Question about "Cable Street Dandy"

[Natalie Severn]

Norma, you are always becoming to the WS..

Ha Ha----will you be there?Will be good to see you if you are.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Mark, so nice to see you on here.Might I see you next Saturday when I will becoming to the WS ?

Norma, you are always becoming to the WS..

[Natalie Severn]

Helena,
I don't think you realise how you yourself can come across---dissing anything and everything I or others may suggest----
I am not angry -I just felt yesterday morning that I was up against a brick wall and it was a sort of sigh of "Oh! here we go again"!
Take an example from your post today: I did not say the Baderski family were all liars ,in fact I was most careful to point out that any decent law abiding family might well have looked for an opportunity ,if it presented itself ,to avoid being associated with Jack the Ripper to prevent further snooping into what Chapman was doing in Whitechapel in 1888- and a simple 'misremembering ' of an exact date ,might have been an obvious opportunity to do so -especially through the possibility, already looming up, of a crime hungry media-[ already extremely interested in the 1903 Chapman/Klosowski case ] seeking to add the name of JTR to the Baderski's brother in law's career as a serial murderer of women.
Nor do I buy the proposal you make that there was never a link until the newspaper article appeared.Why the Baderski family lived through Whitechapel's 1888 Autumn of terror -reported world wide.They knew their brother in law had lived and worked in Whitecchapel-both in Cable Street close to Berner Street and also in a barber shop backing onto George Yard.It is therefore,in my opinion,very likely they would have at the very least given some speculative thought to whether this strange brother in law of theirs ,up for serial murder 15 years late,r might have had something to do with the JTR murders and might even have been one and the same.That is just my opinion.
Btw you made the claim that the murderer CHapman would have been unlikely to have chosen George Yard as it was in his back yard implying he would have chosen somewhere further afield.I responded with the fact that home was the very place he chose to do the murders for which he was executed.
Anyway Helena, I wish you every success with your book but I really think it best to leave others on here to discuss the case with you ,
Best Wishes
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

"was trying to get across to you a fairly important legal point about the nature of the witnesses who were as it happened close relatives of George Chapman by marriage such as the Baderski's [and the family Rauch].They were the uncles and aunts of Chapman's daughter and the brother and sister of his wife Lucy Baderski-so definitely family.

Hi Norma, and yes I do know that these people were related to SK. Credit me with finding out at least that much after having written a book of 100,000 words about him.

Yes, I got your point but you did not get mine: viz, that you cannot label SK's family as "partial" and Levisohn as "impartial". That is assuming too much.

"They would not have wished , surely ,to add fuel to the fire by having this murderer charged with any further murders ?"

They would not have known the significance of George Yard 1888/1890.

I find it most amusing that you criticised me bitterly when you thought I was calling Levisohn a "liar", yet here you are placing that same slur on all the Baderski family. and that, apparently, is OK?

"a natural wish to protect their close relative Lucy and her and Chapman's young child -their niece from further ghastly association with the media circus's murder investigations"

Yes you said that before but you decline to address my point, which was, if this is the case, why did Lucy then go and blab the same information to the newspapers: the very "media circus" you cite?

Please do address this point, Norma, I have put it to you twice now.

"--- sniffing out the possibility Chapman was Jack the Ripper"

I am surprised that your have the timeline wrong, here, Norma. The suspicion that he was the Ripper came about after Lucy told or sold her story to the press (if she did). Her story was cited by Abberline as one of the reasons he began to suspect SK was Jack. Not the other way round. I thought you'd know this, having researched the case for your article.

"Levisohn was by contrast only a business colleague"

I have already responded to this point and explained why your assertion is not true. Your repeating it doesn't change anything, I'm afraid.

"He may have lied,yes but I would like to see your proof of this or at least a sound argument for thinking so!---ie if this is really what you think."

You'll know from the research you undertook for your article how dodgy Levisohn's testimony was about other matters. Or are you saying you believe everything he said because you judge him an "impartial" witness?

How many times do I have to say I don't think he lied before you stop misquoting me? I think he got muddled up. He knew an awful lot of people and saw them infrequently. Again when I look back to the people I knew professionally 15 years ago.... in 1997... if I had to stand in a court of law and try to remember which depot they worked at, let alone which one had the Spanish wife and which the Siamese cat.... hmmm.... One bloke I worked with and saw daily for five years, Richard Cooper, subsequently murdered his wife... I used to chat with him a lot, but ask me stuff about him 15 years later.... where was he living in 1997 as opposed to 1999? Hmmm... Mind you, I could tell you exactly where my brother and sister were living in 1997 AND 1999.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...led-life.html]

How can Levisohn be an "impartial witness" when there is a much circumstantial evidence that HE was JtR as there is against Chapman? He too was living in the East End at the right time, had been a feldsher (and in the army, too!) and had once been accused by two women of being Jack the Ripper. If he WERE the Ripper it would suit him nicely to place Chapman in George Yard in 1888! No way is he impartial.

"The date of 1890 given by the Baderski family and nobody else takes Chapman directly out of the frame for any link with the Tabram case and by association with Jack the Ripper and George's Yard." and "The date of 1888 given by Levisohn in his testimony for seeing CHapman in the WhiteHart barber shop puts Chapman straight back in the frame as a possible ripper."

Chapman COULD have murdered Martha Tabram. He does not have to have lived in George Yard to have done so, which makes me wonder why you are so hell-bent on placing him there even if you have to call the entire Baderski family liars in order to do so.

You seem to forget that nothing that any of us says on here prevents it being possible for Chapman to have been Jack the Ripper... that is why he is on casebook.org! Even if he NEVER lived in George Yard he could still be the Ripper, so stop getting so upset!

Norma, do you think that if you just keep beating me over the head with one thing you blindly believe that it makes you right, or make Levisohn a saint whose testimony is "gospel" and the Baderskis a bunch of lying gits?

"Again your logic defies me when you say he would not have committed murder on his own doorstep-why that is exactly what he did.Three times in succession inside his own houses!"

Yes and he got away with it twice and would have a third time (and maybe many more) if he'd just been more careful. He would not have got away with even the first one had he stabbed her 39 times with a knife.

You say you are not angry but you just keep banging on about this 1888/1890 business, which is actually irrelevant in terms of whether he was the Ripper or not, and you are so focussed on that one small point that you refuse to address my other points or my direct questions to you.

You still haven't answered my questions about R. Michael Gordon. Why is that? Nor why Lucy went to the "media circus" press (if you think she did) or told the police (if you think she did) who leaked the story.

I think it is a big mistake to nail one's colours to one theory or one suspect. It clouds one's judgement, and blinds one to any other possibility. One loses all impartiality, and cannot correctly weigh up evidence cooly and dispassionately. And it makes one blindly, staunchly and angrily defend that one theory, even as the evidence mounts up against it. One ends up trashing anything that threatens to expose it as impossible, instead of welcoming new facts.

Always keep an open mind! Maybe Chapman was the Ripper; but then, maybe he wasn't. But we should believe only facts and hard evidence, and bear in mind that everything else is only hearsay (which includes independently uncorroborated witness testimony), rumour, conjecture and guesswork. It's nice to explore these, try them for size, weigh them up; but not to become so "in love" with them that you cannot brook any dissent.

Helena
(Going to be offline today -- I am in Cyprus and am flying home later...)

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Hope you're well - it was good to see you in October at the Conference and perhaps I'll see you again in York later this year, or at the WS1888.

I've no particular wish to be drawn into this discussion, and haven't really got the time at the moment, but I hope Neal Shelden won't mind if I quote from his letter to the editor, published in Ripperana 6, October 1993. Following some remarks about Joseph Barnett, Neal says:

The case of Severin Klosowski (George Chapman) has also been an interest of mine for many years. His name was connected with the crimes on the assumption that he was working at a hairdresser's shop below the "White Hart" public house in 1888. This was on the corner of George Yard, Whitechapel. Unfortunately, this was assumed largely due to inaccurate evidence given at the police court proceedings by Wolff Levisohn in 1902. Klosowski's brother-in-law, Stanislaus Baderski, is a more reliable source. ...

Only in about mid-1890 did Klosowski become an assistant at the shop below the White Hart, and the birth of his son provides proof that he became proprietor by September of that year. His son Wladyslaw Klosowski was born on 6th September 1890, at 89 High Street, Whitechapel (the address of the White Hart public house). The next year, Wladyslaw died on 3rd March 1891, when his father was working at the new address of 2 Tewkesbury Buildings, Whitechapel, by Commercial Street. The boy died of "Pneumonia and Asthenia".

Regards,

Mark

Hi Mark, so nice to see you on here.Might I see you next Saturday when I will becoming to the WS ?
Yes,I know Neal Sheldon did some very valuable research like Helena has done into Chapman, but for the reasons I have given about the need to be cautious about the Baderski witness testimony above, I would question that statement. Surely that is what they would say if they did not wish their black sheep of a relative to be suspected of being Jack the Ripper?
How does Neal know he was a more reliable witness?
Also what specific and reliable evidence exists to suggest Levisohn lied on oath about his 1888 recollection? What had he to gain by doing this?
Best Wishes,
Norma

[m_w_r]

Hi Norma,

Hope you're well - it was good to see you in October at the Conference and perhaps I'll see you again in York later this year, or at the WS1888.

I've no particular wish to be drawn into this discussion, and haven't really got the time at the moment, but I hope Neal Shelden won't mind if I quote from his letter to the editor, published in Ripperana 6, October 1993. Following some remarks about Joseph Barnett, Neal says:

The case of Severin Klosowski (George Chapman) has also been an interest of mine for many years. His name was connected with the crimes on the assumption that he was working at a hairdresser's shop below the "White Hart" public house in 1888. This was on the corner of George Yard, Whitechapel. Unfortunately, this was assumed largely due to inaccurate evidence given at the police court proceedings by Wolff Levisohn in 1902. Klosowski's brother-in-law, Stanislaus Baderski, is a more reliable source. ...

Only in about mid-1890 did Klosowski become an assistant at the shop below the White Hart, and the birth of his son provides proof that he became proprietor by September of that year. His son Wladyslaw Klosowski was born on 6th September 1890, at 89 High Street, Whitechapel (the address of the White Hart public house). The next year, Wladyslaw died on 3rd March 1891, when his father was working at the new address of 2 Tewkesbury Buildings, Whitechapel, by Commercial Street. The boy died of "Pneumonia and Asthenia".

Regards,

Mark

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena
This morning I was trying to get across to you a fairly important legal point about the nature of the witnesses who were as it happened close relatives of George Chapman by marriage such as the Baderski's [and the family Rauch].They were the uncles and aunts of Chapman's daughter and the brother and sister of his wife Lucy Baderski-so definitely family.
Therefore it is clear that they would not fall into the category of impartial witnesses---they had much to lose or at the very least much to concern them with their close relative, their brother in law, being charged with murder.They would not have wished , surely ,to add fuel to the fire by having this murderer charged with any further murders ? Not if they themselves were decent law abiding citizens with a natural wish to protect their close relative Lucy and her and Chapman's young child -their niece from further ghastly association with the media circus's murder investigations --- sniffing out the possibility Chapman was Jack the Ripper for example.They had something quite important to lose by helping add fuel to the fire by letting the press or police think their brother in law might be Jack the Ripper murder , so how helpful it must have been to recall Chapman being in the White Hart in 1890 and not 1888

Levisohn was by contrast only a business colleague therefore he would be considered in a court of law an impartial witness as such.He may have lied,yes but I would like to see your proof of this or at least a sound argument for thinking so!---ie if this is really what you think.
The date of 1890 given by the Baderski family and nobody else takes Chapman directly out of the frame for any link with the Tabram case and by association with Jack the Ripper and George's Yard.
THe date of 1888 given by Levisohn in his testimony for seeing CHapman in the WhiteHart barber shop puts Chapman straight back in the frame as a possible ripper.

Again your logic defies me when you say he would not have committed murder on his own doorstep-why that is exactly what he did.Three times in succession inside his own houses!
But hey Helena---no need for personal remarks here ---I am not at all angry
---Best Wishes
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

Norma: "I think R.Michael Gordon did some intelligent and groundbreaking work on Chapman".

I am very interested to hear your opinions. Which specific parts of his research do you consider are groundbreaking?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Wow Norma what is with all the multiple exclaimation marks and emboldments? Makes you sound really angry. Not conducive to a cool discussion of the facts. And it's facts that count here, not passion.

"You appear to be highly selective of who you choose to believe and who you dont"

I look for corroboration.


"you believe the 'relatives' of Chapman's wife Lucy without question apparently"

I don't believe ANYTHING "without question".

"yet they would never be considered impartial witnesses"

I don't think any of the witnesses who actually knew SK personally were "impartial". Is anyone impartial?

"the man Levisohn, who was simply his work colleague and therefore not involved with Chapman or his wife Lucy or his daughter---you dismiss as a liar!"

Do not misquote me. I said he "made errors". I did not say he was a liar.

I don't think anyone can state that Levisohn was "simply a work colleague". He may have hated SK, or admired him. We do not know how he felt towards him, but whatever it was could affect what he said. I personally think that the fact that he was not a personal friend of SK, and only saw him sporadically, as one of a large number of customers, means he could easily get dates etc mixed up.

"Ever considered that the Baderski's may have wished to protect Lucy and the child from Chapman's marriage from further adverse publicity about the extent of Chapman's crimes"

It's an interesting point. You mean they didn't mention the attack in New Jersey, in order to protect Lucy and her eldest child? Then Lucy goes and blabs the very selfsame thing to a newspaper reporter?

"the very last thing they would have wanted surely to goodness was for them to have been known throughout the world as 'the wife and daughter and close relations of Jack the Ripper'!!!!"

That's a giant leap, Norma! Even if the New Jersey story were true, that does NOT mean that SK is Jack the Ripper.

"I was addressing the assessment of accumulative evidence added to by R. Michael Gordon's book- I quoted the Martha Tabram crime scene next to Geirge's Yard where Chapman had premises according to [B]both the [/B]Baderskis AND Levisohn---for crying out loud"

Nope; as I said, the Baderski family and George Shumann place him there in 1890. You know he was there in 1890 Norma because the baby was born at the White Hart Sept 1890.

Even if he had been living in George Yard in 1888, does not make him the Ripper, nor the killer of Tabram. How stupid to commit a murder on your own doorstep. But, anyway, there isn't a shred of evidence to place him there, other than the misremembering of one witness, whose other testimony is very dodgy.

"Cable Street--- a lonelier more sinister road it would be hard to imagine at night-no wonder they performed 'The Wasteland' there a few years ago in mid winter!----even today ,Helena,with its vasted creepy arches leading into PInchin Street and Berner Street it still is creepy and sinister AND it was Chapman's address"

Norma, are you seriously suggesting that, because an area is dark and sinister and creepy, ONE of the thousands of people who once lived there HAS to be an eviscerating serial ripper-killer? What about all the other thousands who lived there, and other sinister, creepy places in the world? Are they all serial rippers, too?

"must have applied for inclusion in 1888 meaning he was possibly living or working there as early as 1888!Also corroborated by the Baderski's."

Yes, Cable Street 1888 -- NOT George Yard 1888.

"Of course Abberline would have held contact with his police officer friends if he was working at Pinkertons Detective agency"

No evidence either way, plus has no bearing on this case.

"come on Helena!"

Come on what? Come on, stop looking for evidence and facts and start preferring guesswork and conjecture? Really not my style, dear Norma!

Helena

[Natalie Severn]

Helena,

You appear to be highly selective of who you choose to believe and who you dont,you believe the 'relatives' of Chapman's wife Lucy without question apparently --yet they would never be considered impartial witnesses today --- yet the man Levisohn, who was simply his work colleague and therefore not involved with Chapman or his wife Lucy or his daughter---you dismiss as a liar ! Curious........
Ever considered that the Baderski's may have wished to protect Lucy and the child from Chapman's marriage from further adverse publicity about the extent of Chapman's crimes---- the very last thing they would have wanted surely to goodness was for them to have been known throughout the world as 'the wife and daughter and close relations of Jack the Ripper'!!!!

I was addressing the assessment of accumulative evidence added to by R. Michael Gordon's book- I quoted the Martha Tabram crime scene next to Geirge's Yard where Chapman had premises according to [B]both the [/B]Baderskis AND Levisohn---for crying out loud of course the Baderski's would have 'preferred' that to have been after the Ripper murders ie in 1890 not the notorious year of 1888!
And the address in Cable Street--- a lonelier more sinister road it would be hard to imagine at night-no wonder they performed 'The Wasteland' there a few years ago in mid winter!----even today ,Helena,with its vasted creepy arches leading into PInchin Street and Berner Street it still is creepy and sinister AND it was Chapman's address in the Post office Directory of 1889[under Klosowski] for which he must have applied for inclusion in 1888 meaning he was possibly living or working there as early as 1888!Also corroborated by the Baderski's.

Of course Abberline would have held contact with his police officer friends if he was working at Pinkertons Detective agency---come on Helena!

[HelenaWojtczak]

Sorry, left it too late to edit... I want to finish with this:

Therefore, I contend, just because Lucy didn't deny (in printed form) that the New Jersey incident was true, does not mean that it was.

And just because it's in the paper doesn't make it true, and even if the story emanated from Lucy, even that would not make it true.

If she had something to say that would help the prosecution, why didn't she make the statement from the witness box, where she would have to swear on the Bible to tell the truth? She went to the Old Bailey and listened, but refused to say anything under oath.

And if she decided not to give this piece of damning evidence against him, then why go to a newspaper with the story AFTER he's been found guilty of murder? There are just too many unanswerable questions here, aren't there?

As you can see, I find it a very tricky story to deal with.

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

"I was simply responding without having time to check----I don't have time at the moment but wanted to respond to your email."

No rush; come back when you have time. I'm not hassling for a quick response.

"What about the reports -in the Pall Mall Gazette ? I would be interested to know how you knew for certainthat Abberline used another source for his information?"

Because the PMG article was about him; it didn't inform him.

"I am very intrigued to know Abberline had not retired in 1903 but was working for Pinkertons .Their agents had worked very closely with Sir Robert Anderson and the Home Office in the late 1880's.I knew that soon after Abberline's retirement he worked for them in Monte Carlo and I am in no doubt that he kept in contact with his former colleagues in Scotland Yard as it would surely have been one of the reasons Pinkertons detective agency kept him on?"

There's a lot of info about his life online. We don't know if he kept in contact with Scotland Yard. It would not impact on the Chapman case anyway, as that was being conducted by Southwark police.

"I think R.Michael Gordon did some intelligent and groundbreaking work on Chapman".

I am very interested to hear your opinions. Which specific parts of his research do you consider are groundbreaking?

"My main disappointment with him is that he doesn't quote his sources sufficiently and some of what he says is inaccurate."

Why in your opinion has he not quoted his sources?

"I believe he has explored the subject sufficiently"

You aren't bothered that he hasn't even bothered to get the basics right? Such as not even establishing how to spell Klosowski's full name or birthplace correctly, despite writing four books about him? You're very forgiving, Norma.

"the accumulative weight of evidence against him through coincidence and analysis and to therefore be able to put forward a viable proposition for Chapman's Ripper candidacy."

What if his only evidence is stuff for which he has no source (and thus no proof?) Would that matter at all?

"Cable Street barbers shop... had a basement ... was diagonally opposite Pinchin Street ..."

Thousands of people in the East End had basements; hundreds lived near Pinchin St.

"Chapman was unknown to the police at the time so appears never to have been on their radar in 1888/9."

Ah... you disagree with Gordon then? He claims the police questioned Chapman in 1888.

"Another of his workplaces in 1888 ,according to Levisohn's court testimony and his brother in law and sister in law was the barber shop in the basement of the White Hart pub"

Only Levisohn said this. The Baderskis give the date at the White Hart as 1890, as did George Schumann. Levisohn made loads of other errors and this is likely to be one of them as he is outnumbered by the other witnesses.

"These are recorded facts---"

SOME of the foregoing were recorded facts, like, he was at Cable Street (in directory) but not the rest.

"others also testified that he had worked and lived in Cable Street and that he had worked in the basement shop of the White Hart."

Yes, but not at White Hart in 1888.

"This latest revelation by yourself about him practising abortions in 1902 must surely be of huge significance---so congratulations Helena!"

Well thank you but I have evidence only that he practised them only on his girlfriend. When I discovered this I immediately thought of you because in one posting on here (forget where) you suspected him of being a back street abortionist. But the fact that he aborted his g/f foetus(es) does make it one step more likely that he may have done this kind of thing before, perhaps in London, perhaps on Poland. But it's not proof, Norma.

"when this is looked at alongside Levisohn's court testimony about him having been asked by Chapman to provide him with an 'illegal substance'"

The problem with this theory is, he used carbolic to induce abortion, and that was not in any way an illegal substance. On the other hand, maybe he had a preferred substance, could not get it because it was illegal, and so used carbolic as a makeshift?

"As for New Jersey address what you have unearthed is useful to know-but you are not claiming he never sailed with Lucy to New York are you?"

Course not. But all the relatives ever said under oath was that they went to America, and returned separately. Not one person in any witness box mentioned New Jersey or any kind of attack by SK on Lucy.

"As for her claiming he threatened her with violence-absolutely I believe it."

How do you know she ever claimed it? We are talking about ONE uncorroborated press report Norma. Do we always believe everything we read in every newspaper?

"He was a brute to his wives which you must know from the witness accounts of his wive's friends."

Small point: only had one wife. (Though Gordon claims -- with no evidence -- that he had two.)

"Why shouldn't it be true?"

Why shouldn't anything anyone says be true? Just because something is possible doesn't give us the right to treat it as fact. Marjoribanks stated that SK beheaded his first wife. Just because he wrote it, and it's possible, does not make it true.

"Where has it ever been denied by Lucy?"

Well, firstly, we have no evidence that Lucy read the story about the New Jersey attack. Secondly, she may have had a moan to her family but not complained officially to the newspaper. Thirdly. maybe she did complain, but her rebuttal/denial did not appear in print. (Not everything that a person says or does ends up in the newspapers, after all.) Fourthly, if she DID follow her husband's case in the papers, she would have read an awful lot of things about him that were not true, and yet she did not deny them, either.... but that does not make them true "by default".

To give you but one example, in March 1903 the Daily Chronicle stated:

The police have found that at the time of the first two murders Klosowski was undoubtedly occupying a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed. Moreover, he always carried a black bag and wore a ‘P. & O.’ cap.

Now, if Lucy read the papers diligently, she would have known that both those statements were untrue. But there isn't any written evidence that she denied it in a way that ended up in a printed format that we can refer to now.

Therefore, I contend, just because Lucy didn't deny (in printed form) that the New Jersey incident was true, does not mean that it was.

Helena

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena,
I was simply responding without having time to check----I don't have time at the moment but wanted to respond to your email.
What about the reports -in the Pall Mall Gazette ? I would be interested to know how you knew for certainthat Abberline used another source for his information?
I am very intrigued to know Abberline had not retired in 1903 but was working for Pinkertons .Their agents had worked very closely with Sir Robert Anderson and the Home Office in the late 1880's.I knew that soon after Abberline's retirement he worked for them in Monte Carlo and I am in no doubt that he kept in contact with his former colleagues in Scotland Yard as it would surely have been one of the reasons Pinkertons detective agency kept him on?

I think R.Michael Gordon did some intelligent and groundbreaking work on Chapman actually.My main disappointment with him is that he doesn't quote his sources sufficiently and some of what he says is inaccurate.However with such a case as Chapman about whom so little is known for certain between his arrival here and his execution ,I believe he has explored the subject sufficiently well to assess the accumulative weight of evidence against him through coincidence and analysis and to therefore be able to put forward a viable proposition for Chapman's Ripper candidacy.

Remembering the case I can think of a number of factors for his candidacy straight off:

-the lease we know he took out for a Cable Street barbers shop [recorded in the 1889 Post Office Directory meaning he had applied for the ad before mid December 1888]. Cable Street is and was a lonely stretch of street near the river and thje Tower of London with huge railway arches on one side of it and his shop was one whose architecture matches some of those still to be seen in the Shadwell area and which had a basement ----meaning the barber shop would have likely had access to it and activities could have been carried out unseen such as abortions.The Cable Street address was just a few minutes walk from Berner Street.It was also diagonally opposite Pinchin Street where the torso of the unknown woman was found.Chapman was unknown to the police at the time so appears never to have been on their radar in 1888/9.
-Another of his workplaces in 1888 ,according to Levisohn's court testimony and his brother in law and sister in law was the barber shop in the basement of the White Hart pub at the corner of Whitechapel High Street George Yard and therefore backing onto George Yard- a stone's throw from the spot where Martha Tabram's body was found.

These are recorded facts---others also testified that he had worked and lived in Cable Street and that he had worked in the basement shop of the White Hart.
This latest revelation by yourself about him practising abortions in 1902 must surely be of huge significance---so congratulations Helena!Again when this is looked at alongside Levisohn's court testimony about him having been asked by Chapman to provide him with an 'illegal substance' some time in 1888/90
adds to the possibility that the illegal substance may well have been the type of substance Tumblety was accused earlier in the century of having supplied in Canada-this and the fact that a number of 'Barber surgeon' shops were once 'clinics' were wounds were dressed and some of these were also reputed to have been places where abortions could be carried out.
As for New Jersey address what you have unearthed is useful to know-but you are not claiming he never sailed with Lucy to New York are you?That is corroborated by relatives of Lucy for a start.
As for her claiming he threatened her with violence-absolutely I believe it.He was a brute to his wives which you must know from the witness accounts of his wive's friends.Why shouldn't it be true? Where has it ever been denied by Lucy?
Best Wishes
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

"can't find the bit about the New Jersey story in my computer file but I remember it was in Philip Sugden's book- an article from the Pal Mall Gazette of 23rd or 24th March 1903"

The entire article is on this site... linked from the Chapman suspect page.

"He retired to Bournmouth which was even then only about a one and a half hour train ride from London so he may have made a couple of trips up to LOndon or the journalist may have gone to see him down in Bournmouth and got the New Jersey story directly from Abberline"

Abberline was living in Stockwell in 1903. He wasn't retired he was working for Pinkerton's till 1904. And he read about the New Jersey story in the Daily Chronicle, 23rd March 1903.

"who in turn may have spoken to Lucy himself"

He had no authority to question her, plus there is no evidence that he ever did. Or even met her.

"certain inaccuracies in terms of New Jersey and where Chapman had lived"

I've not been able to find a single shred of evidence that shows they ever lived in NJ nor that the knife story was true. I just wondered if you believed it.


"the stuff about the Dr who wanted to buy organs... Chapman had tried to get illegal substances from him as early as 1888/9-which he said he refused..."

Not sure what this has to do with my question about NJ,,, but since you bring it up, I have evidence that Chapman carried out illegal abortions in 1902. So he could well have been doing so earlier.

Helena

[Natalie Severn]

By the way, have you read this? Hilarious!

http://www.multilingualarchive.com/m...m%C3%B6rder%29

WOW! what a mad transcription ! hilarious indeed!