Martin Fido discovery 2018

[MrBarnett]

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

Monty
��

Would Pizer's (presumably) respectable Jewish family have had much to do with doss house women - gentiles and prostitutes?

You make a good point, though. Even if they knew he was called by such a name, they might not admit it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If Pizer's family did not know he was known as leather apron how did his brother know there was a false suspicion against him on the 6 Sep only two days after the press story broke about an unknown local jew. He must have had some suspicion that it meant his brother John?

[MrBarnett]

Eyewitness did not ID Pizer as the Mad Snob, but the link was made in the same article.

[MrBarnett]

A party signing himself "Eyewitness" writes:

'I live not many minutes walk from the place of the murder, and I thought probably an incident which I witnessed on Sunday between half-past four and a quarter past five p.m. would throw a little light on it. Coming from school at the time above stated, I was just about to turn into Albert Street, by Cohen's Sugar refinery, when a woman rushed across the street and screamed out. "There goes 'Leather Apron', the Whitechapel murderer, " to the policeman standing at the corner of the turning. "Run after him," she shouted: " now you have a chance of catching him, you won't try. There he goes," pointing to a low, villainous looking man. The constable then mustered up courage to run after the man, who seemed to be in a hurry. After about 400 yards' run he caught the man, whereupon two other constables put in their appearance, and enquired what the matter was. The woman who had run with the policeman up to the man at once began to accuse him of being the man the police were looking for - 'Leather Apron'. This she repeated about 20 times without receiving a single denial from the man. She said she knew the man well by sight. This the man denied by saying he had never seen the woman before, but later on he said to one of the other constables that this woman was constantly annoying him like this; she should be careful what she was saying. She thereupon said she knew two women, and could bring them, who saw him paving up and down Baker's Row with the murdered woman about two hours before the murder took place. She further accused him of cruelly ill-using two poor unfortunates in a common-lodging house in City Road one night last week; and further she said that among the unfortunates of Whitechapel he was well known as a cruel wretch. These accusations the man simply met with a sneer, and said she did not know what she was talking about. But she stuck to her point. But to crown it all, the policeman then let the man go.'

[jmenges]

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"

So either they misidentified Pizer as both Leather Apron and Mad Snob when he was the former and not the later,

Hi Simon- ‘They’ meaning the newspapers, I know it wasn’t a part of the ‘Eyewitness’ letter.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Church Street, Albert Street and 'Cohen's sugar refinery were all anachronisms by 1888. Would the police have been so out of touch with their patch as to make such mistakes? Or perhaps the mistakes were deliberate to deflect suspicion from themselves.��

[Ally]

.....First, I realize that this thread has now returned to on-topic discussion and I am going to be derailing it to post the following. Let it be the only derailment, and please continue on topic. I had to wait til my temper was less nuclear before interjecting. Don't reply to this post. Continue on topic. Consider this a directive from Admin, though I am posting it from my personal account. This is after all a personal matter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somebody just came on to my website and had the nerve to defend a person who threatened me. Defended a person who publicly called me a whore and said my husband had to hose me down after conferences. Defended a person who has threatened to beat up a Ripperologist because they didn't like a book review. Defended a person who tried to extort and blackmail another Ripperologist. Defended a person who has done nothing but threaten, extort and lie since their sorry ass appeared on the scene.

Let this be clear to anyone from here on out: I genuinely don't give a **** about your personal opinions, beliefs or ideas as to what constitutes fair play. This is not your website, you don't pay the bills, and your opinions, on this subject, don't mean diddly, nor squat. We tolerate all manner of dissent and disagreement on any subject you can name, but we are utterly intolerant and inflexible in this area:

Defend him again on the server space we provide for your use, and you'll be banned. Permanently.

Nobody uses my website to defend a man who threatened me and others here and gets to stay.

Don't like it? Don't think it's fair? Don't post here. Bye.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for breaking in. Return to topic. Don't even think about arguing this. I am not subject to reason on this matter.

[Robert]

Bit confused here. The Dundee Evening Telegraph of Sept 6th has the eyewitness story and says that "Eye Witness" has sent his name and address to the "Star." But I'm jiggered if I can find any mention of "Eye Witness" in the "Star."

[jmenges]

The Star seems to refer to the Eyewitness account on 6 September.

The clue furnished by the woman who denounced the man on Sunday is a very unfortunate one. Her offer to prove by two women that "Leather Apron" was seen walking with the murdered woman in Baker's-row at two o'clock last Friday morning, is the most direct bit of evidence that yet has appeared.

JM

[Robert]

Thanks Jon. It's a bit odd - you'd have thought the 'Star' would have made something of a witness writing to them.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Jon. It's a bit odd - you'd have thought the 'Star' would have made something of a witness writing to them.

Hi Rob,

You may remember this was discussed over at How's some time ago. I can't remember if we ever found the Star article, but we certainly didn't discover the name or address of Eyewitness. However, from the internal evidence of the letter I thought the writer was an educated adult who had lived in the area for many years and was probably a minister or lay preacher who lived somewhere north of Hanbury Street. A man named William Tyler seemed a good (if not perfect) fit.

There was some suggestion that the use of the Eyewitness nom de plume was suspicious, but such names were commonly used by those writing letters of complaint to the press at the time. In this case Eyewitness was having a dig at the police.

Gary

[Robert]

Thanks Gary.

[Simon Wood]

"The 'Eye Witness' letter and the Pizer incident near the sugar refinery in Church Street are discussed in my book, Deconstructing Jack.

[MrBarnett]

"The 'Eye Witness' letter and the Pizer incident near the sugar refinery in Church Street are discussed in my book, Deconstructing Jack.

Simon,

Do you point out that there was no sugar refinery and no Church Street? Nor was there an Albert Street.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Simon,

Do you point out that there was no sugar refinery and no Church Street? Nor was there an Albert Street.

Gary

The sugar refinery had been owned by Thomas Dakin, but by 1888 it had ceased operating, its plant had been sold off and it was being described as a 'tenement' in the electoral register. Albert Street had been renamed Deal Street by at least 1873 and Church Street had become Hanbury Street (can't remember when off the top of my head but certainly well before 1888). So whoever composed the Eyewitness letter was obviously someone with a long memory of the area.

For me, that argues against the letter having been written by the police or by a west end based private detective. The fact that the letter is critical of the PC who let Pizer go and that Eyewitness provided his 'real' name and address, which could be checked out, is further evidence of it being exactly what it appeared to be: a letter of complaint by a concerned local citizen.

The fact that the letter was obviously written by an educated adult who said he was 'coming from school' on a Sunday afternoon, suggests someone involved in the running of a Sunday school. He was walking west along Hanbury Street from the direction of the Trinity Congregational Church which ran a Sunday school. The minister of the church from 1844 - 1890 was one William Tyler whose journey home would have been consistent with the route taken by Eyewitness.