Martin Fido discovery 2018

[MrBarnett]

You say there's nothing to support it and then provide a reference to the incident by Thick. The Star also mentions the Leigh Hoy as being the last place Pizer was seen, a fact not mentioned in the letter, suggesting they had checked the story out.

So there's plenty of corroboration of the story. And nothing against it.

I really don't get your fixation about the police shining their bullseyes in the wrong district. Acting on intelligence, they were looking in Shoreditch. What's your issue with that?

[Simon Wood]

"Is there anything that contradicts that?"

Lots. And nothing to support it.

There is a fourth partial version, that of Sergeant Thick.

The Star, 11th September 1888—

"Leather Apron has not been into a lodging-house since the Sunday the woman denounced him in Whitechapel, and the police were bamboozled into letting him go."

The story is such nonsense. If this woman/women/howling crowd were so concerned about the murders why weren't they shouting about Leather Apron following the murder of Martha Tabram? Where were they following the murder of Polly Nichols? Why didn't the cops arrest Pizer? Why did they wait three days before poking their bullseyes in the wrong district?

I could go on . . .

[MrBarnett]

Looks like 'Church Street' was Sunday School central.




From the East London Observer of 30th October, 1880

[MrBarnett]

You're right. The Sunderland newspaper could have got the story from a number of sources. We shall never know which one, but that won't stop hardcore Ripperologists from arguing the arse out of the possibilities.

Are you suggesting that on Sunday 2nd September 1888 the woman in the Eye Witness story, or the two women in the John Pizer version, or the "howling crowd" in the Gabriel Pizer version, already knew John Pizer as Leather Apron?

Yes, I am. Is there anything that contradicts that?

We shouldn't make too much of minor differences in how people relate a story. I know Tom thought the absence of the stalwart man in EW's account was significant.

[Simon Wood]

You're right. The Sunderland newspaper could have got the story from a number of sources. We shall never know which one, but that won't stop hardcore Ripperologists from arguing the arse out of the possibilities.

Are you suggesting that on Sunday 2nd September 1888 the woman in the Eye Witness story, or the two women in the John Pizer version, or the "howling crowd" in the Gabriel Pizer version, already knew John Pizer as Leather Apron?

[MrBarnett]

It's fairly obvious that the newspaper was fed the story by a London Correspondent, of whom there were many. It's how all provincial papers got their non-local stories.

Here's what the Sunderland newspaper wrote—

“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. His dodge is, it is asserted, to get them into some house on the pretence of offering them money. He then takes what little they have and ‘half kills’ them in addition . . .”

You won't find this in the Star.

It's very obvious. They explicitly say they received the story from the Star. But does any of this enlighten us as to whether there was someone whom the women of Spitalfields knew as Leather Apron or whether John Pizer was the man they had in mind and whether he might reasonably have been suspected of being so-called?

[Simon Wood]

It's fairly obvious that the newspaper was fed the story by a London Correspondent, of whom there were many. It's how all provincial papers got their non-local stories.

Here's what the Sunderland newspaper wrote—

“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. His dodge is, it is asserted, to get them into some house on the pretence of offering them money. He then takes what little they have and ‘half kills’ them in addition . . .”

You won't find this in the Star.

[MrBarnett]

Why must anything have come before? Something has to be first.

Yes, the newspaper also reported that Nichols may have been murdered some distance from Bucks Row.

Well, unless a Sunderland reporter suddenly had a brainwave about a completely ficticious LA and managed to convince his editor to publish it and claim his source was a Star reporter who had penned the piece the day before, then even in journalistic terms something came before. And journalists tend to report on past events.

As for Nichols being killed elsewhere and being transported to Buck's Row post mortem...

[Simon Wood]

Why must anything have come before? Something has to be first.

Yes, the newspaper also reported that Nichols may have been murdered some distance from Bucks Row.

[MrBarnett]

Interestingly, the report printed in the Sunderland Daily Echo on 1/9/1888 suggests it's main content been written by a Star reporter the previous day.

[MrBarnett]

Clearly LA didn't make his 'world debut' in the two northern papers cited, unless the two were working in tandem and created the myth between them. Something must have come before.

[MrBarnett]

You said 'According to Eyewitness ... LA made his debut in a personal appearance...'

Eyewitness gave no opinion on when Pizer was first called LA, but he did claim that Pizer said the woman who had accused him of being LA had been bothering him for some time.

You described the police as shining their bullseyes in the 'wrong Church Street'. Do you think they shone their torches in any Church Street? Or was it all lies?

[Simon Wood]

I didn't say that Eye Witness claimed LA's London debut was on Sunday 2nd September. I merely stated a spurious fact.

How stupid do the police have to be? I don't believe the police were stupid. But I do believe they were mendacious in their promotion of the Leather Apron story.

[MrBarnett]

Three indeed.

Allow me to clarify.

Leather Apron as a Whitechapel murderer contender made his world debut on 1st September 1888 in the two northern newspapers previously referenced.

According to Eye Witness, on the following day Leather Apron made his London debut in a personal appearance in front of a screaming woman and three policemen who did not take this possible Whitechapel murderer suspect in for questioning.

Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, 9th September 1888—

“At first the police attached little importance to the story of ‘Leather Apron’, but after the appearance of the above [Eye Witness] letter the detectives showed their regret at the stupidity of the constable [singular] in failing to arrest him by eagerly searching different lodging-houses and casual wards for this ‘Leather Apron’."

The Star, 6th September 1888—

""The hunt for "Leather Apron" began in earnest last evening. Constables 43 and 173, J Division [two cops], 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.

"[The police] began at half-past ten in Church-street, in Shoreditch, rumor having located the suspected man there. They went through lodging-houses, into "pubs," down side streets, threw their bull's-eyes into every shadow, and searched the quarter thoroughly, but without result."

Detective Sergeant Enright and his two PCs were flashing their bullseye lanterns in the wrong Church Street.

And on and on it goes . . .

Eyewitness very definitely didn't claim that LA's London 'debut' was on the 2nd Sept. He reported an incident that occurred on that day during which Pizer claimed the woman involved had been bothering him for some time.

The police shone their bullseyes in Church Street, Shoreditch because they had intel that Pizer had been there. I doubt they went there mistaking it for the 'Church Street' he had passed through days before. How stupid do the police have to be to fit into your theory?

And on and on it goes...

[Simon Wood]

Three indeed.

Allow me to clarify.

Leather Apron as a Whitechapel murderer contender made his world debut on 1st September 1888 in the two northern newspapers previously referenced.

According to Eye Witness, on the following day Leather Apron made his London debut in a personal appearance in front of a screaming woman and three policemen who did not take this possible Whitechapel murderer suspect in for questioning.

Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, 9th September 1888—

“At first the police attached little importance to the story of ‘Leather Apron’, but after the appearance of the above [Eye Witness] letter the detectives showed their regret at the stupidity of the constable [singular] in failing to arrest him by eagerly searching different lodging-houses and casual wards for this ‘Leather Apron’."

The Star, 6th September 1888—

""The hunt for "Leather Apron" began in earnest last evening. Constables 43 and 173, J Division [two cops], 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.

"[The police] began at half-past ten in Church-street, in Shoreditch, rumor having located the suspected man there. They went through lodging-houses, into "pubs," down side streets, threw their bull's-eyes into every shadow, and searched the quarter thoroughly, but without result."

Detective Sergeant Enright and his two PCs were flashing their bullseye lanterns in the wrong Church Street.

And on and on it goes . . .