Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[David Orsam]

I agree with your points, Michael. The whole Leather Apron saga is very confusing.

What is it that you find confusing? It all seems fairly straightforward to me, I must say.

There was a theory (Neil Bell?) that Piser was a police informant working with Thick.

There are many theories about lots of things and, of course, Pizer could have been an informant while also being known as Leather Apron.

[Michael W Richards]

Im not sure why you have a problem understanding that this Leather Apron situation. Thicke believed Piser to be Leather apron, based it seems, on what he heard around the neighborhood. He had believed it for some time prior to the first murder. He used his belief to suggest Piser as the possible murderer on the loose. His belief was based on hearsay, not any evidence. Therefore he went after Piser as a suspect for the recent murders after the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury...based on a belief that the apron connected Leather Apron to the crime, and the belief that Piser was Leather Apron.

When Piser was cleared of suspicion the Star recognized that the prejudicial article to which Thicke contributed information could be considered libelous, and they paid him 50L, a not inconsiderable amount of money, for his agreement not to sue.

There was never any proof at all that Leather Apron was in fact John Piser, and there was ample proof he didn't kill anyone on the respective murder nights of the first 2 victims.

You keep stating that Thicke knew Piser was Leather Apron, which is patently incorrect. He believed he was, based on hearsay.

[Michael W Richards]

I agree with your points, Michael. The whole Leather Apron saga is very confusing. There was a theory (Neil Bell?) that Piser was a police informant working with Thick.

Thanks Scott...and I'm open to an explantion other than one that is being shoved at me here.

[David Orsam]

Im not sure why you have a problem understanding that this Leather Apron situation. Thicke believed Piser to be Leather apron, based it seems, on what he heard around the neighborhood. He had believed it for some time prior to the first murder. He used his belief to suggest Piser as the possible murderer on the loose. His belief was based on hearsay, not any evidence.

Well let's examine that then.

You are accepting, are you, that Sergeant Thick had believed for some time prior to the murders that Pizer was known as Leather Apron?

Why do you think he would have believed that?

And doesn't it only need a few other people to have believed the same thing for that to have actually been Pizer's nickname?

[David Orsam]

Therefore he went after Piser as a suspect for the recent murders after the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury...based on a belief that the apron connected Leather Apron to the crime, and the belief that Piser was Leather Apron.

But isn't that claim totally disproved by the report of Inspector Helson dated 7 September 1888, i.e. before the murder of Chapman, and before the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury, in which it was stated that a careful search was already being made for "a man named Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron"?

So the discovery of the apron had absolutely nothing to do with the police belief that Pizer was Leather Apron did it?

So far you've not even acknowledged the existence of Helson's report let alone commented on it. Can I ask you to now do so?

[David Orsam]

When Piser was cleared of suspicion the Star recognized that the prejudicial article to which Thicke contributed information could be considered libelous, and they paid him 50L, a not inconsiderable amount of money, for his agreement not to sue.

Yes because he, Pizer, otherwise known as Leather Apron, had been falsely accused in the Star of having committed the Whitechapel murders. What's your point here?

[David Orsam]

There was never any proof at all that Leather Apron was in fact John Piser, and there was ample proof he didn't kill anyone on the respective murder nights of the first 2 victims.

The fact that you keep saying there was never any proof that Leather Apron was John Pizer doesn't make it true. The evidence of Sergeant Thick proved in a court of law that Pizer was Leather Apron.

And isn't it time you commented on why Pizer was in hiding? Why do you think he was forced to flee to his stepmother's home and stay in there without leaving for three days? The answer is obvious isn't it? People in Whitechapel knew him as Leather Apron?

As for your claim that "there was ample proof he didn't kill anyone on the respective murder nights of the first 2 victims", I literally have no idea why you keep saying this. Of course that is true. No-one, least of all me, is saying he did kill anyone. You do realise that don't you?

[David Orsam]

You keep stating that Thicke knew Piser was Leather Apron, which is patently incorrect. He believed he was, based on hearsay.

But wouldn't that be true for absolutely everyone? A nickname is totally unofficial and one's knowledge of another person's nickname, in circumstances where that nickname is not know to the person who has it, can only be based on what someone has been told by someone else.

So on your view of it, it would have been literally impossible to prove that Pizer was Leather Apron because everyone who might have given evidence about it would have had to admit that their belief was based on hearsay.

And that seems to be where you are going wrong. Or at least one part of it. You don't understand what a nickname is.

[Michael W Richards]

But isn't that claim totally disproved by the report of Inspector Helson dated 7 September 1888, i.e. before the murder of Chapman, and before the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury, in which it was stated that a careful search was already being made for "a man named Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron"?

So the discovery of the apron had absolutely nothing to do with the police belief that Pizer was Leather Apron did it?

So far you've not even acknowledged the existence of Helson's report let alone commented on it. Can I ask you to now do so?

And who contributed to the report Helson issued...Thicke perhaps? The man who acknowledged he...again...believed Piser was Leather Apron...for some time prior to any of these 5 murders. Surely your intention is not to debate whether hearsay is equal to proof? Because that's what we are doing here now.

[David Orsam]

Thanks Scott...and I'm open to an explantion other than one that is being shoved at me here.

Oh Michael, I'm so sorry for shoving so many facts at you because I appreciate you do enjoy a more fictional explanation of events where you don't need to worry about trivial things like facts and evidence.

[David Orsam]

And who contributed to the report Helson issued...Thicke perhaps?

Quite possibly but it seems you are losing track of your own arguments. Let me remind you what you said about Sgt Thick:

"Therefore he went after Piser as a suspect for the recent murders after the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury...based on a belief that the apron connected Leather Apron to the crime, and the belief that Piser was Leather Apron."

If Thick was contributing to a report, dated 7 September, saying that Pizer was Leather Apron, his "belief" that Pizer was Leather Apron had absolutely nothing do with the leather apron found in the backyard being connected with the crime does it?

And it means that he was going after Pizer as a suspect before that apron was found doesn't it?

[David Orsam]

The man who acknowledged he...again...believed Piser was Leather Apron ...for some time prior to any of these 5 murders.

Factually incorrect. He acknowledged no such thing. He never used the word "believed" as I've said before.

Why do you keep misrepresenting the evidence?

[David Orsam]

Surely your intention is not to debate whether hearsay is equal to proof? Because that's what we are doing here now.

No, what I'm actually saying is you are completely wrong in calling it "hearsay".

Thick was giving evidence as to his own personal knowledge that Pizer was known as Leather Apron.

That's not hearsay, that's evidence.

[Paddy]

PIzer was in East End Jewish Hospital as an inmate at 5 years old. It looks like he became institutionalised as he was in (mostly) and out of workhouses from 1874 to 1888. Often destitute sometimes ill. He also spent time in Norwood at the Jewish convalescent home too I believe. He was never with his family in the census.
I did find his mother/stepmother? Augusta Pizer at 22 Mullberry street and he did have siblings or half siblings?
Sounds like he had a rough life...

Pat....

[GUT]

I wonder just how many people were known as "Leather Apron" they were a pretty common bit of work attire in the type of occupations many in the area would have worked in (those with steady work anyway).