Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[Paddy]

Curious article Sunday 14th October

Its strange because it does relate to the John Pizer but the only girl of a similar name is only 16 years old. Pat

[Joshua Rogan]

There's surely no doubt that Pizer was known as Leather Apron but perhaps more than one person was known by that sobriquet? Maybe Issenschmidt ?

Isenschmidt apparently said to his doctor in Bow infirmary that some women "had called him Leather Apron, and that he had said to them in the way of chaff I am Leather Apron".
This according to Sgt Thick's police report 17th Sept.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's surely no doubt that Pizer was known as Leather Apron but perhaps more than one person was known by that sobriquet? Maybe Issenschmidt ?

[jerryd]

There is also William Piggott who was apparently a dead ringer for Piser although he was older. He was also a nuisance to the ladies in the district.

[Scott Nelson]

A week after Pizer’s release, the Echo on 16 September, recounted a reporter’s walk with John Richardson, whose leather apron found in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, and added more fuel to the Leather Apron scare:

"Passing afterwards through Spitalfields with John Richardson, a curious incident occurred. A rough, demented-looking fellow came from a group, grinning, and, with clenched fist, muttered some threat to John Richardson. In answer to the question 'Who is he? What does he mean?' Richardson then replied: 'That is the man who they say is mad. A great many of the women and people round our house think that he is the real ‘Leather Apron.’' When asked to go back to inquire what the man meant, Richardson said, 'You had better not, for he would be most likely to spring upon you and knock you down at once, without a word. I shall not stop and speak to him, for he is very dangerous; and a great many of the women think that he is the murderer.'”

[David Orsam]

And if he knew Thicke for quite some years, one wonders if that was persecution for perceived acts or some kind of alliance, as Scott pointed out before.

You can wonder what you like Michael but the point is that you made certain statements in post #7 this thread as if they were established facts, such as that Pizer was coerced into saying that he was Leather Apron and that the police used the leather apron found in the yard in Hanbury Street as an excuse to exonerate Pizer and that no-one described Pizer as Leather Apron. These are all statements that, in about 20 responses to me, you have not been able to substantiate. You might remember that I described what you said in that post as "a fictionalised version" of what happened, which it clearly was.

[David Orsam]

Thickes claim that he knew him to be Leather Apron is based on what he heard from others, he did not encounter a shakedown by Leather Apron on a street woman, he heard others speak of him and he seemingly readily accepted the gossip as fact.

I honestly do not know how you can be saying that Sergeant Thick "accepted gossip as fact". It's got nothing to do with "gossip". We are talking about a person's nickname. That's not "gossip".

Sergeant Thick was saying that he knew prior to 31 August 1888, when the rumours about Leather Apron being the murderer started, that Pizer was called Leather Apron. It's just local knowledge. There's no "gossip" about it.

AFTER THE MURDER OF NICHOLS then and only then was there rumours, or gossip if you like, about Leather Apron being the Whitechapel Murderer but neither the police or Thick believed it.

And of course Thick had heard others referring to Pizer as Leather Apron. How else could he possibly have known it? How can anyone know someone's nickname unless they are told it by someone else? Unless they invented it!

[David Orsam]

Your focus on the word belief vs knowledge is puzzling, surely you know that a statement of fact requires supporting evidence.

That is actually quite funny Michael. For it was you who focused on the word "belief" or "believed" by highlighting it in bold six times in #47. I was making the point to you that Thick never used that word in his evidence.

If you are happy that knowledge and belief are the same thing then I can't imagine why you kept highlighting the latter in #47.

[David Orsam]

The last post that Joshua made also demonstrates that the people could not identify him as Leather Apron, I'm sure including some of the people who had claimed he was.

But what is your certainty based on?

Joshua was quoting an unsourced newspaper report and I've explained that the police did not need to identify Pizer as Leather Apron, they already knew that he bore this nickname. It was the very reason why Pizer was in hiding, something you still have not acknowledged to have been the case.

[David Orsam]

That report doesn't refer to a specific victim, and If I recall correctly some unsolved murders in the vicinity preceded Polly and Annie's, so the "recent murders" needs context for you to have an argument.

You are quite wrong Michael. Helson's report is headed "Murder of M.A. Nichols at Whitechapel". So when the report says that Pizer's movements were to be accounted for "on the night in question", it means on 31 August.

[David Orsam]

Pizer was clearly a liar. One minute he's never heard of his nickname, the next he stands up in court and admits he has. He also initially denied knowing the women who accosted him on Church Street and then admitted that one of them was constantly bothering him. And he claimed to have only worn his apron for work, yet a local publican who had known him for years described him as a wastrel who habitually wore it whether he was working or not.

If you list all the stuff that is known about Pizer, and then factor in that William Thick had lived for years very close to the Pizer family home, it becomes patently obvious why he was pulled in.

There's a major logic failure with this post. On the one hand you accept as true that a local publican confirmed that Pizer "habitually" wore a leather apron - thus explaining why he was known as Leather Apron - but then you then suggest that the reason he was pulled in had something to do with Sergeant Thick living near the Pizer family home (which reason you say is "patently obvious" although it escapes me).

Surely the reason why Pizer was pulled in was because he was known as Leather Apron.

This is actually confirmed in Inspector Helson's report of 7 September 1888 which says that "Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron" was being sought by police "in order that his movements may be accounted for on the night in question".

As for the supposed contradiction between what Pizer was reported to have said to the press and what he subsequently said at the inquest, this is due to misunderstanding what he said. What he told the press was that he did not know that he was called Leather Apron until Sergeant Thick told him that he was. In other words, as soon Sergeant Thick told him he was Leather Apron he now knew this to be the case. So when he was subsequently asked at the inquest if he was Leather Apron he was able to tell the coroner that he was indeed known by this name. There is no inconsistency there.

In the absence of you providing direct evidence that Pizer said different things about the woman who accosted him in Church Street it cannot be accepted that he did so.

[David Orsam]

Echo 11th Sept;
"It was reported on some show of authority that the man had been confronted with witnesses who failed to recognize him as the character they had known "

This is of course only a newspaper report and should not be taken as gospel.

The police did not need to identify Pizer as Leather Apron because they already knew that was his nickname (per Helson's report of 7 September).

The only question for the police was whether Leather Apron was also the Whitechapel Murderer.

So they almost certainly did bring in witnesses who thought they had seen the Whitechapel Murderer, such as Emmanuel Violenia, and it is clear that they failed to identify Pizer as such.

[David Orsam]

Exactly what the Echo postulated on 11th Sept;

" It is not unreasonable to suppose that in a district where cabinet and shoe makers constantly wear such aprons more than one man may have been called by the name which has lately produced so much terror in and around Spitalfields."

It's possible but there was only one who had been in hiding and only one known to the police by that name.

[Michael W Richards]

Quite possibly but it seems you are losing track of your own arguments. Let me remind you what you said about Sgt Thick:

"Therefore he went after Piser as a suspect for the recent murders after the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury...based on a belief that the apron connected Leather Apron to the crime, and the belief that Piser was Leather Apron."

If Thick was contributing to a report, dated 7 September, saying that Pizer was Leather Apron, his "belief" that Pizer was Leather Apron had absolutely nothing do with the leather apron found in the backyard being connected with the crime does it?

And it means that he was going after Pizer as a suspect before that apron was found doesn't it?

That report doesn't refer to a specific victim, and If I recall correctly some unsolved murders in the vicinity preceded Polly and Annie's, so the "recent murders" needs context for you to have an argument.

The last post that Joshua made also demonstrates that the people could not identify him as Leather Apron, I'm sure including some of the people who had claimed he was.

Your focus on the word belief vs knowledge is puzzling, surely you know that a statement of fact requires supporting evidence. Thickes claim that he knew him to be Leather Apron is based on what he heard from others, he did not encounter a shakedown by Leather Apron on a street woman, he heard others speak of him and he seemingly readily accepted the gossip as fact.

And if he knew Thicke for quite some years, one wonders if that was persecution for perceived acts or some kind of alliance, as Scott pointed out before.

[MrBarnett]

Pizer was clearly a liar. One minute he's never heard of his nickname, the next he stands up in court and admits he has. He also initially denied knowing the women who accosted him on Church Street and then admitted that one of them was constantly bothering him. And he claimed to have only worn his apron for work, yet a local publican who had known him for years described him as a wastrel who habitually wore it whether he was working or not.



If you list all the stuff that is known about Pizer, and then factor in that William Thick had lived for years very close to the Pizer family home, it becomes patently obvious why he was pulled in.