Question about "Cable Street Dandy"

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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]

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]

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

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

[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.)

[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

[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 ?