Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[David Orsam]

You seem to be convinced that Piser was Leather Apron, and I'm sure youre aware that this point has long been debated by students of the crimes. That's fine.

What I am convinced about is that Pizer had the nickname of Leather Apron in the local community. I don't care what has been debated - it's just so obvious that Pizer was known as Leather Apron because why else was he in hiding? Why did he fear for his life? Thick's testimony, as well as Inspector Helson's official report from before the Chapman murder, simply confirms why this was happening.

I believe that there is no evidence that he was, and there is Thickes own statements that he merely "believed" Piser to be Leather Apron, without proof

But that is just wrong and misrepresenting the evidence. Here is what Thick said at the inquest according to different reports:

Daily News

The Coroner-When people in the neighbourhood speak of "Leather Apron," do they mean Piser?

The Witness-They do, sir.

Daily Telegraph

I arrested Piser at 22, Mulberry-street. I have known him by the name of "Leather Apron" for many years.

When people in the neighbourhood speak of the "Leather Apron" do they mean Piser? - They do.

Evening Standard & Morning Advertiser

I have known him for many years under the nickname of "Leather Apron." When the people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they referred to Piser.

Times

He had known Pizer for many years, and when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer.

Do you see the word "believed" in there Michael? I don't. Which means you were making it up. Presumably because you don't like the truth.

the statements of Piser and family regarding this name ever being applied to him, that lead one to conclude that its quite possible Piser was smeared by the rumours"

Well I've already provided an obvious explanation as to why Pizer and his family were unaware of this nickname. You've not even acknowledged it. Instead you have used it as your sole reason to disbelieve the sworn evidence of the police officer in court in circumstances where Pizer had spent five days in hiding. You haven't even mentioned him being in hiding! Why was he in hiding? It was obviously because he was known locally as Leather Apron and it was widely believed, mainly as a result of sensational newspaper reporting, that Leather Apron had murdered Nichols.

smeared by the rumours that Thicke seems to have "believed" and was unjustly being suspected of crimes he did not commit.

You are totally confused Michael. Thick knew from his own personal knowledge that Pizer was referred to as Leather Apron in the neighbourhood. He had known it for years. There were no "rumours" about it. The rumours were that Leather Apron mistreated prostitutes and murdered Nichols. There is no reason to think that Thick, or any other police officer, believed those rumours and the police report at the time made clear there was no evidence against Pizer.

In this example, harassing and threatening street women. We already know they discovered very quickly that he could not have committed the murders, which would be when they would reflect upon what drew them to him in the first place and how feeble the excuse was for suspecting him of anything.

Yes, it was feeble Michael which is precisely why Pizer was immediately released by the police and it was made clear that he was not suspected of any crimes.

[David Orsam]

Someone called Leather Apron was terrorizing street women that Summer and Fall

But is that true? It was certainly stated in the newspapers that Leather Apron had been ill-treating street women prior to September 1888 but, in line with your desire for proof that Pizer was Leather Apron, you must surely want proof that what was said in the newspapers was true. Where is that proof?

and the rise of Piser as suspect in these first 2 murders was a result of his preceding reputation as a menace to street women in particular.

Yes, but he was already a "suspect" after the murder of Nichols.

There is no known evidence to connect any of these murders to anyone

Yes, that is right and nobody is saying that there IS evidence to connect the murders to Pizer and, frankly, no-one was even saying this in 1888. It was always just conjecture.

So it is his preceding reputation...fostered by the conviction Thicke seems to have that Piser was this person, that drew him into this mess.

No, that's plain wrong, Thick's knowledge that Pizer was called Leather Apron had absolutely nothing to do with Pizer being drawn into the mess. He was drawn into the mess when he was accused of being Leather Apron in the street and had to go into hiding. Thick didn't get involved until much later. All Thick did, in effect, was to explain to the coroner WHY Pizer had been hiding and in fear of his life.

[Abby Normal]

Sept 10th, 1888, The Star:

"“The man arrested by Detective-Sergeant Thicke is now at Leman-street Station. He fits the description of “Leather Apron” exactly, and this similarity is the cause of his arrest. He denies, however, that he is the man wanted, and says he never wore a leather apron in the streets. He is waiting, however, to be recognised, or the contrary, by some people from Wilmot’s Lodging House who know “Leather Apron” well. He went along submissively with Detective-Sergeant Thicke. His stepmother and his stepsister deny in the strongest terms that he is “Leather Apron.”

David, do we have a positive ID recorded from the folks at Wimots? Nope. Can we assume one was done? Yep.

This proved to be cause for a 50L payoff by the Stars editor, to Piser to prevent Slander Charges against the paper, once it was proven that he could not have committed the murders. It was also the reason that Piser was given the opportunity via interruption of Annies Inquest, to clear his name.

Too many people had made too many accusations about Piser that proved without substantiation,...like the claim he was Leather Apron in the first place.

if pizer admitted he was leather apron under oath no less, than come on. everything else is fairy tails.

[Michael W Richards]

Sept 10th, 1888, The Star:

"“The man arrested by Detective-Sergeant Thicke is now at Leman-street Station. He fits the description of “Leather Apron” exactly, and this similarity is the cause of his arrest. He denies, however, that he is the man wanted, and says he never wore a leather apron in the streets. He is waiting, however, to be recognised, or the contrary, by some people from Wilmot’s Lodging House who know “Leather Apron” well. He went along submissively with Detective-Sergeant Thicke. His stepmother and his stepsister deny in the strongest terms that he is “Leather Apron.”

David, do we have a positive ID recorded from the folks at Wimots? Nope. Can we assume one was done? Yep.

This proved to be cause for a 50L payoff by the Stars editor, to Piser to prevent Slander Charges against the paper, once it was proven that he could not have committed the murders. It was also the reason that Piser was given the opportunity via interruption of Annies Inquest, to clear his name.

Too many people had made too many accusations about Piser that proved without substantiation,...like the claim he was Leather Apron in the first place.

[Michael W Richards]

That is absolutely untrue. And bizarre. I mean, what possible purpose would anyone have had in accusing anyone of being Leather Apron prior to the murders?

The notion that Leather Apron was responsible for the murders only arose after the murder of Nichols. Sergeant Thick happened to know that John Pizer was known by the name of Leather Apron.

He didn't need "proof" of anything. It was his local knowledge.

It's not difficult to understand.

Someone called Leather Apron was terrorizing street women that Summer and Fall, and the rise of Piser as suspect in these first 2 murders was a result of his preceding reputation as a menace to street women in particular. There is no known evidence to connect any of these murders to anyone, so it is his preceding reputation...fostered by the conviction Thicke seems to have that Piser was this person, that drew him into this mess.

You seem to be convinced that Piser was Leather Apron, and I'm sure youre aware that this point has long been debated by students of the crimes. That's fine. I believe that there is no evidence that he was, and there is Thickes own statements that he merely "believed" Piser to be Leather Apron, without proof...like an ID by someone allegedly victimized or something of the like...and the statements of Piser and family regarding this name ever being applied to him, that lead one to conclude that its quite possible Piser was smeared by the rumours that Thicke seems to have "believed" and was unjustly being suspected of crimes he did not commit. In this example, harassing and threatening street women. We already know they discovered very quickly that he could not have committed the murders, which would be when they would reflect upon what drew them to him in the first place and how feeble the excuse was for suspecting him of anything.

I do know of someone that better fits the description of Leather Apron, complete with dangerous erratic behavior, and this suspect could only have committed the first 2 murders in the series...the 2 that most closely resemble each other in Victimology, Method/Pattern/Signature and a probable motive related to mental illness. I see none of this relating to Piser, I see a connection made by apron and false reputation.

[David Orsam]

At the end of this exchange, Michael, you haven't explained:

1. how the leather apron found at the Chapman crime scene "was used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police".

2. what evidence there is that the police "coerced" Pizer into agreeing that he was known as Leather Apron.

3. Why you claimed that Pizer was never known as Leather Apron by "anyone".

These were the things I criticised you for in your first post in this thread. You made those categoric statements as if they were established facts, not even saying that they were your opinions or beliefs or anything like that. Yet in your responses haven't even begun to offer a defence of those claims. You've simply created new and different arguments.

[David Orsam]

He denied being known by that name prior to his appearance at the Inquest...which was to his benefit...his family have never heard anyone refer to him by that name, and the fact that plenty of immigrant men in the East End wore leather aprons in the course of their work make his involvement in this affair simply a result of a policeman who judged without evidence and misidentification.

I've already explained why neither he nor his family would have known he was called Leather Apron. I doubt that "plenty" of immigrant men regularly wore leather aprons in the street but whether they did or didn't it was Pizer who obviously picked up the nickname.

All cleared up at the Inquest. Except of course who Leather Apron really was.

It wasn't the business of the inquest to establish who Leather Apron "really was". But there was sufficient evidence that it was Pizer who was known by this name in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel.

[David Orsam]

As I said before, and none of which is disproven by your rude and contrite responses, is that there is ZERO PROOF that Piser was the person that street whores called Leather Apron, and enough proof that he didn't kill any street whores that Fall.

I don't think anyone is saying there is proof that Pizer killed anyone. I mean, that's the whole point.

There obviously is proof that Pizer was Leather Apron. I didn't give you any "rude and contrite" responses. I gave you the evidence from the inquest.

There is sworn evidence that Pizer was known as Leather Apron. And Pizer went into hiding because the population of Whitechapel believed him to be Leather Apron and they believed Leather Apron to have been the murderer of Nichols.

[David Orsam]

The fact that Thicke referred to Piser as Leather Apron before the murders...

That's not true as I've already said.

without any evidence that he was

Sergeant Thick didn't need evidence because he knew Pizer's nickname was Leather Apron. And that was why Pizer had spent five days in hiding in fear of his life.

and then imagined that this Leather Apron fellow was involved in the Whitechapel murders because some street whores said a Leather Apron fellow scared them constitutes only the very worst kind of policework by Thicke, not evidence of any kind

But neither Sergeant Thick nor the police "imagined" that Leather Apron was involved in the Whitechapel murders at all. It's there in black and white in Inspector Helson's report: "there is no evidence whatsoever against him". But they obviously had to find him because of all the hulabaloo in the press. Do you really not understand that?

[David Orsam]

You and your imagination bs ......its so clear its transparent, and yet you choose to accept the opinion of Thicke as "evidence".

It wasn't an "the opinion" of Thick. He was speaking from his own personal knowledge. He knew Pizer as Leather Apron. Just like all the people that had forced Pizer into hiding in fear of his life for five days.

If he wasn't known as Leather Apron why do you think people were after him?

[David Orsam]

Thicke acknowledged he had no evidence that Piser was Leather Apron, or the unnamed killer of Polly and Annie.

But that simply isn't true. Thick never "acknowledged" that he had no evidence that Pizer was Leather Apron. On the contrary, it was within his personal knowledge that Pizer was known by that name.

The inquest wasn't an inquiry to establish the identity of Leather Apron (someone who was not even the murderer) so what Thick said at the inquest was perfectly sufficient. The police didn't need to produce a string of witnesses to say they knew Pizer by that name.

You keep forgetting that Pizer had been in hiding for DAYS because virtually the whole of Whitechapel was after him. Why were they after him? Because they knew him as Leather Apron!!!

[David Orsam]

I think I dealt with Fear for Safety as being a catalyst for accepting this moniker. Since they were there at the Inquest to clear his name. Since there were no charges pending against anyone nicknamed Leather Apron, it seems a small concession to escape possible physical harm.

That's very different from being coerced into agreeing he was Leather Apron which is what you originally claimed.

But if you think he agreed to be called Leather Apron to escape physical harm where is the evidence of that? Did Pizer say so? If not, are you not simply speculating without any evidence at all?

Doesn't it make far more sense that he was known as Leather Apron, as Thick testified, and he agreed that he was known by this name for that very reason?

[David Orsam]

Sorry again, I should have said NO Proof..again, my shameless manner of explaining things most of the other grown ups here would understand.

"Zero proof" and "no proof" are exactly the same thing.

It may be that what you are struggling to say is that it was never proven that Pizer was Leather Apron.

Well even that isn't true because it was proven in evidence by Sergeant Thick but if you mean that it wasn't proven to your satisfaction, that may be true but, you see, it never needed to be. There was no need to prove to anyone's satisfaction that Pizer was Leather Apron. It was sufficient that he was not the murderer of Nichols or Chapman.

[David Orsam]

IWhen this mythical Leather Apron fellow came to the forefront is when street women were interviewed after the first murder, at which point Thicke's baseless accusation that Piser was Leather Apron became an accusation of suspicion for the murders. He was tagged Leather Apron by Thicke before the first Canonical murder. One begat the other

You talk about "the first murder" but at the time it was just "a murder". A rumour started that Leather Apron, who was believed to ill treat prostitutes, was responsible for the murder of Nichols.

Jack Pizer was known in the neighbourhood as Leather Apron. He was forced into hiding. A search was instituted for him. Sergeant Thick found him, confirmed he was known as Leather Apron, but no evidence was offered that he committed any murders, and the police did not think he did.

There was no "baseless accusation" that Pizer was known as Leather Apron. Pizer accepted it himself. He was called that because he used to walk around wearing a Leather Apron.

It really isn't difficult.

[David Orsam]

The accusations prior to the murders were that Piser was Leather Apron, fostered by Thicke himself, without any proof.

That is absolutely untrue. And bizarre. I mean, what possible purpose would anyone have had in accusing anyone of being Leather Apron prior to the murders?

The notion that Leather Apron was responsible for the murders only arose after the murder of Nichols. Sergeant Thick happened to know that John Pizer was known by the name of Leather Apron.

He didn't need "proof" of anything. It was his local knowledge.

It's not difficult to understand.