Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[Darryl Kenyon]

Being a postman where i live when people talk about other posties to me they say [ and this has happened ]. " You know who i mean, that Postman who always wears shorts ". Now there are a few posties who regularly wear the attire at our office, even in inclement weather, but i know straight away who they mean - Arthur. Mainly because he wears them all the time and delivered in the district for years. I am assuming that Pizer had lived in the district for some time [ known Thicke eighteen years ], so it could be a similar case IE the jew who always wears a leather apron, they could be referring to someone else when they reply in the affirmative but at the same time a lot of people will immediately think of Pizer.

[Joshua Rogan]

Michael, do we have a negative ID recorded from the folks at Wilmots? Nope.

And if Pizer on the 10th September was "waiting to be recognized, or the contrary" yet admitted that he was Leather Apron when he gave his evidence at the inquest two days later, doesn't that suggest that he was indeed recognized as Leather Apron?

Echo 11th Sept;
"When interrogated the police admitted they had arrested him, but the day passed without the prisoner having been charged. 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, and it was rumoured that he had been released, much to the satisfaction of his co-religionists, who refuse to believe that a man of Piser's intelligence could be guilt of such ferocity."

[Joshua Rogan]

I wonder just how many people were known as "Leather Apron" they were a pretty common bit of work attire in the type of occupations many in the area would have worked in (those with steady work anyway).

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."

[David Orsam]

Why didn't Pizer's family or neighbors know he was known as "Leather Apron"?

I've already explained it. It obviously wasn't a nickname that local people used to address Pizer to his face. It's rather like giving the local weirdo the nickname "The Local Weirdo". It's not something you call them or tell their family of friends that you are calling them. It's kind of spoken about within groups.

If, as seems likely, Pizer's neighbours were Jews and it was the non-Jewish residents of Whitechapel who referred to Pizer as Leather Apron then that would completely explain it because the two communities probably didn't mix much.

[Scott Nelson]

Why didn't Pizer's family or neighbors know he was known as "Leather Apron"?

[Joshua Rogan]

Interesting that, according to Pizer's evidence reported in the Daily News, he and Sgt Thick had known each other for quite some time;

"The Witness (bowing several times)-Thank you, sir. I am quite satisfied, and I hope you are. Mr. Thicke, that has my case in hand, has known me for upwards of eighteen years"

[GUT]

I wonder just how many people were known as "Leather Apron" they were a pretty common bit of work attire in the type of occupations many in the area would have worked in (those with steady work anyway).

[Paddy]

PIzer was in East End Jewish Hospital as an inmate at 5 years old. It looks like he became institutionalised as he was in (mostly) and out of workhouses from 1874 to 1888. Often destitute sometimes ill. He also spent time in Norwood at the Jewish convalescent home too I believe. He was never with his family in the census.
I did find his mother/stepmother? Augusta Pizer at 22 Mullberry street and he did have siblings or half siblings?
Sounds like he had a rough life...

Pat....

[David Orsam]

Surely your intention is not to debate whether hearsay is equal to proof? Because that's what we are doing here now.

No, what I'm actually saying is you are completely wrong in calling it "hearsay".

Thick was giving evidence as to his own personal knowledge that Pizer was known as Leather Apron.

That's not hearsay, that's evidence.

[David Orsam]

The man who acknowledged he...again...believed Piser was Leather Apron ...for some time prior to any of these 5 murders.

Factually incorrect. He acknowledged no such thing. He never used the word "believed" as I've said before.

Why do you keep misrepresenting the evidence?

[David Orsam]

And who contributed to the report Helson issued...Thicke perhaps?

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?

[David Orsam]

Thanks Scott...and I'm open to an explantion other than one that is being shoved at me here.

Oh Michael, I'm so sorry for shoving so many facts at you because I appreciate you do enjoy a more fictional explanation of events where you don't need to worry about trivial things like facts and evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

But isn't that claim totally disproved by the report of Inspector Helson dated 7 September 1888, i.e. before the murder of Chapman, and before the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury, in which it was stated that a careful search was already being made for "a man named Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron"?

So the discovery of the apron had absolutely nothing to do with the police belief that Pizer was Leather Apron did it?

So far you've not even acknowledged the existence of Helson's report let alone commented on it. Can I ask you to now do so?

And who contributed to the report Helson issued...Thicke perhaps? The man who acknowledged he...again...believed Piser was Leather Apron...for some time prior to any of these 5 murders. Surely your intention is not to debate whether hearsay is equal to proof? Because that's what we are doing here now.

[David Orsam]

You keep stating that Thicke knew Piser was Leather Apron, which is patently incorrect. He believed he was, based on hearsay.

But wouldn't that be true for absolutely everyone? A nickname is totally unofficial and one's knowledge of another person's nickname, in circumstances where that nickname is not know to the person who has it, can only be based on what someone has been told by someone else.

So on your view of it, it would have been literally impossible to prove that Pizer was Leather Apron because everyone who might have given evidence about it would have had to admit that their belief was based on hearsay.

And that seems to be where you are going wrong. Or at least one part of it. You don't understand what a nickname is.

[David Orsam]

There was never any proof at all that Leather Apron was in fact John Piser, and there was ample proof he didn't kill anyone on the respective murder nights of the first 2 victims.

The fact that you keep saying there was never any proof that Leather Apron was John Pizer doesn't make it true. The evidence of Sergeant Thick proved in a court of law that Pizer was Leather Apron.

And isn't it time you commented on why Pizer was in hiding? Why do you think he was forced to flee to his stepmother's home and stay in there without leaving for three days? The answer is obvious isn't it? People in Whitechapel knew him as Leather Apron?

As for your claim that "there was ample proof he didn't kill anyone on the respective murder nights of the first 2 victims", I literally have no idea why you keep saying this. Of course that is true. No-one, least of all me, is saying he did kill anyone. You do realise that don't you?