Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[Henry Flower]

OT but cute

[ATTACH]18299[/ATTACH]

[Michael W Richards]

Well since you brought up anyone else who debates with david on this forum and are arrogant enough to presume to speak for them, let me just say that not only do I don't think he's a waste of time to debate with but it's posters like you, who can't admit they're wrong, act like a two year old when proven wrong, and rehash the same old ambiguous conspiracy theories ad nauseum. Or whatever nebulous bs you sling.

And if you weren't so thin skinned you migt pay attention to what people like david have to say. You just might learn something for once.

I wouldnt expect someone like yourself to understand why "I said so" isn't a reasonable argument, which is Mr O's style, since you seem to spend inordinate numbers of posts contributing your opinion on others posts. I'm not thin skinned, I just prefer to debate with people who have an argument to make without the condescension...something you are familiar with I trust.

[David Orsam]

Sorry Dave I have to disagree with that.

You are saying the police suspected some people and were keeping watch on them but two in particular, Leather Apron and a Sailor were not included in the suspects being watched?

No I'm not saying that at all. We are not talking about what the police were doing, we are talking about what a newspaper reporter thought the police were doing. That is very different.

It would appear that the reporter had an understanding that the police were keeping watch on some suspects and he also understood that they had a particular interest in Leather Apron and a sailor - so he wrote an ambiguous report about that. He might have assumed they were the same people or might have kept his options open, hence the ambiguity. That's as far as it goes.

We know exactly what the police were doing in respect of Leather Apron at the time because we have Inspector Helson's report on 7 September which says:

"...careful search has been, and is continued to be made to find this man.."

We don't, therefore, need to rely on an ambiguous and uninformed newspaper report.

[David Orsam]

"I said so" isn't a reasonable argument, which is Mr O's style

Actually, Michael, that is the very opposite of my style. My style is invariably to provide supporting evidence of my claims in my posts, even at the risk of those posts being overlong. You would have appreciated this had you actually taken the time to read my posts rather than trying to avoid responding to them.

In this thread for example, I repeatedly mentioned Inspector Helson's report as evidence that Pizer was known as Leather Apron, something which you all but ignored until you wrongly claimed, for some reason, that it didn't mention Mary Ann Nichols, and then got all upset when I pointed out you were wrong about that.

If you want an example of someone making a post without any evidence in support look no further than your own at #7 in this thread:

"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."

Why should we believe any of that? Because you said so?

[Joshua Rogan]

Morning Advertiser 12th Sept;
"mrs. Fiddyman, the landlay of the house into which it was stated a blood-stained and wild-looking man entered shortly after the hour at which the murder was probably committed on Saturday morning, has been taken to Leman-street station, and on seeing Pizer she expressed herself as quite certain that he was not the man who came into her house on the occasion spoken of."

[Pandora]

I believe it's possible, that this specific apron could have actually been worn by JtR in the Chapman & previous murders, which started the Leather Apron rumours in the first place. If he washed the blood off it immediately after the murder, with Mrs Richardson claiming it was only wet due to being washed days earlier, then it is likely a piece of evidence that has largely been over looked.

Of course, this could make Mrs Richardson complicit in the crime, as an accessory after the fact - which I suspect she would only do to protect a member of her own family.

But that's another story.