Wolff Levisohn

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena,
The information I told you about that I researched and that is posted here on Casebook under 'Dissertations' entitled,'The Cable Street Dandy' is there for anybody to look at .However I believe it is copyright. Usually when people request information here about ongoing research from others there is the understanding that their work may be copyright and they expect to be credited or asked permission if it is going to be used in another's research. Perhaps Mark is researching Klosowski himself for material regarding a book?

Best,
Norma

[babybird67]

Helena

Hi Helena,



Yes, apart from the marriage records when he marries, the 1891 census, the 1901 census, the 1911 census, his son's war records as next of kin, and his other son's marriage certificate (1920), when he is recorded as deceased, and, no doubt, countless other sources, including the sources linked to the Klosowski trial, where he appeared at the police court, and then at the Central Criminal Court, under his own name, and giving the correct details. Shady? Missing from the records? I don't think so.

This was Mark's first response to you in which he shared the information that there were records and plenty of them under the correct details. So as for not sharing his knowledge, that accusation is false.

The only thing Mark said he could not establish was a death registration.

It seems to me he was only trying to help you.

[tji]

Helen

Whether Mark decides to put the information to the boards or not is entirely upto him, it's his research, but I get the impression he never intended to keep the information back indefinitely.

It is also not his fault that you have to pay for another months subs on Ancestry and spent a few hours looking for one man, welcome to the joys of researching, it is what is needed to be done and I have no doubt all researchers have been through this endless amounts of times.

So it's OK for MY time to be wasted, then, is it?

erm it's YOUR research, if you class it as a waste of time that is up to you. Do you think you are the only one on the boards who is looking for information others have, no, but they don't demand the other person gives them it, if they do that, great - if they don't that person just knuckles down and finds the information for themselves.

I cannot believe that you can possibly support Mark's behaviour.

If this is the "spirit" of these boards then I will also not be sharing a single thing that I have discovered (and I have already discovered a LOT of new things.)

There is no behaviour to support. My opinion? you have mistaken Mark's teasing as something more than it actually was.

As to the spirit of the boards, speaking for myself, I have put information I have to the boards as much as possible, but have I held information back? yes, I have also done this, will it get put forward, eventually. I have also had the help of many great researchers giving me advice etc on the boards and I know for a fact I would not have the information I have without them, so as to the 'spirit' on the boards I would say it is a generous one. There is a lot to be learned from the people on the boards, however no-one likes it when they are told the moderators will be informed because they have yet to hand information over.

Tj

[m_w_r]

Hi chaps,

Firstly, my sincere thanks to everyone who's joined in on this, but it isn't very gallant of me to sit back and let other people try to help me out. I've got to do it for myself, and so that's what I'm doing here.

Helena,

From what I can fathom out, you're an intelligent and talented woman. But this particular exchange obviously hasn't really done you any good, and so I'm going to suggest that we quit the animosity, and head back to the theme of the thread.

Just before I do, though, let me make a couple of observations. Your track record - not in this particular subject area, but in the areas you've written and published about already - seems to be unimpeachable. You've gained accolades and respect; and how do I know this? I've seen your Wikipedia page. It's impressive stuff. But I note that your acclaimed book about railwaywomen took you sixteen years to research, write and publish. Sixteen years. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine that, at some point during that long process, you met barriers of one sort or another: something you thought you'd be able to find, but couldn't no matter how hard you looked; something you couldn't gain access to for practical reasons; perhaps even people who expressly doubted you, or doubted the validity or practicability of your project. I'd also imagine that there were times when one of these barriers, or another similar barrier, loomed on the horizon, but that, through lateral thinking, or sheer hard work, you broke through it or otherwise eluded it. Speaking as someone who doesn't have your research profile, but who's done the odd thing here and there, it's the excitement and satisfaction of those little victories that often make all the hours of toil worthwhile. No-one, I suppose, not even the most talented researchers on these boards, experiences untrammelled success in their research, find following find in unbroken monotony. Life isn't like that, and research isn't like that. But the pleasure, as I suggested before, is in the hunt, and in the orchestration of problem-solving skills which sometimes, if not always, bear fruit. Other researchers can dispute this point if they'd like - actually, there's probably a whole other thread in it - but, as I said, from my novice perspective, I'd be amazed if you hadn't had that experience, and felt that thrill.

When I first posted to this thread, I thought I'd dropped enough hints to give you a lead into Levisohn, and I genuinely believed that you'd enjoy searching for him yourself from this starting point. I really didn't think - and don't think now - that you just wanted to see the outcomes, without engaging in the process. When I posted subsequently, I believed that I'd given you even more hints and that, now, you couldn't fail to find him. I looked into Levisohn when I had the very great pleasure and privilege of assisting Gareth Williams, in a very minor way, with his excellent presentation on Klosowski, which he delivered at the JtR Conference in 2010. But I didn't have then, and don't have now, any resources at my disposal which you don't seem to have. I still believe that you can find Levisohn by yourself, and I still believe that you'd find that satisfying. However - and stay with me here - I'm still not going to dump all my research onto this thread, unless that really is what you want. If you do, please say so, and I'll see what I can do; in the meantime, let me record my view that to do so would be a reductive and unimaginative method of solving an unnecessary dispute.

Instead, I'm going to try another approach, and one which takes me out of the equation, since I seem to have troubled you so much. Somewhere above, Chris George (himself a fine researcher) noted that Levisohn told the Old Bailey that he lived at 135 Rosslyn Road, in South Tottenham. So the transcript says, but you may have noticed that Rosslyn Road is in Walthamstow; Roslyn Road, on the other hand, is in Tottenham: so there's a mistake, and an understandable one, in the transcript. I recommend that you search Google for "135 Roslyn Road" "Tottenham", and go from there. Chris's suggestion was one which should give you all the ammunition you need to track Levisohn back to 1887, and his sons forward to 1920, and probably beyond. Good luck. But remember - my offer still stands, and, if you'd prefer the data dump, I'll see what I can do.

One more tip - if I were you, I'd splash out on the subscription to Ancestry. If you're going to write a full-length monograph on Klosowski, it'll be worth it.

You spotted what you thought was my cloven hoof, Helena. This is the olive branch you never looked up to see.

Regards,

Mark

[The Grave Maurice]

Now that was classy. Well said, Mark.

[babybird67]

wow

You spotted what you thought was my cloven hoof, Helena. This is the olive branch you never looked up to see.

Regards,

Mark

Very well said Mark.