Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[David Orsam]

I know you like these rude tennis-style written conversations

I don't know what you are talking about Michael. I've just been replying to posts in the normal way on a forum.

I criticised your first post in this thread and rightly so because you haven't been able to justify a single word.

As for rude I'm sure I haven't called you any names, but the same is not true for you unfortunately.

[Michael W Richards]

I know you like these rude tennis-style written conversations, but frankly I don't have that kind of time to waste...so, this will be my final rebuttal on this point...since its off topic anyway....

The accusation was not that Pizer was Leather Apron. The accusation was that he was the Whitechapel Murder. As to that, the police certainly agreed that there was no evidence.

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


Well those two sentences are accurate but it's not what you said earlier, or anything like it, which was what I was challenging as imaginative fiction.

Sorry....Ill try to phrase things in a way that I hope makes sense to you specifically.


Saying "zero proof" is a quite nonsensical statement.

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


From inquest testimony:

Pizer:
Are you known by the nickname of "Leather Apron?" - Yes, sir.

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.

Detective Sergeant William Thicke, H Division, said that a man named "Leather Apron" having been suspected of the murder, on Monday morning he arrested Pizer at 22 Mulberry-street. He had known Pizer for many years, and when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer.

That is all Thicke, there is no proof for any of it, and Thicke acknowledged he had no evidence that Piser was Leather Apron, or the unnamed killer of Polly and Annie.

So there is plenty of proof that Pizer was "Leather Apron". Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. But let's not start imagining evidence that isn't there.

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

The fact that Thicke referred to Piser as Leather Apron before the murders...without any evidence that he was, 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.

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. 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.

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

[David Orsam]

Thicke acknowledged that he had been characterizing Piser as Leather Apron for some time all the while without any evidence to support the accusations.

The accusation was not that Pizer was Leather Apron. The accusation was that he was the Whitechapel Murder. As to that, the police certainly agreed that there was no evidence.

Piser, nor his family, had ever heard him referred to by that name by anyone. The appearance at the Inquest cleared him of suspicion. All historically accurate.

Well those two sentences are accurate but it's not what you said earlier, or anything like it, which was what I was challenging as imaginative fiction.

There is zero proof that Piser was Leather Apron, and stop trying to pretend that people yelling in the street is proof of anything.

Saying "zero proof" is a quite nonsensical statement.

From inquest testimony:

Pizer:
Are you known by the nickname of "Leather Apron?" - Yes, sir.

Thick:

Detective Sergeant William Thicke, H Division, said that a man named "Leather Apron" having been suspected of the murder, on Monday morning he arrested Pizer at 22 Mulberry-street. He had known Pizer for many years, and when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer.

So there is plenty of proof that Pizer was "Leather Apron". Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. But let's not start imagining evidence that isn't there.

[Michael W Richards]

Thicke acknowledged that he had been characterizing Piser as Leather Apron for some time, all the while without any evidence to support the accusations. Piser, nor his family, had ever heard him referred to by that name by anyone. The appearance at the Inquest cleared him of suspicion. All historically accurate.

There is zero proof that Piser was Leather Apron, and stop trying to pretend that people yelling in the street is proof of anything.

[David Orsam]

So, Michael, Let's see how you did with the questions I asked you:

Sorry Michael, how was the leather apron found at the crime scene "used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police"? NOT ANSWERED

How was Pizer "coerced" into anything? NOT ANSWERED

And how are you in a position to say that the name "Leather Apron" was never known to be used to describe him by anyone? NOT ANSWERED

Are you describing what actually happened in 1888 or a fictionalised version of what happened that you have created in your mind? NOT ANSWERED. But it must have been a fictionalised version. Hopefully you now understand what did happen in 1888.

[David Orsam]

Piser was suspected by Sgt Thicke of being Leather Apron.

Not quite correct. Sgt Thick knew that Pizer was referred to locally as "Leather Apron". It wasn't a question of "suspicion". But he also knew that the person known locally as Leather Apron was suspected by the press and public of being the murderer of Nichols and, subsequently, of Chapman.

He had been referring to Piser as such for some time prior to the murders.

There is no evidence of this. The sergeant said: "when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer".

When the apron was found suspicion then fell on this Piser fellow,

Not correct. Suspicion fell on Leather Apron from as early as 1 September (possibly even from 31 August) and a letter was published in newspapers on 6 September (possibly also on 5 September), two days before the murder of Chapman and the discovery of the Leather Apron, from a local person who said that on Sunday 2 September he saw a woman shouting at a man in the street who she was accusing of being Leather Apron. Pizer and his brother also related a similar incident which occurred on the same day, a full six days before the murder of Chapman. In fact, Pizer went into hiding five days before the Chapman murder which was precisely how was able to provide an alibi for that murder (i.e. he was hiding away with his family).

Inspector Helson's report of 7 September, the day before the Chapman murder, confirms that the police were already searching for "Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron".

Thicke and perhaps others had wrongly tagged him with the name. Piser went into hiding, fearing for his safety.

You are getting confused when you say "wrongly". That had been Pizer's nickname for a long time. There is nothing right or wrong about it. Pizer didn't go into hiding simply because he was being called Leather Apron but because Leather Apron was suddenly being referred to as the murderer of Nichols.

Piser had never heard that name used in reference to himself before, nor had any of his family.

No, indeed. It wasn't a nickname he adopted for himself or something that people called him to his face. It was what people in the neighbourhood, probably non-Jews who never spoke to him, called him amongst themselves.

Its likely he only agreed to accept the moniker in exchange for a public clearing of his name with respect to the murderer suspicions at Annies Inquest.

Well now that is rather different to the police "coercing him" into accepting it was his name which you said before. And although you say it is "likely" that he agreed this, surely what is more likely to have been the case is what he said in September 1888, namely that once he was told by Sergeant Thick that people in the neighbourhood called him "Leather Apron" he accepted that this was the case.

The apron drew Pizer into this mess due to his being erroneously called Leather Apron,

No, it wasn't "the apron" that drew Pizer into this mess because he was drawn into it before Chapman's murder and the discovery of the apron. Unless by "the apron" you mean Pizer's own leather apron.

Once Piser proved he could not have committed any murder they suspected him of, the police publicly cleared his name.

But the police never really suspected him of committing the murder. It was the newspapers and members of the public who did. Inspector Helson's report of 7 September says "at present there is no evidence whatsoever against him".

If there was any proof at all that he was Leather Apron they would have brought in street woman to identify him and then lay charges. There were none.

That is seriously messed up. It wasn't a crime to be known as Leather Apron. If 100 people had identified Pizer as Leather Apron the police couldn't have charged him. They would only have laid charges if there was evidence that Leather Apron had committed the murders (or, indeed, any other criminal offence) but there was none. The issue was not whether he was Leather Apron or not but whether he was a murderer or not.

[Michael W Richards]

Abuse is no substitute for facts, Michael, although I appreciate that you have none of the latter so must rely entirely on the former.

Lets not get a nosebleed, shall we?

Piser was suspected by Sgt Thicke of being Leather Apron. He had been referring to Piser as such for some time prior to the murders. When the apron was found suspicion then fell on this Piser fellow, without merit, due to the fact that Thicke and perhaps others had wrongly tagged him with the name. Piser went into hiding, fearing for his safety. Piser had never heard that name used in reference to himself before, nor had any of his family. Its likely he only agreed to accept the moniker in exchange for a public clearing of his name with respect to the murderer suspicions at Annies Inquest.

The apron drew Pizer into this mess due to his being erroneously called Leather Apron, the man who was allegedly threatening street women in the neighborhood. Once Piser proved he could not have committed any murder they suspected him of, the police publicly cleared his name. They chose Annies Inquest.

If there was any proof at all that he was Leather Apron they would have brought in street woman to identify him and then lay charges. There were none.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pizer was exonerated because he had alibis. The apron surely played no part in it?

[David Orsam]

I am not going to explain what is already in print

Is your point there that the scenario you mentioned is the fictional product of someone else's imagination, not yours?

I'm sure the novel you must be referring to is very entertaining.

[David Orsam]

I am not going to explain what is already in print for all to know just because some pretentious prig asks for it.

Abuse is no substitute for facts, Michael, although I appreciate that you have none of the latter so must rely entirely on the former.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry Michael, how was the leather apron found at the crime scene "used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police"? How was Pizer "coerced" into anything? And how are you in a position to say that the name "Leather Apron" was never known to be used to describe him by anyone? What about the woman who accosted him in the street? What about Sergeant Thick?

Are you describing what actually happened in 1888 or a fictionalised version of what happened that you have created in your mind?

I am not going to explain what is already in print for all to know just because some pretentious prig asks for it.

[Patrick S]

Since we have known all along that the apron was owned by someone who used leather aprons from that same house...with only a brief period after its discovery where this fact was unknown...the fascination should be over with this artifact.

It came up because someone rather new to the boards asked a question about it. I don't sense any burgeoning fascination, however.

[Patrick S]

Of all the letters claiming to be from the killer at large, only 1 came with biological material that was never proven, or disproven, to have been taken from the Mitre Square victim. The fact that they could not connect that specific organ to Kate is hardly dismissal grounds, they were not able to using their primitive scientific tools. Had the kidney survived, who knows?

I'm careful to uses terms like "I believe" and "in my opinion". I'm pretty sure I did so here. I'm not in the business of "dismissing" much of anything related to the Whitechapel murders.

[David Orsam]

The only way it remains interesting is that it was used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police...by coercing him into stating that a name that was never known to be used to describe him by anyone, was indeed his anyway.

Sorry Michael, how was the leather apron found at the crime scene "used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police"? How was Pizer "coerced" into anything? And how are you in a position to say that the name "Leather Apron" was never known to be used to describe him by anyone? What about the woman who accosted him in the street? What about Sergeant Thick?

Are you describing what actually happened in 1888 or a fictionalised version of what happened that you have created in your mind?

[Michael W Richards]

Since we have known all along that the apron was owned by someone who used leather aprons from that same house...with only a brief period after its discovery where this fact was unknown...the fascination should be over with this artifact. The only way it remains interesting is that it was used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police...by coercing him into stating that a name that was never known to be used to describe him by anyone, was indeed his anyway.

What they did is extinguish the idea that this Leather Apron fellow some of the street girls talked about was still roaming about untethered. Which of course he was. They never removed the Leather Apron threat at all, they instead tried to pin it on someone else, someone they could exonerate.