Martin Fido discovery 2018

[MrBarnett]

Yes, siree. That's them.

Would you expect the Pizers' version of events to have been the same as that of an independent witness?

I dread to think how the women involved span the story back in the doss house. And how it was subsequently spun far and wide.

[Simon Wood]

I have my doubts about the incident actually having taken place.

[Scott Nelson]

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

Thanks for the reminder Simon. There's a lot in there to digest. BTW, I don't think it was mentioned on this thread that Paul Begg wrote an excellent summary piece on the Pizer/Leather Apron/Eye-witness letter affair in the Ripperologist #109 (December 2009): Did Leather Apron Really Exist?

One of the points Paul made that struck me is that Pizer was never admonished at the Chapman Inquest by Coroner Baxter for being Leather Apron, who supposedly ill-used prostitutes. Pizer wasn't given any warnings or threatened with prison. Instead, he was silenced By Cornor Baxter as he tried to speak up at the Inquest and then cleared. Very strange.

[jmenges]

There's some interesting stuff here about the Trinity Congregational Church and schools (including Sunday schools) in Hanbury Street.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol27/pp265-288#h3-0018

Wiilliam Tyler was the main man and he lived a 15/20 minute walk away from the church. His route home may well have taken him past where the Church Street incident happened on the day and at time it happened (he lived in Shoreditch).

I'm not saying that he was EW, just that it's far likelier that it was him or someone similar than an agent of a shadowy group involved in the commission and cover up of the WM or the police trying to spread fake news.

Rev. Walter Bourchier ran St. Olave's Church on the Southwest corner of Church (Hanbury) Street and King Edward (Kingward) Street. He actually wrote a letter, using his name, to The Morning Post in early October 1888, but I can't seem to find it. I would think most churches in the area had Sunday schools, and here is a local priest sending a letter to the press. Probably nothing, but would someone like Tyler in his position write to the press and not use his real name?

JM

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for the reminder Simon. There's a lot in there to digest. BTW, I don't think it was mentioned on this thread that Paul Begg wrote an excellent summary piece on the Pizer/Leather Apron/Eye-witness letter affair in the Ripperologist #109 (December 2009): Did Leather Apron Really Exist?

One of the points Paul made that struck me is that Pizer was never admonished at the Chapman Inquest by Coroner Baxter for being Leather Apron, who supposedly ill-used prostitutes. Pizer wasn't given any warnings or threatened with prison. Instead, he was silenced By Cornor Baxter as he tried to speak up at the Inquest and then cleared. Very strange.

Scott,

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.

Gary

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Thank you. I agree with Paul. I shall re-visit his Rip article. The whole Leather Apron story has an air of contrivance about it.

The name Leather Apron made its debut in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, and also the Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette, 1st September 1888—

“The women in a position similar to that of the deceased allege that there is a man who goes by the name of ‘Leather Apron’ who has more than once attacked unfortunate and defenceless women . . ."

How on the following day, Sunday 2nd September, did the women in the Eye Witness incident know about Leather Apron?

London’s first introduction to the mysterious Leather Apron was a brief mention in the Star on 4th September 1888.

Eye Witness's letter was first published on 9th September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[MrBarnett]

Rev. Walter Bourchier ran St. Olave's Church on the Southwest corner of Church (Hanbury) Street and King Edward (Kingward) Street. He actually wrote a letter, using his name, to The Morning Post in early October 1888, but I can't seem to find it. I would think most churches in the area had Sunday schools, and here is a local priest sending a letter to the press. Probably nothing, but would someone like Tyler in his position write to the press and not use his real name?

JM

As I say, Jon, I'm not wedded to the idea that it was Tyler. The use of a nom de plume to sign off on letters of complaint was commonplace. 'Eyewitness' was often used.

Tyler was known as the 'Nonconformist Bishop of the East End', perhaps he was reluctant to pen criticism of an individual police officer in his own name.

[jmenges]

I don't think it was mentioned on this thread that Paul Begg wrote an excellent summary piece on the Pizer/Leather Apron/Eye-witness letter affair in the Ripperologist #109 (December 2009): Did Leather Apron Really Exist?

Thanks, Scott.

I've put the article up on the server.

http://www.rippercast.com/mp3/PBLARip109.pdf

JM

[MrBarnett]

Hi Scott,

Thank you. I agree with Paul. I shall re-visit his Rip article. The whole Leather Apron story has an air of contrivance about it.

The name Leather Apron made its debut in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, and also the Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette, 1st September 1888—

“The women in a position similar to that of the deceased allege that there is a man who goes by the name of ‘Leather Apron’ who has more than once attacked unfortunate and defenceless women . . ."

How on the following day, Sunday 2nd September, did the women in the Eye Witness incident know about Leather Apron?

London’s first introduction to the mysterious Leather Apron was a brief mention in the Star on 4th September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

Clearly the 'Church Street' women were aware of 'Leather Apron' before the press. Spooky.

[Simon Wood]

Or the Eye Witness incident was made out of whole cloth.

[MrBarnett]

Or the Eye Witness incident was made out of whole cloth.

The Scotsman reported that the landlord of Pizer's local pub, who had known him for 26 years, described him as a wastrel who 'wore his apron whether he was working or not', and who 'was fond of the society of women.'

All part of the same bolt?

And where did this paragon of virtue prefer to live? With his poor, but respectable family, or among the dregs of London in the doss houses?

Have a look through the Census returns of the seedier London doss houses of the time (such as Crossinghams) and ask yourself why there are relatively few apparently Jewish names.

[Simon Wood]

I have no issue with any of that, but I don't see what it has to do with whether or not the Eye Witness incident—which was Leather Apron's world debut—actually took place.

[Simon Wood]

Interestingly, Inspector Helson’s 7th September 1888 report makes no mention of the 2nd September 1888 Leather Apron incident involving the one—or possibly two—J Division constables.

[MrBarnett]

I have no issue with any of that, but I don't see what it has to do with whether or not the Eye Witness incident—which was Leather Apron's world debut—actually took place.

Do you mean the incident itself, or its press coverage, was his 'world debut'?

[MrBarnett]

Interestingly, Inspector Helson’s 7th September 1888 report makes no mention of the 2nd September 1888 Leather Apron incident involving the one—or possibly two—J Division constables.

Three, according to Eyewitness.