Leather Apron

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Thanks Dave (or Cogidubnus if you prefer) for the cordial and sarcasm-free welcome. Though with all due respect, I must politely disagree with you that Sqt Thicke's actions, if interpreted in the way you suggest, make him the "good copper" that Jack London for one was led to believe he was. It seems to me that fingering Pizer as a suspect, putting him through the full procedure and locking him up until events demonstrated that he was in fact innocent (of that charge at least) would have been absurdly irresponsible police-work if all he wanted to do was put the frighteners on an unpleasant but very minor pest.

It's a while since I read the full facts, but I seem to recall that when Pizer was arrested, it wasn't because Thicke dragged him down to the station with a mock-serious face on and let him think he was seriously suspected of the killings for a while, knowing full well that he didn't have any connection with them. No, his description was circulated to the entire force, and he was eventually found cowering in terror at a relative's house, afraid to set foot outside for fear of lynch mobs.

Now, this was not only a colossal waste of police time, it also pointed the investigation in the direction of somebody who turned out to be utterly irrelevant. If Thicke had known in advance that he wasn't a serious suspect, he would have been risking his career to scare a petty nuisance.

On the other hand, I find it equally hard to believe that Pizer tried to extort a few paltry coins off gullible working girls by claiming to be the Whitechapel Murderer after the killings were for real, and this mystery man was by far the most wanted criminal in London! That scam would only work if he was claiming to be somebody who didn't really exist, and who only highly impressionable people genuinely believed in, which is close enough to being a bad joke for him to claim that that's all it was.

The bizarrely specific nickname Leather Apron was attached to the crimes so quickly that it seems to me that probably a fairly well-known and detailed urban legend already existed involving a maniac who cut the throats of his victims and then carved up their bodies and carried off parts of them to eat - basically identical to Sweeney Todd.

I don't think for a moment that prior to 1888 there was a mysteriously undocumented serial killer who actually went around with a leather apron on killing and mutilating prostitutes or anyone else. But maybe some people thought there was - even today, there are lots of urban myths involving very weird serial killers wearing strange costumes, and a lot of people think they're true, even if they can't quite say where or when these events took place.

My theory is that Pizer found himself in the nightmarish but probably richly deserved predicament of having accidentally confessed in advance to the ghastly crimes of a fictional character who suddenly seemed to be real.

Sgt Thicke, on the other hand, in my view never for a moment thought Leather Apron was a real person, merely that, since Pizer had after all been going around telling people that he was the mythical Leather Apron and half-heartedly threatening women with knives, if somebody was suddenly committing real murders in a manner disturbingly like the non-existent Leather Apron's MO not far from where Pizer lived - well, what sort of copper would he have been if he hadn't made Pizer his screamingly obvious number one suspect and arrested him as soon as possible?

All of which presupposes that Pizer, Thicke, and a lot of other people already knew who Leather Apron was supposed to be. That's all I'm suggesting. Not that he ever existed, any more than Sweeney Todd did. And if one was derived from the other, then the stories of Leather Apron could have been doing the rounds since 1847.

If this is true, it would cast an interesting light on the early stages of the JtR case, and how Londoners, the lower classes in particular, perceived it. Does anyone know anything about the urban mythology of London from 1850-1888, or if it would be practical to look into it in some way? I would tend to think that stories about Leather Apron - even if he wasn't actually called that to begin with - might well appear in the same publications, and perhaps even the same articles as the much better-known Spring-Heeled Jack, a not dissimilar though even more improbable figure credited with at least one murder himself (the victim - a young female slum-dweller, as it happens - being of course as untraceable and presumably as fictitious as Fairy Fay).

Oh well, that's quite enough of that. I'll leave it now and see if anyone can add something a bit more concrete. There are doubtless people on this forum much more familiar with Victorian newspaper archives than I am. I wonder if any of you have ever tried looking for a pre-1888 totally mythical Leather Apron, or somebody very similar with a different name?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mad Dan, and welcome to the boards. Leather Apron was suggested to the press and public by the slaughter men suspects of the Nichols murder. Far from being bizarre and specific, the 'Leather Apron' nickname was unimaginative to say the least. Now Leatherface, there's a cool name.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Dave (or Cogidubnus if you prefer) for the cordial and sarcasm-free welcome. Though with all due respect, I must politely disagree with you that Sqt Thicke's actions, if interpreted in the way you suggest, make him the "good copper" that Jack London for one was led to believe he was. It seems to me that fingering Pizer as a suspect, putting him through the full procedure and locking him up until events demonstrated that he was in fact innocent (of that charge at least) would have been absurdly irresponsible police-work if all he wanted to do was put the frighteners on an unpleasant but very minor pest.

It's a while since I read the full facts, but I seem to recall that when Pizer was arrested, it wasn't because Thicke dragged him down to the station with a mock-serious face on and let him think he was seriously suspected of the killings for a while, knowing full well that he didn't have any connection with them. No, his description was circulated to the entire force, and he was eventually found cowering in terror at a relative's house, afraid to set foot outside for fear of lynch mobs.

Now, this was not only a colossal waste of police time, it also pointed the investigation in the direction of somebody who turned out to be utterly irrelevant. If Thicke had known in advance that he wasn't a serious suspect, he would have been risking his career to scare a petty nuisance.

On the other hand, I find it equally hard to believe that Pizer tried to extort a few paltry coins off gullible working girls by claiming to be the Whitechapel Murderer after the killings were for real, and this mystery man was by far the most wanted criminal in London! That scam would only work if he was claiming to be somebody who didn't really exist, and who only highly impressionable people genuinely believed in, which is close enough to being a bad joke for him to claim that that's all it was.

The bizarrely specific nickname Leather Apron was attached to the crimes so quickly that it seems to me that probably a fairly well-known and detailed urban legend already existed involving a maniac who cut the throats of his victims and then carved up their bodies and carried off parts of them to eat - basically identical to Sweeney Todd.

I don't think for a moment that prior to 1888 there was a mysteriously undocumented serial killer who actually went around with a leather apron on killing and mutilating prostitutes or anyone else. But maybe some people thought there was - even today, there are lots of urban myths involving very weird serial killers wearing strange costumes, and a lot of people think they're true, even if they can't quite say where or when these events took place.

My theory is that Pizer found himself in the nightmarish but probably richly deserved predicament of having accidentally confessed in advance to the ghastly crimes of a fictional character who suddenly seemed to be real.

Sgt Thicke, on the other hand, in my view never for a moment thought Leather Apron was a real person, merely that, since Pizer had after all been going around telling people that he was the mythical Leather Apron and half-heartedly threatening women with knives, if somebody was suddenly committing real murders in a manner disturbingly like the non-existent Leather Apron's MO not far from where Pizer lived - well, what sort of copper would he have been if he hadn't made Pizer his screamingly obvious number one suspect and arrested him as soon as possible?

All of which presupposes that Pizer, Thicke, and a lot of other people already knew who Leather Apron was supposed to be. That's all I'm suggesting. Not that he ever existed, any more than Sweeney Todd did. And if one was derived from the other, then the stories of Leather Apron could have been doing the rounds since 1847.

If this is true, it would cast an interesting light on the early stages of the JtR case, and how Londoners, the lower classes in particular, perceived it. Does anyone know anything about the urban mythology of London from 1850-1888, or if it would be practical to look into it in some way? I would tend to think that stories about Leather Apron - even if he wasn't actually called that to begin with - might well appear in the same publications, and perhaps even the same articles as the much better-known Spring-Heeled Jack, a not dissimilar though even more improbable figure credited with at least one murder himself (the victim - a young female slum-dweller, as it happens - being of course as untraceable and presumably as fictitious as Fairy Fay).

Oh well, that's quite enough of that. I'll leave it now and see if anyone can add something a bit more concrete. There are doubtless people on this forum much more familiar with Victorian newspaper archives than I am. I wonder if any of you have ever tried looking for a pre-1888 totally mythical Leather Apron, or somebody very similar with a different name?

Hi Dan

Yes I'm Dave, or Cogidubnus if you like...I'm not in the least secretive...As regular correspondents on here are aware I'm more than happy to disclose even my full postal address to genuine respondents...(show me yours and I'll show you mine)...but that isn't what you're on is it? You have an agenda...a theory...my god...an answer...

Congratulations....That's fine...now, give yourself 12 hours to sober up, then kindly and carefully reword it appropriately and post it so we can either praise it or take the piss out of it

God bless

Dave

[Steven Russell]

Welcome to the boards, Dan. Unlike Dave, I seem able to understand your train of thought and find it very interesting.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Bridewell]

This may be relevant.

(Posted by Wolf Vanderlinden 3 years ago on this forum):

The New York Times mentions "Leather Apron" on the 4th of September in an article dated the day before.

I double checked and found that the Star also first wrote about Leather Apron on the 4th (September). No surprise, I suppose, considering Harry Dam, the man Lincoln Springfield says was the originator of the whole Leather Apron story, also worked for the New York Times as its London correspondant. Proof, I think, of Springfield's claim.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Thanks, Steven - it's nice to know that I'm not universally regarded as a loony for having a slightly eccentric train of thought on a forum which is, y'know, totally obsessed with an unidentified Victorian serial killer. However, since I've been asked to simplify the point I'm making, here it is, boiled down to one very basic question.

Conventional Ripperology takes the view that "Leather Apron" did not exist either as a real person (by the way, I am not suggesting that he was ever real) or even as an urban myth prior to the Autumn of 1888. At this time, the Whitechapel Murderer very rapidly gained the nickname "Leather Apron" because he was popularly supposed to be a deranged cobbler who wore such a garment. "Leather Apron" and "The Whitechapel Murderer" were absolutely synonymous, and identical with the man later known as "Jack the Ripper".

Reasoning on this basis, the police took a very keen interest in anyone rumoured to be Leather Apron, whether or not he in fact wore or even owned such a garment, or had anything to do with shoes. Assuming that Sgt Thicke was not telling lies in an elaborate attempt to frame a petty thug for first-degree murder for no apparent reason (and we have no evidence at all that he was), he arrested John Pizer for the reason he gave at the time, which was also the most logical reason a policeman could have - Pizer had a reputation for extorting money from prostitutes by claiming to be Leather Apron and threatening them with a knife.

Let's just think about that for a moment. Leather Apron didn't exist until after the Whitechapel Murderer had killed at least once (and in the popular imagination, several times previously, even if the police didn't think so). Nobody could possibly have gone around trying to sound scary by claiming to be Leather Apron until the name was already attached to an unidentified but all too real person - a universally feared and loathed maniac whom no halfway sane person would hesitate to turn in to the nearest copper, all of whom were looking for this monster as their number one priority.

Where, precisely, is the window of opportunity in which Pizer gained a reputation for claiming to be Leather Apron? Doing so at any time would have been almost equivalent to wandering around the streets after the Double Event brandishing a straight razor and saying: "I am Jack the Ripper! Give me sixpence or I'll have your liver out!"

Unless of course Leather Apron already existed, not as a real person, but as a fairly well-known mythical bogeyman whom you had to be pretty gullible to believe in, for some time prior to Jack the Ripper killing anyone at all. Pizer himself later became scared for his life as a result of the nickname he'd pinned on himself - how could he have possibly ever have thought it was a good idea, unless there was a time when you could say "I am Leather Apron!" without connecting yourself with any real murders of the kind the police could arrest you for?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dan

I appear to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion regarding your earlier posting and apologise unreservedly.

Dave

[Observer]

Thanks, Steven - it's nice to know that I'm not universally regarded as a loony for having a slightly eccentric train of thought on a forum which is, y'know, totally obsessed with an unidentified Victorian serial killer.

Hi Dan

Forum obsessed with an unidentified Victorian serial killer? I don't recognise that forum. It's true that at least three of us are obsessed with this notion, but we are being slowly enlightened apparently.
Best regards

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Dan,

This early reference to Leather apron might be of interest -

‘The woman in a position similar to that of the deceased allege that there is a man who goes by the name of the “Leather Apron” who has more than once attacked unfortunate and defenceless women. His dodge is, it is asserted, to get them in to a house on the pretence of offering them money. He then takes whatever little they have and “half kills” them in addition. ’ The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent. 1st September 1888

At the time of the article being written, Mary Ann Nichols had only been identified as ‘Polly’ so this is prior to Mary Ann Monks id at around 7.30 on Friday 31st, one of the theories popular at this time was that Nichols had been murdered elsewhere and her body dumped at the gateway outside Brown’s stable yard. So it is interesting to note that this version has ‘the Leather Apron’ luring his victims into a house, which seems to be missing from later accounts of his behaviour, which generally seem to indicate he prays on his victims in the street (ie. widow Annie)

[Jon Guy]

Hi Dan

Conventional Ripperology takes the view that "Leather Apron" did not exist either as a real person (by the way, I am not suggesting that he was ever real) or even as an urban myth prior to the Autumn of 1888.

Pizer admitted at the Chapman inquest that his nickname was Leather Apron and he had been known as that for years.

Where, precisely, is the window of opportunity in which Pizer gained a reputation for claiming to be Leather Apron?

Well, Pizer was up before the Thames Police Court on Aug 4th 1888 on a charge of indecent assault, which was eventually dismissed.

[Jon Guy]

On Sunday, Sept 2nd, whilst walking around Spitalfields, Pizer was been pointed out by local women as Leather Apron, prompting him to go into hiding.

[lynn cates]

dos preguntas

Hello Jon. Two quick questions.

1. Do you think Piser was the chap ejected by Donavan?

2. To whom did John Richardson refer when he spoke of "the real Leather Apron"?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Hello Jon. Two quick questions.

1. Do you think Piser was the chap ejected by Donavan?

You will have to remind me of the details again, please ?

2. To whom did John Richardson refer when he spoke of "the real Leather Apron"?

I find it hard to believe that the chap who approached big John Richardson was Pizer, as Pizer had effectively cleared his name at the Chapman inquest a few days previous to this event taking place.
The way this guy acted doesn`t sound like Pizer, who certainly seemed to have his wits about him.

[lynn cates]

LA

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Donavan claimed that he knew "Leather Apron" well. He said he ejected him some time back for ill using some of the dossers.

The man identified by Richardson was definitely NOT Piser. Although it is likely Piser used that nickname at times, the "real Leather Apron"--the one of concern--was a different person/s.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Donavan claimed that he knew "Leather Apron" well. He said he ejected him some time back for ill using some of the dossers.

The man identified by Richardson was definitely NOT Piser. Although it is likely Piser used that nickname at times, the "real Leather Apron"--the one of concern--was a different person/s.

Cheers.
LC

With the greatest of respect, Lynn, Pizer was the "real Leather Apron", but yes, it seems unlikely that he was a murderer.