Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #77
      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.'”

      Comment


      • #78
        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.
        Last edited by jerryd; 09-02-2017, 03:06 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          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 ?
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #81
              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
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #82
                Just found another Emily Patzwold aged 24 in 1888, wife of Theodore a german tailor. Much more likely to be the right one. They are living at 19 Mulberry street Whitechapel in the 1891 census.

                Pat.....

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  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.
                  Violena positively identified Pizer as the man he'd seen threatening to stab a woman in Hanbury Street, but Pizer had the alibi of being with his family at the time, and Violena seems to have been subsequently discredited, possibly after failing to identify Annie in the mortuary as the woman seen being threatened. I wonder if the police said Pizer had not been recognised in order to avoid trouble - imagine if they'd announced that Pizer had been picked out of a lineup but then released.

                  I also sometimes wonder if, rather than Kosminski, Pizer is the origin of Anderson's Jewish suspect who was shielded by his family.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                    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.
                    Cheers Joshua,

                    I thought that I could recall a connection. Pizer was Leather Apron but obviously not everyone would know what he looked like so other men might have been suspected of being him.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                      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.’'
                      Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      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".
                      By the time of the murder of Chapman, the name "Leather Apron" had become synonymous with "the Whitechapel Murderer".

                      When people identified an individual (or self-identified) as "Leather Apron", or as "the real Leather Apron" they were NOT referring to someone they had known as "Leather Apron" but someone they believed to be the Whitechapel Murderer, i.e. the murderer or Nichols and Chapman (and, no doubt, Tabram too).

                      THAT is where the confusion lies in these subsequent identifications. But once you understand that Leather Apron = Whitechapel Murderer then the confusion goes away.

                      We know for a fact that Pizer and Pizer alone was the man referred to as Leather Apron after Nichols' murder because (a) he had to go into hiding and (b) he is identified as such in Helson's report of 7 September. Not to mention Thick's positive identification in court and Pizer's own acceptance of the fact.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        I wonder if the police said Pizer had not been recognised in order to avoid trouble - imagine if they'd announced that Pizer had been picked out of a lineup but then released.
                        But that's exactly what was reported!

                        A Press Association report issued late on 11th September and published in many papers on 12 September said:

                        "This afternoon a number of men who were hanging about Leman street Police Station were asked to come inside, and they were glad to satisfy their curiosity by doing so. Piser was then brought from a room in which he is confined and placed amongst them. A man was then brought into the station yard and asked if he could identify "the man." He immediately picked out Piser, who appeared to be most dejected on being as readily selected. It is understood that this witness says he saw Piser threatening a woman in Hanbury street in the early hours of the morning of the murder."

                        Equally, according to a Central News report of the same evening:

                        "The man Piser, who has been in custody since yesterday morning, on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murder, was released this evening. The police were from the first inclined to doubt the veracity of the man who professed to identify Piser as having been seen quarrelling with a woman in Hanbury street on the morning of the murder. They subjected him this afternoon to an examination lasting three hours, in the course of which he contradicted himself over and over again. This coupled with the result inquiries made by the police and with the fact that the marks on the knives found in Piser's house were simply rust, left no doubt of his innocence."

                        And as you can see, the identification was in respect of a man supposed to have been threatening a woman in Hanbury Street, not in respect of being Leather Apron, something the police already knew was Pizer's nickname.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          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,


                          Are you familiar with the 'incident in Church Street' as described by the correspondent to Lloyd's Weekly who identified himself as "Eyewitness"?

                          According to "Eyewitness" Pizer was accosted by some women in what he called Church Street (actually then Hanbury Street). He said that in front of a constable one of the women accused a man (Pizer and his brother later confirmed it was him) of being Leather Apron around twenty times. He also says that the man initially denied knowing the woman, but later confided to a constable that she was constantly annoying him like this'. Later on he denied knowing the woman when interviewed by the press. Do you see any inconsistency there?

                          Perhaps the penny didn't drop at the time, or poor old Pizer had a bad memory, and despite being called so around twenty times in front of witnesses he was genuinely unaware of being known as Leather Apron by the ladies of Spitalfields until Thick arrested him. That's certainly how he told it to the press. And when asked in court if he was known as Leather Apron he answered with a simple affirmative. Are you getting a whiff of inconsistency yet?

                          The Church Street incident seems to have been the trigger for the investigation that Helson refers to in his 7th September report. Unfortunately you missed out the interesting bit when you quoted it above, the bit where Helson says that Pizer 'has been in the habit of ill-using prostitutes in this and other parts of the Metropolis.'

                          This is corroborated by 'Eyewitnesses' saying that the Church Street women made similar claims about Pizer's behaviour towards the women of Spitalfields and elsewhere in London. He described Pizer as a 'cruel wretch' who had recently ill-used two unfortunates in a lodging house in the City Road.

                          Was Pizer pulled in simply because he was known as Leather Apron, as you say, or might the fact that he allegedly consorted with and abused prostitutes have had something to do with it?

                          It's possible, of course, that despite the fact that the constables present in Church Street apparently let Pizer go on his merry way, they had taken down his real name and his family address or that his accusers were able to supply them. Personally, I think it extremely unlikely that he would have given the Mulberry Street address. Why drag granny into the mess?

                          So, somehow, the police had to track down a possible bolt-hole for the shiftless habitue of dodgy doss-houses. Perhaps it was a pure coincidence that he was arrested by Sgt Thick, a man who had lived for some years in Nottingham Place, a few streets away from Mulberry Place, and who Pizer admitted had known him for 18 years.

                          Let me reword my illogical statement, which you clearly misread:

                          Pizer was arrested because he was associated with the Leather Apron moniker and because of his alleged association with and ill-treatment of prostitutes. His arrest was made possible because someone knew his family's address and because Thick was able to identify him.

                          Please point out the major failure of logic there.


                          Gary
                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-03-2017, 07:32 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            Are you familiar with the 'incident in Church Street' as described by the correspondent to Lloyd's Weekly who identified himself as "Eyewitness"?
                            Yes, familiar enough to know that this letter was published in other newspapers before being published in LLoyds Weekly News (on 9 September) and was almost certainly originally a letter to the Star which was published in a late edition on 5 September.

                            The problem is that you are accepting the word of an anonymous letter writer who claimed to have perfectly overheard two separate conversations between Pizer and two different constables. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't but I would personally hesitate before using this story to call Pizer a liar.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Let me reword my illogical statement, which you clearly misread:

                              Pizer was arrested because he was associated with the Leather Apron moniker and because of his alleged association with and ill-treatment of prostitutes. His arrest was made possible because someone knew his family's address and because Thick was able to identify him.

                              Please point out the major failure of logic there.
                              Well if you have to reword it then I clearly didn't misread it!

                              Here's what you said before:

                              "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."

                              You are not now rewording that sentence, you are changing it completely.

                              Before you were only talking about "why" Pizer was pulled in, which had something to do with where William Thick lived. Now Thick's residence only explains how the police managed to track down Pizer in order to pull him in.

                              As for why they pulled him in, I entirely agree with you that the reason they did it was because he was associated with the Leather Apron name and had a reputation for ill treating prostitutes.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                Yes, familiar enough to know that this letter was published in other newspapers before being published in LLoyds Weekly News (on 9 September) and was almost certainly originally a letter to the Star which was published in a late edition on 5 September.

                                The problem is that you are accepting the word of an anonymous letter writer who claimed to have perfectly overheard two separate conversations between Pizer and two different constables. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't but I would personally hesitate before using this story to call Pizer a liar.
                                David,

                                What about the inconsistency? Do you doubt that Eyewitness heard Pizer being outed as 'Leather Apron'? Or that Pizer subsequently claimed not to have known that he was so called?

                                If it walks like a lie and quacks like a lie, it has probably have come out of the mouth of a liar.

                                Gary

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X