Leather Apron

[Steven Russell]

First of all, please forgive me as I am new to this site and a technophobe so if I have infringed any rules or ettiquette, I apologise.

I have been fascinated by the case of JTR for many years now and must confess that I have no more idea as to the identity of the killer than anyone. Having said that, I find the whole "Leather Apron" business fascinating.

Was he a bogeyman invented by an unscrupulous press? Possibly. Papers needed to be sold and if an eager pressman offered me money, I would no doubt have answered his questions with, "His eyes are small and glittering", etc... rather than, "Never heard of him".

But what if he did exist? I find this intriguing. The main reason for supposing that John Pizer was Leather Apron seems to be the testimony of Sergeant Thick. And let us not forget the story that Pizer was awarded damages after being called "Leather Apron" in the street. How did Thick acquire his nickname of "Johnny Upright"? The most obvious answer is that he played everything by the book and was respected by the criminal classes. It is possible, however, that this was an ironic soubriquet conferred upon him; remember - there had been a major scandal about police corruption in the detective department within living memory and no doubt the denizens of Whitechapel were no more trusting of the Police than their current counterparts are now.

The arrest of Pizer came at a very convenient time for the establishment since his strong alibis effectively quashed the "Leather Apron" scare and went a good way towards quelling the anti-semitic feeling which was threatening to erupt.

Thick's famous comment could be extrapolated as, "You're just the man I want... to get the bosses off my back and stop people lynching Jews willy nilly." Pizer could have been no more than a convenient scapegoat.

If so, who was the real "Leather Apron" and could he be our man after all?

This is all pure conjecture, of course, and I like to think that Sergeant Thick was an honourable man. I only wondered if others had been thinking along similar lines.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steven,

First of all, welcome! All technophobes welcome I say. Puts the old fuddy duddies like me to shame!

Re Sgt Thick... Walter Dew said his nickname was because of his upright stance, walk and approach... but that was Walter Dew, whose words have not really been looked upon with any great weight in a few circumstances. Jack London said that a convicted villain gave Thick the nickname. Apparently he wore chequered suits and sported a fine blonde moustache.
The arrest of Pizer, to be paraded in front of a very strange witness, Violena, seems to me at least to be grabbing at straws. One must remember that many were taken to the station, having been suspected by the locals. Pizer we know the name of...others we do not. But then again..who knows?

Again...welcome!

best wishes

Phil

[Steven Russell]

Hello Steven,

First of all, welcome! All technophobes welcome I say. Puts the old fuddy duddies like me to shame!

Re Sgt Thick... Walter Dew said his nickname was because of his upright stance, walk and approach... but that was Walter Dew, whose words have not really been looked upon with any great weight in a few circumstances. Jack London said that a convicted villain gave Thick the nickname. Apparently he wore chequered suits and sported a fine blonde moustache.
The arrest of Pizer, to be paraded in front of a very strange witness, Violena, seems to me at least to be grabbing at straws. One must remember that many were taken to the station, having been suspected by the locals. Pizer we know the name of...others we do not. But then again..who knows?

Again...welcome!

best wishes

Phil

Thank you, Phil -er- I mean Sergeant Carter.

I was not intending to suggest that Pizer was JTR but rather an alternative candidate for "Leather Apron" might still (just) fit the bill.

Thanks again for the welcome,

best wishes,

[Steven Russell]

Dear Phil,
Thanks again for your comments. Having seen Sgt. Thick's picture, it would seem that a "fine" blond moustache means a luxuriant rather than a wispy one.

Kind regards,

Steve.

[tnb]

Isn't it wonderful when you have one of those moments when someone comes along and hits the nail right on the head on something you've been thinking too? I must admit I haven't been brave enough to voice my own 'leather apron' theory here quite yet - and by 'theory' I do not mean names suspect based, don't worry - until I have done a little more digging. That said I will be more than happy to bounce the idea around with you, Phil and anyone else who chooses to come along for the ride. Again, welcome to the board and just know you've made my morning!

Your main source for any theory regarding a 'different' leather apron has to be Martin Fido's writings about David Cohen. I am not sure whether you are aware of the details yet but I will leave you to discover them at your leisure if you haven't yet, there is plenty of info to get you started on here, although obviously going back to source is always advisable (and polite!).

Fido has to be your starting point as he is the origin so far as I know of the theory that 'leather apron' was a real person and that he was also not Pizer (which as you rightly say Pizer himself 'proved' in his libel action). You may or not agree with the addition of Nathan Kaminsky, the Swanson marginalia and David Cohen (Cohen to me is a strong possible link, with some of the reasoning inbetween a little fraught, which to give a much more knowledgeable man than me credit Martin Fido has himself acknowledged; anyway, that is merely personal 'gut feeling') this is a common starting point.

I do not think many people would argue that IF 'leather apron' existed AND he was not Pizer, that this character is an extremely interesting candidate, almost certainly the strongest 'contemporary' police suspect to my mind.

One little bit of 'food for thought' I would offer you is this - did the police ever really stop looking for 'leather apron'? If not, then the whole 'Jack the Ripper' furore may have acted as a very useful smokescreen (or stalking horse, choose your analogy). Are you aware of the Butcher's Row stakeout? To me that episode is a very strong suggestion that 'leather apron' was still in police minds post Pizer, which of course is highly likely if they didn't, as you and Phil suggest, ever really relate the two in the first place.

If you haven't already, listen to Martin Fido's guest podcast (available on here) where he talks about Cohen in particular in quite some detail. Whether you believe Cohen is your man or not, Fido's research is a standard we should all aspire to.

Can I also throw the name James Hardiman at you? (dons tin hat).

This is to my mind the way we need to approach looking again at 'leather apron', by starting out with a pretty wide net. Therefore I am merely trying to start a debate and not endorsing any particular theory...call it devil's advocacy if you will. That said, if I end up turning your excellent thread into yet another row, I really do apologise.

[Steven Russell]

Dear tnb,
Thank you for your kind comments.

As you surmised, the gist of my thoughts came from Martin Fido's book which was one of the first Ripper books I ever read. The idea remained persistent, though, and has always seemed to me to be one worth pursuing.

On your recommendation I did listen to his podcast which I found excellent. He seems to have largely abandoned Nathan Kaminsky which simplifies the whole matter. David Cohen, however, is another thing entirely. Whether or not he was "Jack the Ripper", he certainly seems to have been a singularly unpleasant and dangerous person.

Two things I might suggest: Fido seems to place great faith in Anderson and therefore in his memoirs but these were written several years after the event and who among us can say that we can recall precise details infallibly after so long? Secondly, many people appear to regard the "Swanson Marginalia" as a footnote to Anderson. These are Swanson's thoughts and not necessarily identical to those of Anderson.

Caveats aside, I do find it difficult to believe that Anderson would brazenly lie about having identified the killer.

James Hardiman looks interesting indeed. My major doubt is that he would perhaps be loth to perpetrate a crime (literally) in his mother's back yard. However, stranger things have happenned. So in that case, how about John "leather apron owner" Richardson? No. Sorry. It is inconceivable that the police would not have satisfied themselves of his (Richardson's) innocence given the circumstances.

Thanks for reminding me of Butcher's Row. Very interesting.

Another line of thought may include Kearley and Tonge. They seem to have had premises near Buck's Row and Mitre Square...

Tin hats at the ready!

Best wishes,

Steve.

P.S. Nice website.

[DVV]

Hi John Russell (and welcome) and TNB,

Pizer admitted being known as Leather Apron at the inquest.

Amitiés,
David

[Scott Nelson]

Which was news to his neighbors and family.

[tnb]

Steve -

I think you may have just become the first proper visitor to my website, and I genuinely mean thank you VERY MUCH both firstly taking the time out to visit it and secondly and most importantly for the compliment. As you will no doubt have seen the website is very much still 'under construction', and so it is really nice to have both some encouragement at a period that feels a little like shoveling molten chocolate and also to know that someone appreciates what I am intending and that I am going in the right direction. I am hoping to be fully 'online' within a couple of days, would you mind if I PMd you when it is all up and running and you could find time to pop along and have another look then, and let me know your thoughts?

Anyway, enough about me.

Kearley & Tonge is an interesting thought, and I must admit one that hadn't yet crossed my mind, largely because I was not aware they had any premises near Buck's Row. Do you have a reference for that? Not that I am doubting you, simply so as to ensure I know what I am talking about! In my opinion any element of the case which pops up seemingly independently in relation to more than one murder, victim or location need to be taken seriously. Evidently, that is my reasoning behind given serious thought to Hardiman, although I take your point which seems valid. K&T would seemingly also fall into that category.

One thought re Hardiman struck me earlier, which was that if you were his mother and he had turned up unexpected in the early hours of the morning and slept on your floor, when the police turned up and asked if you had heard anything in the night, would you mention it? Not that she would necessarily have been protecting him, simply that she would not perhaps have seen it as anything out of the ordinary. Of course, the end result for us looking at it would have been the same as if she genuinely had seen nothing.

I agree 100% about Richardson though.

Butcher's Row fascinates me - particularly as it does not get mentioned in any documentary evidence about contemporary police suspects; I simply do not believe that it could have been related to Kosminski, for example, and yet none of Anderson, Swanson or Macnaghten made reference to it. I do feel there may be an issue of City/Met co-operation (or otherwise) feeding into this, however.

Glad you enjoyed the podcast - there are very few people I could happily listen to reading out the telephone directory but Martin Fido is one of them. Well, maybe not, but you get what I mean.

I am with you - while I believe that the 'memoranda' can only be studied properly in their own right (I have recently been involved in a smal way in research about Swanson and, as daft as it may sound at this remove, I have a lot of time for the man, which I realise puts me in opposition with an awful amount of people on here), and yet I also believe that Anderson did genuinely believe what he was writing, which of course is not saying he was without his faults! By the same token I believe Macnaghten honestly believed in his 'private info' on Druitt. Which is not saying either of them were right...

I will continue to formulate my somewhat wandering thoughts until I return tommorow, but adieu for now.

edit: DVV - while Pizer did 'admit' to being known as LA at Chapman's inquest, he also stated in the press that the first time he had heard anyone call him by that name was when Thicke arrested him! As Scott points out no-one else close to him seemed to corroborate that he was ever known by the nickname, and so I think the best we can say is these statements are inconclusive. As he did indeed wear such a garment it was of course possible that he was referred to as 'leather apron', even perhaps unknown to Pizer himself, and to me I think it is that possibility that was in his mind at the inquest, where he was probably terrified of who the police might bring out next to contradict him should he deny it. But you pays your money and takes your choice, and I have an awful lot of respect for you DVV and mean no offence.

[DVV]

Which was news to his neighbors and family.

Then why did he fear ?

[doris]

Ive always sgt Thicke was a dodgy character, in the pay of MacCarthy and his cronies, why else did he help him out in court over the illegal fighting business?

doris

[tnb]

DVV - this is only my interpretation of course, but when I say Pizer would have been afraid of who the police might bring up next should he deny being known as 'leather apron', what I mean is thus:

Say you are in the habit of wearing black gloves quite often; now you know quite a few other people who wear gloves and some of them black, after all you live somewhere really cold, or you work with machinery or whatever the reason. There is a crime commited in your area and talk in the newspapers of a person called 'black gloves' being sought. Now you know of no-one who calls you 'black gloves', but nonetheless you are a little worried. Then the police come knocking, and take you to the police station - but it's okay as you have a solid alibi. Nevertheless you are ordered to attend the inquest. There, you are asked by the coroner whether you have ever been known as 'black gloves'. Now, you have already told the police and anyone who will listen that you have never known anyone call you that name, but how do you know that there is NO ONE who has ever called you it, behind your back? You do, after all, wear black gloves quite a lot.

So here is your dilemma - your trump card, so to speak, is your alibi. The 'black gloves' business is secondary, so far as you are concerned - whether you say 'yes' or 'no' you cannot be accused of being the criminal, as you have your alibi. However, while you were at the police station they produced a witness - known to you - who was prepared to swear that he had seen you somewhere you were not. What if they have another witness up their proverbial sleeve who will say 'I have heard this person referred to as black gloves'. If you are to say 'no' and then they bring that witness out, does that not make it look as if you have something to hide? Surely it is much easier to say 'yes' to being known as 'black gloves' and then let your alibi do the talking?

As I say it is one interpretation, but does that sound reasonable?

Doris - I am with you on Thicke, to my mind 'villains' do not go around giving coppers nicknames like 'Johnny Upright' sincerely. It seems laced with irony, and as you rightly point out his involvement with McCarthy doesn't exactly mitigate against that. I personally think Pizer was little more than a convenient scapegoat, and perhaps even a cover for a continued search for the 'real' leather apron, although the 'dear boss' letter did a much better job of that for the police as things transpired.

'Sergeant William Thick, who had known Pizer for eighteen years, knew that when people in the neighbourhood spoke of Leather Apron, they meant Pizer.'

That is from Christopher J. Morley's 'Suspect Guide', now while I do not agree with everything he writes - after all he also says categorically that Pizer was 'better known as Leather Apron' and that 'we have no reason to suspect he was not (leather apron)', which I obviously dispute - if this is a realistic indication of the level of suspicion under which Pizer was arrested, then it boils down to one man's word - Thicke (aka Thick). Hungry for promotion, or being pressured from above to find something or someone to quell public anger, or - tin hat on! - even protecting one of his criminal associates...there are many reasons it may have been advantageous for him to make such a statement, which seems to have been very readily accepted by his superiors (too readily?)

Just putting suggestions out there, people. Be kind.

[Steven Russell]

Dear tnb,
Thank you for referring to me as possibly the first proper person to visit your website. Does this mean that it has been visited by improper people? I certainly hope so. Either way, good luck with its development. You may certainly PMd me if you promise it is not painful. Seriously, what is PMd?

The first reference I have been able to find for K&T having premises in Buck's Row is in Paul Begg's "JTR: the Facts". He is quoting from Leonard Matters who was writing in 1929. But I'm sure I have seen it elsewhere. It seems that supporters of Cutbush are keen on this connection as he worked in the tea trade. I have just skimmed A.P. Wolf's essay in the Mammoth book in which he states that, "At least four of the victims were slain outside various premises involved in the tea trade." He also says that Cutbush was at some time employed at the K&T warehouse in Mitre Square. No doubt Wolf goes into greater detail in the full length book but I do not have a copy.

I don't much like the idea of Cutbush as the Ripper but the K&T connection may be worth consideration.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Steven Russell]

Dear tnb,
It seems we have been thinking along very similar lines indeed with regard to Pizer and Jonny Upright.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[tnb]

Steven - PMd was my internet-ignorant attempt at an abbreviation for 'Private Messaged'. There may be a slightly less medical sounding abbreviation available to those who know of such things!

Indeed we do - I cannot tell you how glad I am to have found someone to bounce these ideas off. I have simply never bought that Pizer was 'leather apron' or that that angle of the investigation died there and then. Or at least that if it did, that it was not a massive mistake.

The cattleboat angle has been flogged to death (no offence meant to Trevor Marriott, of course) not least at the time, but Wolf's tea-trade link is interesting, surely they would also have had boats and staff coming and going through the docks in 1888?

I think this is exactly the way we need to work, not necessarily throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak with regard to theories we do not agree with wholesale. To me Cutbush is a load of tosh, but that angle is still worth exploring.

As for improper people visiting my website, I could tell you but I'd have to kill you...



Mulberry Street, where Pizer was arrested by Thicke.