Question about "Cable Street Dandy"

[HelenaWojtczak]

Just to clear up a few points., after a long absence...

Norma has stated that the Baderski family lied under oath in court about where Klosowski was living in 1888, because they suspected he was Jack the Ripper but they wanted to hide that fact.

Here are her actual words from downthread:


"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...

... 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".


On 7th January 1903, Stanislaw Baderski first gave his evidence about Klosowski. This was in Southwark Police Court. He stated that when he and Lucy met Klosowski (about September 1889), he 'kept a barber's shop in Cable Street' and that when Lucy married him in October 1889 they lived at Cable Street for six months, then moved to Commercial Street. This is all in The Times 8 Jan 1903 for anyone to check free online.

If Norma's theory is true, that Baderski lied about the date Klosowski was at The White Hart, then he began these lies on 7 January 1903. This is almost 3 months before the very first press speculation that Klosowski might be the Ripper.

What, then, could possibly have led the Baderski family to be the very first people in the world to suspect he was the Ripper? And not just a mild suspicion, either, but a suspicion strong enough to make these law-abiding Roman Catholics swear on the Bible and then lie to a British court.

According to Norma, they said he lived at The White Hart in 1890 and not in 1888 (when Norma thinks he lived there) because:

"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!"

So Norma is arguing that the Baderskis -- who she herself described as "decent law abiding citizens", broke the law by perjuring themselves, both in Southwark Police Court and the Old Bailey, because they thought Klosowski was Jack the Ripper. And their suspicion was based on one fact: that they knew he lived near to ONE of the eleven sites where the Whitechapel murders took place.

This does not hold water because:

1. Living near to a murder site does not make someone a murderer.

2. Thousands upon thousands of men lived near to one of the eleven sites.

3. The Baderski family did not know Klosowski in 1888 and therefore would not know where he was then living.

4. (a small point) It is almost certain that the Baderski family did not arrive in England until 1889. Yes they would probably have heard about a string of violent eviscerating murders around Whitechapel, but they probably had a very sketchy idea of exactly where they took place.

[HelenaWojtczak]

In order for Kloswski aka Chapman to have entered the lease for the Cable st address for 1889 in the Post Office Directory he would have had to have acquired that lease some time in 1888.
This could have been anytime right up until about 2nd December 1888-at a stretch even 10th December 1888 but it would have had to have been signed for during 1888---not 1889.So he was out and about in Whitechapel in 1888 thats for certain!

Yes, quite correct Norma.

[Malcolm X]

In order for Kloswski aka Chapman to have entered the lease for the Cable st address for 1889 in the Post Office Directory he would have had to have acquired that lease some time in 1888.
This could have been anytime right up until about 2nd December 1888-at a stretch even 10th December 1888 but it would have had to have been signed for during 1888---not 1889.So he was out and about in Whitechapel in 1888 thats for certain!

yea' don't they need a down payment in advance for a lease, or at least a stable job/ references etc... not sure !

but it looks like after JTR, that Chapman was attempting to settle down again in a stable job...... rather than getting ready to leave soon after, just in case he gets recognised as that LA DE DA geezer, thus to me, G.Chapman is not behaving like a visitor to London on a trophy safari hunt.

he's trying to settle down but things look to be going wrong !

[Natalie Severn]

In order for Kloswski aka Chapman to have entered the lease for the Cable st address for 1889 in the Post Office Directory he would have had to have acquired that lease some time in 1888.
This could have been anytime right up until about 2nd December 1888-at a stretch even 10th December 1888 but it would have had to have been signed for during 1888---not 1889.So he was out and about in Whitechapel in 1888 thats for certain!

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena, any evidence for this ?

Evidence for... Norma's theory? See upthread.

Or do you mean for Stanisław Baderski's placing Chapman in Cable Street in 1889? His Southwark Police Court deposition, and his Old Bailey sworn testimony. He said that when Klosowski and Lucy met, in August or Sept 1889, K had a barber shop in Cable Street. After they married, which was October 1889, Stanisław said that they lived first at Cable Street, and then in Greenfield Street.

Lucy's sister Stanisława arrived in England in the autumn of 1889 and on oath stated that at that time Lucy and K were already married, and living in Greenfield Street, and that she met Lucy's husband "in a public house in Whitechapel Road."

We assume from this that she meant he was working there, i.e. under the White Hart, but she may have meant they literally met in bar of the White Hart pub, or any pub in Whitechapel Road or High Street. As her placement is so ambiguous, it's best to stick to what she definitely stated, which is, they were living in Greenfield Street in the autumn of 1889.

Therefore I suggest:

Timeline

1889 January to December At 126 Cable Street
1890 January to May? At 126 Cable Street
1890 September (birth of child) The White Hart (home and work?)
1890–1891 Greenfield St (home) White Hart (work)
1891 April Tewkesbury Buildings (home)
1891 Sailed to New York

[DVV]

The other problem with Norma's theory that the Baderskis lied about when Chapman was at George Yard (because they knew about the Tabram murder there and wanted to protect Lucy from association with Jack the Ripper) ....
Helena

Hi Helena, any evidence for this ?

[HelenaWojtczak]

The other problem with Norma's theory that the Baderskis lied about when Chapman was at George Yard (because they knew about the Tabram murder there and wanted to protect Lucy from association with Jack the Ripper) ....

is that they were happy to place him in Cable Street in 1889, the very year of the "Pinchin Street torso" just across the tracks. (Adam, p64)

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Norma,

Well, surely that's obvious? Neal is, quite properly, judging the reliability of Stanislaus Baderski by the fact that his testimony corresponds to the impartial historical record - in this case, the birth registers.
Mark

It's not just Stanisław Baderski's word.

Not to forget George Schumann, a barber who came to live in London (poss from Germany) in 1888. Under oath at the Old Bailey in March 1903, he stated that he had lived in London "for 15 years" and that Chapman was at the White Hart "twelve years ago", which would be late 1890 or early 1891.

Trouble is, he then said he saw Chapman "8 or 9 years later" in Hastings, which would be 1898 or 1899, when in fact Chapman was there 1896 to 1897. But in the police court in late 1902, again under oath, he stated that it was "5 years ago" that he saw him in Hastings, i.e. 1897, which is correct.

The only thing that makes me think the first date was correct is that as he came here in 1888, that gave him a benchmark for dating Chapman at the White Hart. Had it been soon after Schumann came to live in England, he would surely have said that it was "15 years ago" and not "12 years ago" that Chapman was at the White Hart?

However, there is nothing to say that Norma's theory is incorrect. Chapman could have been TWICE at the White Hart, i.e. 1888 and 1890. But there is no evidence that he was there in 1888 apart from Levisohn's memory.

I have studied Levisohn's other testimony in my attempt to establish whether he was an accurate witness, and I am not impressed. As well as the 1888/White Hart business, he said a lot of other things that are completely uncorroborated by any other witnesses. It's this that makes me suspect that he had a very dodgy memory.

Wolf Vanderlinden wrote: "Klosowski worked for Abraham Radin in the West India Dock Road for about five months when he first came to London before he moved to 126 Cable Street. He lived at this address between 1888 and 1890 according to both post office directories and eyewitness accounts. Klosowski didn’t move to the White Hart Pub until 1890. Levisohn got the years wrong. Wolf." Interestingly, to this, Norma replied: "But I do accept,as I said above,that Levisohn could have been wrong about his dates."

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-3609.html

I also want to reiterate that whether he was at the White Hart in 1888 or not is unrelated to his candidacy as JtR. Who says Tabram's killer HAD to be living in the same street?

Helena

(P.S. Schumann is sometimes incorrectly named as ‘George Sterman’ by Hargrave L. Adam.)

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Well, surely that's obvious? Neal is, quite properly, judging the reliability of Stanislaus Baderski by the fact that his testimony corresponds to the impartial historical record - in this case, the birth registers.

Put it another way: What circumstances, in your opinion, most plausibly explain the fact that Wladyslaw was born at 89 Whitechapel High Street in 1890?

Regards,

Mark

Hi Mark,
At present I am really busy with a project of my own which has nothing to do with this case so I am really sorry that I don't have much time at all to give to this fascinating case right now .However, since it came up earlier. my opinion on this matter is that all the birth date shows is that the baby was born there and the couple appear to have been living there ie at 89 Whitechapel High Street in 1890.It tells you nothing of their circumstances otherwise.It does not tell you for example whether or not Klosowski aka Chapman may have worked in the basement barber shop at the corner of George's Yard at some point between 1888 and 1890 does it? For all we know Chapman got to know of the flat [above?]precisely through working at the barber shop from 1888,in a full or part time capacity, so he may have been in a prime position to learn about it when the flat became vacant .
Levisohn , in his court testimony ,did not say he saw Chapman at his home-he always referenced seeing him through his work as a travelling salesman of hair products etc.
Best
Norma

[m_w_r]

How does Neal know he was a more reliable witness?

Hi Norma,

Well, surely that's obvious? Neal is, quite properly, judging the reliability of Stanislaus Baderski by the fact that his testimony corresponds to the impartial historical record - in this case, the birth registers.

Put it another way: What circumstances, in your opinion, most plausibly explain the fact that Wladyslaw was born at 89 Whitechapel High Street in 1890?

Regards,

Mark

[Natalie Severn]

So Helena,
no anger whatsoever ------but I prefer right now to attend to other projects-
Best
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

Nowhere on this thread have I been rude or "insulting" to you. It's not an insult to disagree.


It isn't "rude" to ask people why they have reached the conclusions they have, nor to challenge uncorroborated statements, or theory served up as fact.

It's not reasonable to accuse people of being "insulting" just because they do not agree with your theories.

I don't get your point about the maps. Are you saying that just because you showed me where Cranbrook Street was, I have to now agree with everything you say even when you are wrong?

I've revisted your other threads. You often get furious when people disagree with you.

I do wish you would not take it all so personally. These are just theories, and this board exists for different theories to be put forward, challenged, and sometimes knocked down.

You still won't answer my perfectly reasonable questions about Gordon, Lucy and Schumann, preferring to distract with personal attack.

But the questions remain nonetheless.


Helena

[Natalie Severn]

WHAT!----run away?
and where have you been the past months dear Helena, after creating the furore you did and getting so many people fed up they left the site-or were banned from it as happened with one poster I know who posted here regularly?


You seem to think you can just be as rude and insulting as you like to people when they post and they will somehow want to debate with you.
Sorry I have lots of other things I want to get on with apart from this idiotic cross fire you term 'debate'.
PS I seem to remember helping you out over several issues last Summer regarding maps etc-going to some trouble to identify Chapman's old lodging house etc---remember?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Norma ...

What you mean is, you don't have an answer to the questions that I have asked you multiple times, so it's easier to just run away and put the blame on me somehow.

My questions about why you find Gordon's work groundbreaking... why Lucy went to the press if as you say the Baderskis hated the media circus.... Why you dismiss Schumann's evidence... when he corroborates Baderski...

You keep insisting that Levisohn was "impartial" but you say nothing of George Schumann, also by your own definition "impartial" as he too was a work colleague, and he places SK at Cable Street in 1890. You can't just ignore what some witnesses said. Baderski has corroboration, plus as Mark says, we have the birth certificate stating 1890.

"dissing anything and everything I or others may suggest"

Who are these others? The only other person who responded on here, Mark, agrees with me.

I am not "dissing" I am questioning and challenging, which is what this board is for. You cannot expect to post things that are surmise and conjecture and not have people disagree.


It's sad that, as soon as questions come along that challenge your beliefs, instead of facing them and responding, you can only run away.

This business about Baderski's thinking that if he placed SK at George Yard in 1890 that would make him Jack the Ripper is quite stunning. Have you no idea of how many people lived in that area at the time?

It's necessary to address these points and keep an open mind. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Won't listen! Won't listen!" isn't debate.


Helena

[Stephen Thomas]

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

Almost certainly, Norma, other stuff permitting.

Looking forward to seeing you as always.