Question about "Cable Street Dandy"

[HelenaWojtczak]

I have a query about an ambiguous sentence In ‘The Cable Street Dandy’, published on here and in the Ripperologist magazine, May 2009.

The quote goes:

‘In 1888, an American agent is said to have approached the sub-curator of one of the pathological museums attached to one of the big medical schools in London, offering £20 for a number of specimens…Given Chapman’s record of ruthless and criminal behaviour, had he seen or heard of such a lucrative offer, it’s quite possible he would have been capable of “obtaining” such organs by fair means or foul.’

My question is about the sentence: "Given Chapman’s record of ruthless and criminal behaviour". Is Norma saying that given that we know in retrospect that Chapman was going to be ruthless and criminal in the future, or is she saying that he was in 1888 already "ruthless and criminal"?

Thanks to whoever can clarify this ambiguity.

Helena

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena,
Thankyou for your email of today.Re-reading those sentences I can quite see what you mean.Certainly up to the present time he can only be judged in retrospect ,as apart from the interview alleged to have taken place with a journalist and his wife Lucy, who is reported to have said in it that he had behaved in a brutal way towards her when they were briefly in America together in the early 1890"s ,we know nothing of his ruthlessness until we learn about him planning, apparently all of a sudden,in his mid 30's a series of three murders starting with Mary Spink,and taking place over a period of 5 years. I doubt its the case that he suddenly became ruthless and that prior to a mid life murder spree he had always been known for his gentleness towards women.Would he really have waited 20 odd years before he commited his first act of violence against women ? If that is so ,then would he not surely be unusual- if not exceptional- in terms of what we now know about serial murderers?
Best Wishes
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena,
Thankyou for your email of today.Re-reading those sentences I can quite see what you mean.Certainly up to the present time he can only be judged in retrospect ,as apart from the interview alleged to have taken place with a journalist and his wife Lucy, who is reported to have said in it that he had behaved in a brutal way towards her when they were briefly in America together in the early 1890"s ,we know nothing of his ruthlessness until we learn about him planning, apparently all of a sudden,in his mid 30's a series of three murders starting with Mary Spink,and taking place over a period of 5 years. I doubt its the case that he suddenly became ruthless and that prior to a mid life murder spree he had always been known for his gentleness towards women.Would he really have waited 20 odd years before he commited his first act of violence against women ? If that is so ,then would he not surely be unusual- if not exceptional- in terms of what we now know about serial murderers?
Best Wishes
Norma

Cheers, Norma. Just to clarify, you aren't saying he had a "record of ruthless and criminal behaviour" prior to the three poisonings, just that you suspect he probably did, based on his later behaviour.

I don't know enough about serial killers in general to answer your query, sorry.

While we are at it, do you believe the New Jersey knife story is true? If so, do you think it came from Lucy herself? If so, did she tell the police, or a reporter? If she told the police, how did the story get into the papers? Just asking your opinion, as I don't see we can prove any of it now.

Truly,

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

By the way, have you read this? Hilarious!

http://www.multilingualarchive.com/ma/dewiki/en/George_Chapman_%28Giftm%C3%B6rder%29

[Natalie Severn]

Cheers, Norma. Just to clarify, you aren't saying he had a "record of ruthless and criminal behaviour" prior to the three poisonings, just that you suspect he probably did, based on his later behaviour.

I don't know enough about serial killers in general to answer your query, sorry.

While we are at it, do you believe the New Jersey knife story is true? If so, do you think it came from Lucy herself? If so, did she tell the police, or a reporter? If she told the police, how did the story get into the papers? Just asking your opinion, as I don't see we can prove any of it now.

Truly,

Helena

Hi Helena,
Thats right--and my suspicions are based on his subsequent behaviour.

---I dont have the book any longer and 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 [I think].This paper had a reasonably good name and so would probably have checked its sources reasonably well.They quote having had an interview with Abberline---which I am sure they did---but Abberline himself may have relied on Godley or one of the other policemen for the story rather than having anything to do with it himself.On the other hand,Abberline was very much a hands on policeman-and very thorough so it really is difficult to know.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 who in turn may have spoken to Lucy himself or reported what he had been told by other policemen friends-hence the possibility of certain inaccuracies in terms of New Jersey and where Chapman had lived and when and the stuff about the Dr who wanted to buy organs.You bet there were doctors who wanted to buy organs---but that doesn't mean they approached Chapman---but if Chapman worked at the East End's barber- cum- clinics then he may have been involved in illegal abortions as some of these were known for helping women to terminate pregnancies---like Tumblety was involved in in Canada earlier in the century.
This is where Levishon comes in stating on oath that Chapman had tried to get illegal substances from him as early as 1888/9-which he said he refused to do as he didn't want to go to prison for 12 years etc .
Cheers
Norma

[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!

[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]

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]

"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

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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

[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