Martin Fido discovery 2018

[Simon Wood]

John Pizer died, aged 47, in July 1897.

So who was this guy?

The Hampshire Telegraph and Naval Chronicle, Saturday October 20th 1900.

"A man named Julius Lipman has just died in the East End of drink, neglect and starvation. He was a cobbler by trade, and was known as “Leather Apron.” He fell under the suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, and although he completely proved his innocence the stigma never quite left him, and his business dwindled away.

"Lipman was peculiarly unfortunate in the matter. “Leather Apron” as a possible Jack the Ripper was invented by an imaginative journalist on a sensational paper. He did not suspect for a moment that there was a real man in the district known by that name."

[MrBarnett]

John Pizer died, aged 47, in July 1897.

So who was this guy?

The Hampshire Telegraph and Naval Chronicle, Saturday October 20th 1900.

"A man named Julius Lipman has just died in the East End of drink, neglect and starvation. He was a cobbler by trade, and was known as “Leather Apron.” He fell under the suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, and although he completely proved his innocence the stigma never quite left him, and his business dwindled away.

"Lipman was peculiarly unfortunate in the matter. “Leather Apron” as a possible Jack the Ripper was invented by an imaginative journalist on a sensational paper. He did not suspect for a moment that there was a real man in the district known by that name."

How many people were accused of being Jack the Ripper?

Was Lipman an habitue of seedy lodging houses, did he stab another 'snob', was he arrested for a sexual assault, was he said to be a wastrel who was overly fond of women who habitually wore his leather apron whether he was working or not, did he admit in court to being LA, and was he confronted in Church Street and accused of being LA 20 times, by a woman he initially denied knowing and then admitted was someone who frequently bothered him?

Even if the answer is yes, which I suspect it's not, it still doesn't undermine Thick's identification of Pizer as LA.

[jmenges]

Richard Jones wrote a blog post a few years ago that named 5 other people, including a female, who were identified or self-identified as ‘Leather Apron’ besides Pizer. There are probably more.
Gary is correct in seeing a parallel with those accused of or confessing to have been Jack the Ripper.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Richard Jones wrote a blog post a few years ago that named 5 other people, including a female, who were identified or self-identified as ‘Leather Apron’ besides Pizer. There are probably more.
Gary is correct in seeing a parallel with those accused of or confessing to have been Jack the Ripper.

JM

Thanks, JM. It was a mini-hysteria in comparison to that of JTR, but it was one all the same.

But the point at issue is whether with what we know about Pizer, and assuming that William Thick had considerable local knowledge - I believe he had lived a couple of streets away from the Pizer family - it is reasonable to dismiss his ID of Pizer as LA? The stock answer that Pizer's family were unaware of the nickname he was given by the street women of Spitalfields doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned. Why would they be?

[Batman]

Hi Scott,

Even Thick couldn't have been as thick as he appears to have been about Pizer.

It's clear that they had some sort of arrangement.

How's your Lifetime Award shaping up?

Regards,

Simon

Do you think it's possible they also arranged an alibi of another PC for him. That he was obtained just to cool down the anti-Semitic JtR hysteria?

[MrBarnett]

Do you think it's possible they also arranged an alibi of another PC for him. That he was obtained just to cool down the anti-Semitic JtR hysteria?

And the women in Church Street, were they in on it too?

[Simon Wood]

Hi MrBarnett,

I'm guessing you haven't read my book.

There were no women in Church Street.

Regards,

Simon

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,

I'm guessing you haven't read my book.

There were no women in Church Street.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

I suspect that even if I had read your book, I might still believe there were. Unless you have concrete evidence there weren't. In which case, tell us.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Simon,

I suspect that even if I had read your book, I might still believe there were. Unless you have concrete evidence there weren't. In which case, tell us.

Gary

Unless of course you are making the point that there was no Church Street? That I agree with. In fact, whoever penned the 'Eyewitness' letter had a very outdated understanding of the area in which the incident occurred.

[MrBarnett]

I once had what I thought was a reasonable stab at identifying 'Eyewitness'.

In the letter he said he was coming from school on a Sunday, and sure enough there was a Sunday school nearby. His knowledge of the area demonstrated that he had known it for many years and he gives some rough clues as to where he lived.

And I found that there was an aged Sunday school teacher associated with the nearest Sunday school who lived in the general direction of Eyewitness's journey home. A man with a social conscience who might well have written such a letter to the press.

Amusingly, Tom Wescott found the letter suspicious because he thought it didn't sound like it was written by an east end schoolboy.

[Simon Wood]

Hi MrBarnett,

Tom's not infallible.

Do you have a copy of the letter?

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

I don't remember if you mentioned this in your book or not Simon, but the Lloyd's article states that the 'Leather Apron' described by "Eyewitness" was thought to be one and the same as a man also known as "Mad Snob", who was the son of a well-off Russian Jew and "discarded by the Jewish fraternities as one who is a disgrace to their tribe." But you have Pizer most certainly celebrating Rosh Hashanah with his family. Not something "Mad Snob" would be doing if the ID is correct.
Yet a few days later both he and his brother pretty much give an embellished version of the 'Eyewitness' letter. So either they misidentified Pizer as both Leather Apron and Mad Snob when he was the former and not the later, and the incident Eyewitness described really happened, or he was neither Leather Apron nor Mad Snob but role playing for the police to give life to the Eyewitness account, even going so far as to lie at the inquest.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

"Eye-Witness" did not confuse John Pizer/Leather Apron/the man in Hanbury Street with the Mad Snob.

Lloyd's description of Pizer as "the Mad Snob" or "the son of a fairly well-to-do Russian Jew, [who was] discarded by the Jewish fraternities as one who is a disgrace to their tribe,” is without foundation.

There is nothing to suggest that the "Mad Snob" [Snob—a cobbler or shoe maker] was John Pizer [although the professions tallied].

John Pizer did celebrate Rosh Hashanah with his family.

I think you may be confused.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Could Pizer have been Thick's police informant?

A thought I’ve held also.

If he was, the whole arrangement had been blown apart when Pizer stepped into the inquest courtroom.

Monty
🙂

[Monty]

Thanks, JM. It was a mini-hysteria in comparison to that of JTR, but it was one all the same.

But the point at issue is whether with what we know about Pizer, and assuming that William Thick had considerable local knowledge - I believe he had lived a couple of streets away from the Pizer family - it is reasonable to dismiss his ID of Pizer as LA? The stock answer that Pizer's family were unaware of the nickname he was given by the street women of Spitalfields doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned. Why would they be?

My experience tells me they would be aware, very much aware, but it’s family ain’t it?

Monty
🙂