Klosowski docs wrongly translated

[HelenaWojtczak]

The Russian documents taken from him where translated into English but have since been lost. So how do we know they have been mistranslated?

Who is actually claiming Chapman is a skilled surgeon?

Isn't the inference for "anatomical knowledge" from the autopsy reports and not a surgeon, per se, but skill with a knife.

Also what is the 'science' Olstetski refers too? The science of hairdressing?

More importantly why didn't George Chapman correct the alledged error in translation for his 1903 trial?

My book answers all these questions.

Sincerely

Helena

[Batman]

The Russian documents taken from him where translated into English but have since been lost. So how do we know they have been mistranslated?

Who is actually claiming Chapman is a skilled surgeon?

Isn't the inference for "anatomical knowledge" from the autopsy reports and not a surgeon, per se, but skill with a knife.

Also what is the 'science' Olstetski refers too? The science of hairdressing?

More importantly why didn't George Chapman correct the alledged error in translation for his 1903 trial?

[HelenaWojtczak]

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

[Rosella]

Please get Helena's book on Chapman. I bought it a while ago (on Kindle because of the freight charges on books to Australia.) I think it is excellent and goes into Chapman's youthful training and apprenticeship.

It explains the role of feldshers in Russian Poland-they could be described as male medical orderlies, nurses, auxiliaries, etc., but not surgeons, and the training they received. Helena also explains the mistranslation of 'surgeon' by Joseph Petrykowski, who was hired by Scotland Yard to translate Klosowski's documents into English in 1902.

It is from this mistranslation, taken up by several modern authors including Rumbelow, that the error of Chapman being a surgeon has been perpetuated.

[Batman]

Really? How could Mr Rumble possibly know how Chapman failed to get his degree? I'm most curious!

Helena

Mr. Rumbelow... well he is probably one of the most important JtR researchers, if not the most important one, because he was able to copy down stuff that has since been lost/stolen. He also found the Kelly photograph. So thanks to him we have retained history.

While he gives a bibliography I don't think I have time to go through all that. What I can say is this. When I mentioned Chapman and his surgical experience I was told I couldn't make an informed analysis without reading your book. So I thought, wow, something must be up with the position that Chapman was a feldscher (barber surgeon/hospital attendant) according to Rumbelow. Who describes this work as a relic from the days when hairdressing and surgery where intertwined. Why I accept this is because it doesn't seem to me anyone has suggested this is wrong with references to the contrary and still have not.

All I have been told is that your book goes into more detail about this but what I am trying to figure out is if your book has additional important information on what a Feldscher is with respect with Chapman. Like for example, you would have had to go to other references on what a Feldscher is.

BTW - I can't see the £4 version of your book as stated above.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Donald Rumbelow... explaining how he failed to get his degree

Really? How could Mr Rumble possibly know how Chapman failed to get his degree? I'm most curious!

Helena

[FrancoLoco]

Hi Batman,

This sounds like a reasonably sensible line of enquiry. To understand the matter better, I suggest that you buy Helena's book, which covers this aspect of Chapman's candidacy in some detail.

Regards,

Mark

And unless some new documentation is found in someone's attic, it's the most thorough book on Chapman you'll ever find. And yeah, it answers your questions.

[m_w_r]

In "The Complete Jack the Ripper" (2004 update) by Donald Rumbelow on p.188 states Chapan was a feldscher (barber surgeon/hospital attendant) explaining how he failed to get his degree and also that a feldscher is a relic from the days when hairdressing and surgery where intertwined. Why I accept this is because it doesn't seem to me anyone has suggested this is wrong with references to the contrary.

Hi Batman,

This sounds like a reasonably sensible line of enquiry. To understand the matter better, I suggest that you buy Helena's book, which covers this aspect of Chapman's candidacy in some detail.

Regards,

Mark

[Batman]

Ah okay, £4 on Kindle isn't bad at all. The way people were talking above made it sound much more expensive.

I can answer your questions. People are still quite free to answer the one's I asked earlier.

In "The Complete Jack the Ripper" (2004 update) by Donald Rumbelow on p.188 states Chapan was a feldscher (barber surgeon/hospital attendant) explaining how he failed to get his degree and also that a feldscher is a relic from the days when hairdressing and surgery where intertwined. Why I accept this is because it doesn't seem to me anyone has suggested this is wrong with references to the contrary.

[Cogidubnus]

Is it? Then he's even more of a cheapskate debater than I thought!

All the best

Dave

[HelenaWojtczak]

1) Show something unique about Chapman's medical education that isn't already general known about the job title.

Got a few questions of my own: -

What do you think his job title was?

Where did you get that information?

Why do you believe it?

Helena
PS Coggie it's only £4 on Kindle ;-)

[Cogidubnus]

He knows nothing at all

[Batman]

You're prepared to argue facts about Chapman, with the foremost authority on Chapman, (and I defy you to find somebody up-to-date who'll disagree), without even bothering to read said authority's book...you then challenge said authority to provide a reason why you should invest something under £9 and a few hours reading...

You then have the sheer nerve to challenge people who've read the book...clearly the concept that every person in a debate is equal is a fallacy (and you can spell that how you like).

I think you are going a bit over the top here and also being deliberately misleading. I have given clear indications that I may indeed buy this book.

What you don't like is that I can comment on a general aspect of applied health science that Chapman may have learned at the time without having read this book first. I don't follow that logic because its not sound.

Secondly, I am not "arguing" anything other than stating nobody answered my legit question.

If the author has done well, then great. If they are an world authority on Chapman, then super. However none of that is helpful to what I am asking about.

From what I can gather, I haven't actually appeared to have claimed anything wrong because nobody here can spend the 2 seconds to tell me what that is.

[Cogidubnus]

You're prepared to argue facts about Chapman, with the foremost authority on Chapman, (and I defy you to find somebody up-to-date who'll disagree), without even bothering to read said authority's book...you then challenge said authority to provide a reason why you should invest something under £9 and a few hours reading...

You then have the sheer nerve to challenge people who've read the book...clearly the concept that every person in a debate is equal is a fallacy (and you can spell that how you like).

[Batman]

You do?

So you can comment on Einstein if you haven't read anything he's written?

With respect...Cobblers...Some kind of scientist your university turns out.

Dave

Excuse me but Chapman didn't write this book. Your analogy isn't a good one.

Even having said that you can learn SR, GR and QM without reading him.

With all due respect I have only asked one or two questions I never got an answer too and it seems to me people are doing cartwheels to just avoid that.

As I said before, I am willing to spend money on a book for good reasons other than the ones you are trying to push on me, thanks.