWSKI statement. It was accepted. As you see the subject of his surgical experience is brought up.

1882—the next paper is a certificate issued to the surgical apprentice Severin Antoniovich Klosowski was in die surgery in the village of Zvolen from December 1st, 1880, to June 1st, 1885, that he had accurately discharged his duties, and that he was diligent, of exemplary conduct, and studied the science of surgery with zeal, dated June 27th, 1885—the next is a certificate dated October 22nd, 1885,. to the effect that Severin Klosowski had been employed for 4 1/2 years in the village of Tymenitsa, as a surgery pupil, and had given skilful assistance to patients—there is also a certificate dated January 2nd, 1886,

Where is the defense objection to this?

[John G]

Hi Rosella and thank you for buying my book on Kindle, and for your compliments and recommendation.

Hi Batman... the Kindle price is £7.70 now.

What do you think the "surgeon" part of barber surgeon entailed?

Helena

Hello Helena,

Didn't the last practising barber-surgeon die in 1821?

John