Do we know who this "witness" is?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Do we know the name of this "witness" of negro caste" supposedly having witnessed Pizer asaulting a woman in HANBURY St.??

From the Daily Star, |2th September 1888

PISER INTERVIEWED.

A Press Association reporter interviewed Piser at 22, Mulberry-street, Whitechapel, this morning. He was released from Leman-street at half-past eight o'clock last evening. The ex-prisoner, in reply to questions put to him, said: - "Whatever particulars the world at large, the police authorities, and the public wish to know as to my whereabouts, and as to where I was staying when these atrocious and horrible crimes were committed I am quite willing to give. I came into this house at a quarter to eleven o'clock on Thursday night last. I knocked at the door. My sister opened it. She was rather surprised to see me, but it is usual at Jewish holiday times to pay visits to friends. My sister's young man was present. I shook hands with him. We had some conversation about work. My sister first went to bed and put the bolt in the latch. Anybody that goes out of the house after the door is latched cannot get in again. From Thursday night until I was arrested

I NEVER LEFT THE HOUSE

except to go into the yard. I was several times seen going into the yard by a next door neighbor. On Monday morning last Sergeant Thicke came here. I opened the door. He said I was wanted, and I asked what for. He replied, 'You know what for. You will have to come with me.' I said, 'Very well, sir. I'll go down to the station with you with the greatest of pleasure.'" "Did he charge you?" asked the reporter, "or tell you what you were wanted for?" He said, "You know you are 'Leather Apron,' or words to that effect. Up to that moment I did not know that I was called by that name. I have been in the habit of wearing an apron. I have worn it coming from my employment, but not recently. I was quite surprised when Sergeant Thicke called me by

THE NAME OF LEATHER APRON.

When I arrived at the police-station the police searched me, naturally I suppose, and in the usual way. They took everything from me, which I suppose is according to the customs and laws of the country. They found nothing in my possession that would incriminate me, thank God. I know of no crime, I have been connected with no crime, and my character will bear the strictest investigation, both by my co-religionists, and Gentiles whom I have worked for. I occasionally stayed at a lodging-house - chambers - but not in Dorset-street."

"Before you came to 22, Mulberry-street, on Thursday night, where had you been staying?"

"In the early part of last week I was at Holloway, and it was from Holloway that I came on Thursday. Last Sunday week I was accosted in Church-street by two females unknown to me. One asked me

'ARE YOU THE MAN?'

(Presumably referring to the Buck's-row murder.) I said, 'God forbid, my good woman.' A stalwart man then came up and said, 'Come in, man, and treat me to half a pint." I went on. I was not the man who is said to have been seen in a publichouse on Saturday morning. I don't know Mrs. Fiddymont's public-house. I was totally ignorant of such a name as "Mrs. Sievey," until it was published, and don't know such a woman. Between eleven and twelve o'clock yesterday a man came to Leman-street Police-station. One of the authorities asked me if I had any objection to go out to see if I could be identified. I at once went into the station yard. There were several men there. One of them I know to be a boot finisher. He is a stout, stalwart man, of negro caste. He came towards me, and without saying a word he deliberately placed his hand on my shoulder. I promptly replied, "I don't know you; you are mistaken." His statement that he saw me threaten a woman in Hanbury-street is false, for I can prove, as I have already said, that I never left the place from Thursday night until the time I was arrested. The Star has published a portrait intended to represent me, but it has no more resemblance to me than it has to the man in the moon. I have been told that I shall be wanted at the inquest this afternoon. I am quite ready to go and to make a full statement as to my whereabouts. I shall see if I cannot legally proceed against those who have made statements about me. The charges made against me have quite broken my spirits, and I am afraid I shall have to place myself under medical treatment for some time."

Piser is a man of medium height, with florid complexion, and wears a moustache and side whiskers. For a man of his class he displays more than an ordinary amount of intelligence. He was perfectly at ease while making his statement, and more than once appealed to his brother, who was present, for confirmation of his story.

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

For a man of his class he displays more than an ordinary amount of intelligence.

I want to point out that this kind of statement was commonplace and did not, at the time, constitute racism. It is also the same kind of thing that many people thought, probably including Anderson. Not the place for it perhaps, but it shows a mindset that many police officials may have had and would not have been considered racist or classist, just a fact.

MIke

[Phil Carter]

Hello Michael,

I agree entirely.

I would still like to know the name of this witness, as it is important to the whole scenario around Pizer. I find it strange we have no name, especially that for a while, Pizer was a prime suspect, for some. Thicke included. It must be my day...this should be on CHAPMANs thread!...DOH!
best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Phil,

I just can think of Violenia (Hanbury Street).
Of course, Violenia wasn't black...("half Spaniard, half Bulgarian").

But how could Piser be seen by two different guys in Hanbury Street - and cleared ?
Must be a misunderstanding...

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

When I arrived at the police-station the police searched me, naturally I suppose, and in the usual way. They took everything from me, which I suppose is according to the customs and laws of the country.
Phil

Ha ha!

What a liar...

He very well knew the customs of the police...

Amitiés,
David

[Addy]

Hi all,

I agree with you David, I think it is Violena. Sometimes people with only light coloured skin were also called "dark" or "negro". Or perhaps it was poetic licence from a reporter, hearing it was at least a darker skinned foreigner?

Greetings,

Addy

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, it was Violinia. Morris Eagle was also thought by some to look black. Similarities between Violinia's false testimony and the testimony of Israel Schwartz should be noted.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Scott]

This guy is another of those - like Diemschutz, Venturney etc. - who has a variety of versions of his name
In the index of marriages he is listed as EMMANUEL DELBART VIOLINA (see below) He married in Altrincham in Cheshire right at the height of the murders, in the July to September quarter of 1888
He married either Margaret Jane Hamilton or Sarah Jennings
Chris S

[Chris Scott]

Less than a year after his marriage, Violina (whose forenames on this occasion are given as EMANUEL DALBAST) was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment on a charge of indecent assault
This was at the Oxford Assizes of 24 June 1889
See below

[Chris Scott]

An unpleasant turn of events - the Oxford Journal of June 22 1889 reported that Violina was attacked by another prisoner with an iron bar (see below)
The unpleasant aspect is that this specifies that Violina was charged with assaults on children.
This is difficult to read and I will put up a transcribed version as ap
Chris

[Chris Scott]

Jackson's Oxford Journal
22 June 1889

ASSAULT BY A PRIOSNER AT OXFORD PRISON

At the close of the Bullingden Petty Sessions, at the County Hall, on Saturday last, an application of a very unusual character came before the Magistrates. It was made by Mr John Pullan, the Chief Warder in charge of the Prison (who has succeeded Colonel Isaacson as Governor, he having been transferred to Reading Gaol), and was for the issue of a warrant against a prisoner named Charles Atkinson, who was on committal for trial at the Assizes on a charge of burglary in the North of Oxford. for assaulting another prisoner, Emanuel Dalbast Violina, also on committal to the Assizes on charges of assaults on children. Mr Pullan stated that on the morning of the 12th inst., while they were at exercise, Atkinson threw the lid of a cistern at Violina, and he followed that up by wrenching an iron bar out of the wall, with which he struck at Violina. The latter put up his arm, but the bar struck him on the side of the forehead. Fortunately the man was not seriously injured, but the instrument was of such a character that but for his arm the blow might have killed him.
Sir G K Rickards observed that the bar must have been imperfectly fixed in the wall.
Mr Pullan said the stonework had fallen away, and Atkinson wrenched the bar out, and after the assault he was secured and taken to his cell. The prison doctor had seen Violina, and had stated that the assault was not serious, but that it might have been. He asked for a warrant to issue, which would not be executed unless Atkinson was acquitted at the Assizes.
The warrant was issued.

[Chris]

Thanks - that's very interesting information about Violina.

[Chris Scott]

Afetr a lot of searching I found a full account of Violina's trial. Some interesting info here, including his trade - a hairdresser - and family background. He claimed to be the father of 18 children, once of whom is named, a son called Arthur, who had a speech impediment.
In the context of this thread, it is interesting he describes himself as a "dark man."
This account also clears up the question of who he married in 1888. He names his sister in law as Sarah Hamilton, so the woman he married must have been Margaret Hamilton.
Although not graphic, some may find the nature of this upsetting.
Chris

Jackson's Oxford Journal
29 June 1889

ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN IN OXFORD

Emanuel Dalbast Violina, hair dresser, 53 Cowley Road, was indicted for having carnal knowledge of Annie Elizabeth Robinson, 11 Caroline Street, a girl above 13 and under 16 years of age, on the 4th April he was further indicted for indecently assaulting on the 15th of April, the 17th of April, and the 1st of May, three young girls, named Agnes Ellen Strange, of 55 Henley Street, Fanny Robinson, of Caroline Street, and Mary Roberts, of 34 Princes Street, Cowley Road.
Mr Sim, who prosecuted, said the prisoner was charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act with the offence against Annie Robinson. She went into the prisoner's employ on the 4th of April, and on the night of that day she went to bed with the baby, acting under the prisoner's orders. He was married, but at that time his wife was from home. Later on the prisoner came to bed, and the assault complained of was committed. The prisoner's conduct towards the other girls having been talked about, Robinson told her parents of what had occurred, and the prisoner was apprehended. The prisoner's mode of proceeding with the other children was to induce them to enter his shop, and he there behaved improperly to them, either promising or giving them small presents, and telling them not to tell their parents. It would be proved that a boy named Kemp, whom the prisoner employed on his premises, was sent out on some trifling pretence or another at the times when the girls were in the shop.
The girl Annie Robinson having given her evidence, His Lordship told the prisoner that it was at his option to go into the witness box himself hereafter, and make his statement, and he would have to be cross examined upon it.
The evidence of Dr Jenkins was to the effect that the girl's statement was consistent with truth.
The girls, Strange, Roberts, and Fanny Robinson deposed to the occurrences as regarded themselves, and were subjected to a sharp cross examination by the prisoner.
In defence, the prisoner said he wished Sarah Hamilton (his sister in law) and his son Arthur, aged 11, to be called; the officer shouted their names in the Hall, but no answer was given in either case. The prisoner then elected to go into the witness box, and on being sworn, he said, with reference to the girl Annie Robinson, that "after family prayer," she went to bed, and he gave a total denial to her statement, and called God as a solemn witness to the truth of what he said, and asserted that he could say it if he stood then on the scaffold to die. He admitted having played with Fanny Robinson and Strange by tying towels round their legs, but he denied before God that he had ever acted improperly with them or the other girl, and that he swore before the Almighty in the Court of Her Majesty the Queen.
In cross examination, he said his wife would not bring his son Arthur to the Court because of his stuttering. He had gone about preaching the Word of God, and he could not give any reason for the girls having made the charges against him that they had. He was the father of eighteen children, twelve of whom were girls, and the attraction for both boys and girls was that he was a "dark man,"
Asked if he had any further observation to make, the prisoner began by saying that he had had a very rovish and wild life, but he was promptly stopped by His Lordship, whom he informed that he had been for about eighteen years in England, and had travelled to and from South Africa.
His Lordship, in summing up, said if any of the cases stood alone, the jury might well feel themselves in a greater difficulty than they did with the number of cases alleged against the prisoner, but they must feel perfectly satisfied before they could find him guilty of all or any one of the charges.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty of having carnal knowledge of Annie Robinson, but convicted him of indecently assaulting her and the other three girls.
His Lordship deferred passing sentence until Wednesday.

[Chris Scott]

here for reference is the original article:

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, and Chris S,

Thank you both Chris and Chris S. Those are quite some finds. Well done!

No, not particularly nice is it?
A boot finisher, a hairdresser, thats quite a change of profession in 9 months. The A-Z describes him as a vagrant, possibly Boot Finisher.

I will point out one thing, not perhaps previously mentioned...

In the A-Z, it is stated that "....in 1888 he walked from Manchester to London with his wife and TWO children, hoping to emigrate to Australia."

From two to eighteen in 9 months!
Prolific I call that! LOL

best wishes

Phil