Ripperologist 106: September 2009

[AdamNeilWood]

QUOTE FOR SEPTEMBER:

"The Giants create drama with every at-bat. It's a wild-swinging group whose approach to hitting sometimes seems to be the same as Jack the Ripper's approach to dating."

Scott Ostler, San Francisco Chronicle, August 13, 2009


FEATURES

Editorial: The Role of the Media by Christopher T George

Henry Jackson Wells Dam: Part 1. Paul Begg and Christopher T George take a closer look at the journalist who may have been the inventor of both ‘Leather Apron’ and the ‘Dear Boss’ Letter

For Kicks: Was the Ripper a serial sexual murderer? by Jon Rees

Smoke and Mirrors: Simon D Wood explores Tumblety’s flight from England and the police officers who allegedly pursued him.

Sifting the Druitt Archives by Andrew J Spallek

A Tribute to Maggie Bird


REGULARS
I Beg to Report: All the news that's fit to print.


REVIEWS

The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper: Edmund Reid — Victorian Detective
Murder Most Foul: The Road Hill House Mystery of 1860
Death Ride From Fenchurch Street and other Victorian Railway Murders
Conman and Cutpurse
Dillinger’s Wild Ride: The Year That Made America’s Public Enemy Number one

BOOKSHELF
A look at Don Souden’s bookshelf.

RIPPER CLASSICS
Starting a new feature with The Lodger by Stewart P Evans and Paul Gainey.


SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Six colour issues direct to your email inbox each month for just £12. Payments preferred by PayPal to contact@ripperologist.biz


Best wishes
Adam Wood
Executive Editor,
Ripperologist magazine

[Chris]

I just have a couple of comments about the interesting article on Harry Dam by Paul Begg and Chris George. Really they are more about the illustrations than about the content of the article itself.

The first one is rather minor. I was puzzled by the fact that on p. 3 they include a sketch of Harry Dam, presumably in preference to the photo on which that sketch is evidently based. The photo actually shows the pince-nez glasses (referred to on p. 18) much more clearly than the sketch, which could almost be taken to show a monocle!

[Chris]

There is a bit more substance to the other point.

On p. 14 the authors include an illustration labelled "a contemporary artist's doodle of John Pizer". Although the source is not indicated, it comes from an article in the Star of 11 September.

And on jtrforums.com - in response to an enquiry by Debra Arif as to whether the "mad snob" nickname (meaning mad shoemaker), quoted in Lloyd's Weekly News of 9 September, could relate "Leather Apron" more closely to John Pizer, variously described as a shoemaker, boot-maker, boot-finisher or slipper-maker - Chris George posted this picture again as evidence that Pizer had a "pronounced beard" and therefore didn't fit the description of the "mad snob" given by Lloyd's, namely "Aged 30 years; height, 5ft. 3in.; complexion, dark, sallow; hair and moustache black; thick set; dressed in old and dirty clothing; and is of Jewish appearance":

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=80459&postcount=25

The problem with this argument is that it's very doubtful whether this is a sketch of Pizer at all. Immediately after its publication Pizer was quoted by the press as complaining that the picture "has no more resemblance to me than it has to the man in the moon" [Star, 12 September], and the Evening News later [15 September] claimed that it really depicted another suspect entirely, William Pigott.

Neither of these sources is unimpeachable, but certainly press descriptions of Pizer's description agree in giving him a moustache and side-whiskers but no beard. In other respects the descriptions vary, but on the whole they seem reasonably consistent with that given by Lloyd's, the discrepancy in the age notwithstanding.

Moreover, the preceding narrative in the Lloyd's article, concerning Leather Apron being denounced on the afternoon of Sunday 2 September near "Albert-street, by Cohen's Sugar refinery" and having been "last seen outside the Leigh Hoy public-house in Spitalfields" links the suspect very definitely with Pizer. As the authors mention, both Thick and Pizer referred to his having been publicly accused by a woman or women on that day (Pizer's brother also did, according to other reports). Pizer specified that the incident took place in "Church-street". Apparently he was using the old name for what became the eastern part of Hanbury Street. The Leigh Hoy was at 163 Hanbury Street, previously 26 Church Street, and there was a sugar refinery at number 157 (though I have never been able to confirm that it was known as Cohen's in 1888).

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Chris.

Trusting entirely to memory, I seem to recall that the alleged incident involving Pizer being accosted by two women took place in Church Street, West London. Or am I in error?

Garry Wroe.

[Chris]

Trusting entirely to memory, I seem to recall that the alleged incident involving Pizer being accosted by two women took place in Church Street, West London. Or am I in error?

The sources I've seen say only "Church-street". But Thick, quoted in the Star of 11 September, says the incident took place in Whitechapel, and Pizer's brother, quoted in the Daily Telegraph of 12 September, says Spitalfields.

[Sam Flynn]

The problem with this argument is that it's very doubtful whether this is a sketch of Pizer at all.

It doesn't resemble "Leather Apron", either, if the "thick-set" description is anything to go by. That "contemporary artist's doodle" always struck me as depicting a rather weedy little man.

[Chris]

It doesn't resemble "Leather Apron", either, if the "thick-set" description is anything to go by. That "contemporary artist's doodle" always struck me as depicting a rather weedy little man.

In some respects it agrees with the description of William Pigott, giving some credibility to the claim by the Evening News that this is a case of mistaken identity:
"This morning he states that his name is William Henry Piggott, and that he is 52 years of age. ...
The prisoner stands barely 5ft. high. He has a long dark beard, and he wears dark clothes."
[Star, 10 September 1888.
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880910.html]

[Debra A]

The problem with this argument is that it's very doubtful whether this is a sketch of Pizer at all. Immediately after its publication Pizer was quoted by the press as complaining that the picture "has no more resemblance to me than it has to the man in the moon" [Star, 12 September], and the Evening News later [15 September] claimed that it really depicted another suspect entirely, William Pigott.

Thank you for posting this information, Chris.
I had no idea about either of these claims.

[ChrisGeorge]

I just have a couple of comments about the interesting article on Harry Dam by Paul Begg and Chris George. Really they are more about the illustrations than about the content of the article itself.

The first one is rather minor. I was puzzled by the fact that on p. 3 they include a sketch of Harry Dam, presumably in preference to the photo on which that sketch is evidently based. The photo actually shows the pince-nez glasses (referred to on p. 18) much more clearly than the sketch, which could almost be taken to show a monocle!

[ATTACH]6558[/ATTACH]

Thanks, Chris. We will be using that illustration of Harry Dam in part 2 of the article, now "in press" as it were. To me, the portrait of Dam in both illustrations is so similar that it looks as if one is based on the other, and you are correct the engraving almost looks as if he is wearing a monocle not the pince nez.

In regard to your remarks about the illustration of Pizer, how many of us have said that a picture looks nothing like ourselves? The artist might have taken some license to depict a weedier looking man than Pizer actually was. Remember too that Pizer did not have to look like the descriptions of the suspect, he only had to have the right nickname, in order for the police to suspect him, particularly if the description of the supposed suspect was hyped up by Harry Dam or some other reporter.

Chris

[Chris]

Chris

The point I'm making is that in the published descriptions of Pizer - and I'm not referring to the earlier descriptions of "Leather Apron" - there is no mention of a beard. Indeed, the Times and the Pall Mall Gazette specifically say he had a "shaven chin".

In contrast, as you yourself have pointed out, the sketch shows a man with "a pronounced beard". So on that basis alone it would be doubtful whether it really depicted Pizer. And you have to add to that the facts that Pizer said at the time it looked nothing like him, and that the Evening News said there had been a mix-up and it was actually a sketch of another suspect entirely.

It would certainly be hazardous to assert that Pizer had a beard on such dubious grounds, against the explicit evidence of the contemporary published descriptions of him.

[Archaic]

Just out of curiosity, is it possible that Pizer shaved whatever facial hair he might have had simply because he was alarmed by all the wild
"Leather Apron/Pizer" press reports and rumors?

He must have been afraid of being beaten up or lynched by an angry mob, so this would have been a simple safety-measure on his part.

If he did so, I don't think it's indicative of any "guilt" on his part, merely common sense in light of all the furor.

By the way, when I read over Pizer's statements and his responses to questions, I thought he sounded like a perfectly sensible and well-spoken individual; not at all like violent maniac rumors portrayed him to be.

Best regards, Archaic

[Scott Nelson]

No, he was too afraid to hold a razor at that point.

[Chris]

Just out of curiosity, is it possible that Pizer shaved whatever facial hair he might have had simply because he was alarmed by all the wild
"Leather Apron/Pizer" press reports and rumors?

He must have been afraid of being beaten up or lynched by an angry mob, so this would have been a simple safety-measure on his part.

If any of the press reports had spoken of "Leather Apron" having a beard, that might make sense, but as far as I can see none of them does.

But in any case, the sketch was published on the evening of 11 September, and could only have been made on that day or the previous day (when Pizer was tracked down and taken into custody by Thick). The descriptions that say he was clean-shaven appeared in the morning papers on 12 September, and must also describe his appearance on 10/11 September.

[Chris]

As I think Scott is indicating, there are indeed a couple of reports that imply Pizer had if anything let things slide in the shaving department:

Piser is an undersized man, with a dark Jewish countenance, scanty black hair, about an inch of whisker down each side of a face the shaving of which had been neglected for the past two or three days, and a well-trained moustache.
[Daily News, 13 September.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18880913.html]

His hair is black, corresponding with his moustache and closely cut whiskers. The stubble on his cheeks and chin shewed that his face had been a stranger to the razor for some days.
[East London Advertiser, 15 September.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela880915.html]