Question about "Cable Street Dandy"

[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

[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!

[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 !

[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.

[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.