Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Martin Fido discovery 2018

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What corroboration?

    One, two or three policemen [take your pick] witness an incident on 2nd September 1888 near the sugar refinery on Hanbury Street. Pizer was last seen [when and by whom?] at the Leigh Hoy public house, also on Hanbury Street. Hanbury Street used to be called Church Street. You might think that the policemen involved [now down to two]—PC 143J and PC 173J—would remember where the incident took place.

    Star, 6th September 1888—

    “The hunt for ‘Leather Apron’ began in earnest last evening. Constables 43 and 173, J Division, into whose hands ‘Leather-Apron’ fell on Sunday afternoon, were detailed to accompany Detective Enright, of the J Division, in a search through all the quarters where the crazy Jew was likely to be. They began at half-past ten in Church Street, in Shoreditch."

    Was the coincidence of "Church Street," which Pizer himself later referenced, merely a coincidence?

    Inspector Abberline reported that through publicity given in the Star and other newspapers Leather Apron learned he was being sought and “it was not until the 10th inst. that he [Pizer] was discovered when it was found that he had been concealed by his relatives.”

    This is absolute rubbish.

    Pizer’s stepmother had been recorded at 22 Mulberry Street since the 1871 Census, and Pizer had returned there on Thursday 6th September 1888 for a very good reason.

    Sunset on 6th September marked the start of Rosh Hashanah, Jewish New Year. Prayers and festive meals would continue in the Pizer house until sunset on Saturday 8th September.

    According to John Pizer, Sergeant Thick had known him for "upwards of eighteen years," yet it didn't occur to Johnny Upright to call at the house of Pizer's stepmother until two days after the murder of Annie Chapman.

    Hands up if you think this was state-of-the-art Victorian detective work.

    Comment


    • Ah, yes, John Pizer the devoutly religious Jew.

      Or, alternatively, the wastrel and liar who wallowed in the sleaze of gentile doss houses across London.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Monty View Post
        Phil,

        .which happens to be no great revelation at all, Merely hyperbole, or ignorance, depending on from whom Kinroid obtained this form of ‘false advertising”*.


        \

        Monty

        *Not my wording
        One the insults are back.Two, my name is spelt wrong showing "ignorance" on your part. Three, my supposed "ignorance" of where my information came from on how big the discovery was supposed to be is quoted in full at at the first post of this thread.
        If you did not show you are illiterate and your own ignorance on jumping on me twice just because I wanted to find out what was discovered. And now we know, no thanks to the ignorant monty.
        God, ripperologists suck and and are arrogant ASSH*****. Go ahead and ban me, it's unbelievable the snobbishness and idiots on here. Like it's more important to argue about the con organizers than if someone actually important found something at he con in question and blacklist Fido!
        And it took me all this bull to find out what the info out as everyone was stuck up about it and again attacking.don't bother to reply, won't be reading. If any news breaks it won't be on this site. Too many know it alls pompous arrogant ass*****
        Last edited by Krinoid; 10-29-2018, 12:20 PM. Reason: left out word

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Was the coincidence of "Church Street," which Pizer himself later referenced, merely a coincidence?
          A few years ago I speculated that there were two incidents involving LA, one with the "eye-witness account" involving an unknown man and one involving Pizer in Church Street, very close in time and space to one another.
          Last edited by Scott Nelson; 10-29-2018, 12:45 PM.

          Comment


          • Hi Scott,

            It's an interesting idea, except that Eye Witness mentions time, place and policemen. John Pizer mentions Church Street, but no policemen, and gets the day right. Gabriel [who is repeating what John Pizer told him] mentions Spitalfields and a policeman and gets the day right.

            Two or more similar events in a single day?

            Regards,

            Simon

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Krinoid View Post
              One the insults are back.Two, my name is spelt wrong showing "ignorance" on your part. Three, my supposed "ignorance" of where my information came from on how big the discovery was supposed to be is quoted in full at at the first post of this thread.
              If you did not show you are illiterate and your own ignorance on jumping on me twice just because I wanted to find out what was discovered. And now we know, no thanks to the ignorant monty.
              God, ripperologists suck and and are arrogant ASSH*****. Go ahead and ban me, it's unbelievable the snobbishness and idiots on here. Like it's more important to argue about the con organizers than if someone actually important found something at he con in question and blacklist Fido!
              And it took me all this bull to find out what the info out as everyone was stuck up about it and again attacking.don't bother to reply, won't be reading. If any news breaks it won't be on this site. Too many know it alls pompous arrogant ass*****
              You shall be missed

              Monty




              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                Is it a coroner's role to chastise witnesses for behaviour that has nothing to do with the case he is looking into?

                And was Baxter the sort of coroner who would allow witnesses to launch into monologues?

                No and no, I'd say. Nothing strange there at all.
                But Baxter had Pizer before him at the Inquest and he did have something to do with the case (Pizer's possible involvement in Chapman's death). So Baxer should have questioned Pizer's past whereabouts. There are ample examples from other Ripper Inquests where Baxter allowed witnesses to respond at length to questions.

                That said, it was the Cornor's responsibility to rule on the cause of death.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                  [Quoting Martin Fido] "it is safe to assume that he was never a real suspect, but a necessary Jew who could be proven innocent to damp down the threat of race riots provoked by the knowledge that the police thought the Ripper was Jewish."
                  I wish I could have heard Martin's talk, and thus got his full theory. But isn't the chronology a bit "off"? This was prior to the house-to-house search. So--before the Pizer affair--what would have led the public to believe the police were looking for a Jewish Ripper?

                  Yes, it goes without saying there were racial tensions, but I don't quite see how this 'threat' suggests a police theory of the crimes, and it is hard to accept that Arnold, let alone Warren, would have gone along with such a radical scheme.

                  Comment


                  • One of the mysteries of the Eyewitness letter is why the sugar refinery was referred to as 'Cohens'. Thomas Dakin had owned the refinery since 1868 and he was still being listed on the 1888 electoral register as the owner of a 'tenement' on Hanbury Street.

                    This extract from a report of a banquet held by the SW Bethnal Green Conservative Club from the East London Observer of 15th December, 1888 may provide a clue:

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	41.1 KB
ID:	667595

                    This is most likely the Col. Cowan whose sugar refinery near Hammersmith Bridge had been totally destroyed by fire in April, 1888.

                    So it seems that Eyewitness had his finger on the pulse of affairs in the eastern section of Hanbury Street in 1888. Perhaps there was a large sign stating 'Cowans' on the side of the building, but then the obviously educated author would surely have spelt it that way. Or perhaps Cowan had so recently taken over the business that the signage hadn't been changed and EW had misheard the new owner's name as Cohen.
                    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-30-2018, 12:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                      But Baxter had Pizer before him at the Inquest and he did have something to do with the case (Pizer's possible involvement in Chapman's death). So Baxer should have questioned Pizer's past whereabouts. There are ample examples from other Ripper Inquests where Baxter allowed witnesses to respond at length to questions.

                      That said, it was the Cornor's responsibility to rule on the cause of death.
                      But once Pizer had provided satisfactory alibis for both the Nichols and Chapman murders, his appearance at Chapman's inquest was superfluous. Baxter told him that he had been called to give evidence for his own interest i.e. to place his alibis on record. His dubious character was of no relevance to the business at hand and capricious Baxter was a man who did not suffer fools in his court. There is nothing suspicious about Baxter's behaviour that I can see. Unless someone wants to see something untoward to bolster a conspiracy theory.
                      Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-30-2018, 12:52 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Scott,

                        It's an interesting idea, except that Eye Witness mentions time, place and policemen. John Pizer mentions Church Street, but no policemen, and gets the day right. Gabriel [who is repeating what John Pizer told him] mentions Spitalfields and a policeman and gets the day right.

                        Two or more similar events in a single day?

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        The fact that Gabriel mentions Spitalfields is actually a discrepancy between his account and EW's, but as you say he is simply relaying his version of the story told to him by his brother.

                        'Send reinforcements we're going to advance' soon becomes 'Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance.'

                        Comment


                        • Hi MrBarnett,

                          Nice find.

                          A couple of years ago I posted about the Cowan/Cohen homophone and got unmercifully savaged by Lord Snooty.

                          Bryan Mawer of the Sugar Refiners and Sugarbakers database, citing the ‘Eye Witness’ report from the “Dundee Evening Telegraph,” 6th September 1888, told me, “I have to assume, therefore, that Mr. Cohen was probably the manager of the [Dakin’s] refinery, which at that time was on its last legs. Dakin put it up for sale in 1889.”

                          Cowan was an unlucky chap. Prior to his 1888 fire, there was an explosion at his Barnes premises which killed a couple of workers.

                          Regards,

                          Simon

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            Hi MrBarnett,

                            Nice find.

                            A couple of years ago I posted about the Cowan/Cohen homophone and got unmercifully savaged by Lord Snooty.

                            Bryan Mawer of the Sugar Refiners and Sugarbakers database, citing the ‘Eye Witness’ report from the “Dundee Evening Telegraph,” 6th September 1888, told me, “I have to assume, therefore, that Mr. Cohen was probably the manager of the [Dakin’s] refinery, which at that time was on its last legs. Dakin put it up for sale in 1889.”

                            Cowan was an unlucky chap. Prior to his 1888 fire, there was an explosion at his Barnes premises which killed a couple of workers.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Thanks, Simon.

                            I chatted with Bryan about the Eyewitness episode some time ago and I've alerted him to the Cowan info. Did you know that Bryan's ancestors once ran the Hanbury Street refinery?

                            I was tempted to extend my Sherlock Holmes impression by suggesting (tongue in cheek) that since EW either couldn't read Cowan's sign or misheard the name, he was probably an older gentleman - like William Tyler. ��Thought better of it, though.

                            Gary

                            Comment


                            • Hi Gary,

                              You say that other than establishing an alibi for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, Pizer's appearance at Chapman's inquest was superfluous.

                              I respectfully disagree. Ponder this.

                              Just prior to the inquest Pizer was asked by an Echo reporter—

                              “‘Were you not surprised when he [Sergeant Thick] said you were known as ‘Leather Apron’?

                              ‘Yes,’ replied Pizer, sticking firmly to his statement made the previous day. ‘I was not aware that I was known by that name. None of my neighbours have ever called me by it.’”

                              Later that afternoon at the inquest—

                              Coroner Wynne Baxter— “Are you known by the nickname of ‘Leather Apron’?”

                              John Pizer— “Yes, sir.”

                              With his innocence established, incontrovertible evidence sworn on oath that John Pizer was alone known as Leather Apron was delivered by the next witness.

                              “Detective-Sergeant Thick deposed that on Monday morning he apprehended the last witness [Pizer] at 22 Mulberry Street.

                              “Coroner Wynne Baxter— ‘When people in the neighbourhood speak of ‘Leather Apron’, do they mean Pizer?’

                              “Detective Sergeant Thick— ‘They do, sir.’”

                              On the sole testimony of Detective Sergeant Thick, John Pizer and Leather Apron were officially conjoined.

                              Allegedly the Star had libelled the innocent Leather Apron, dubbing him a “lunatic” and a “murderer.” As long as Pizer denied being known as Leather Apron no libel could attach to him. But if Pizer changed his story, he and Leather Apron would become as one and thus able to pursue a libel case against the Star.

                              The problem is that neither the Star nor any other newspaper had uttered a libel. Until the police arrested John Pizer at his stepmother’s house on the morning of 10th September, his name had not been mentioned in the press, let alone associated with the person of Leather Apron.

                              The libel was on the Metropolitan Police. It was solely them, in the person of Sergeant Thick, who had conjoined John Pizer with Leather Apron.

                              Regards,

                              Simon

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi Gary,

                                You say that other than establishing an alibi for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, Pizer's appearance at Chapman's inquest was superfluous.

                                I respectfully disagree. Ponder this.

                                Just prior to the inquest Pizer was asked by an Echo reporter—

                                “‘Were you not surprised when he [Sergeant Thick] said you were known as ‘Leather Apron’?

                                ‘Yes,’ replied Pizer, sticking firmly to his statement made the previous day. ‘I was not aware that I was known by that name. None of my neighbours have ever called me by it.’”

                                Later that afternoon at the inquest—

                                Coroner Wynne Baxter— “Are you known by the nickname of ‘Leather Apron’?”

                                John Pizer— “Yes, sir.”

                                With his innocence established, incontrovertible evidence sworn on oath that John Pizer was alone known as Leather Apron was delivered by the next witness.

                                “Detective-Sergeant Thick deposed that on Monday morning he apprehended the last witness [Pizer] at 22 Mulberry Street.

                                “Coroner Wynne Baxter— ‘When people in the neighbourhood speak of ‘Leather Apron’, do they mean Pizer?’

                                “Detective Sergeant Thick— ‘They do, sir.’”

                                On the sole testimony of Detective Sergeant Thick, John Pizer and Leather Apron were officially conjoined.

                                Allegedly the Star had libelled the innocent Leather Apron, dubbing him a “lunatic” and a “murderer.” As long as Pizer denied being known as Leather Apron no libel could attach to him. But if Pizer changed his story, he and Leather Apron would become as one and thus able to pursue a libel case against the Star.

                                The problem is that neither the Star nor any other newspaper had uttered a libel. Until the police arrested John Pizer at his stepmother’s house on the morning of 10th September, his name had not been mentioned in the press, let alone associated with the person of Leather Apron.

                                The libel was on the Metropolitan Police. It was solely them, in the person of Sergeant Thick, who had conjoined John Pizer with Leather Apron.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                The simple attribution of the nickname itself wasn't libellous, surely, especially if Pizer himself admitted it in court.

                                Where do you imagine Helson received his information linking Pizer and LA and claiming that he abused unfortunates? That's the first 'official' record of the link isn't it?

                                Bryan Mawer responded and reminded me it was 4 years ago that we discussed the Church Street incident. I'm going to send him some info about Pearly Poll's husband stealing a sugar titler from Martineau's refinery. Ironically when he was committed to Claybury 30 years later it was a member of the Martineau family who authorised the committal.
                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-30-2018, 01:08 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X