Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[David Orsam]

And how did the woman come to know the name, ‘Leather Apron’ and that the police had been looking for him, two days before that sobriquet was first announced in the London press?

The mistake you are making, Scott, is to assume that we have copies of every London newspaper available to us for examination. We don't. We only have one single edition of each newspaper. I'm going to quote now from my article, 'Reconstructing Jack':

In terms of the myth of Leather Apron, I would like to suggest that Wood is in error when he says that London's first introduction to this person was a brief mention in the Star of 4 September 1888 (page 338). According to Wood, the first ever mention in the press of the name 'Leather Apron', and identification of him as the murderer of Nichols, was a report in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent on 1 September 1888 when it was attributed to Whitechapel prostitutes. He thinks it was not until three days later that the name was picked up by the London newspapers.

How likely is it that a reporter from the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent was roaming around Whitechapel speaking to local prostitutes? Not very, I would suggest.

The story about Leather Apron which appeared in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent is also to be found, word-for-word identical, in the Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette of 1 September 1888. That newspaper gives us a big clue as to its source because the article in which its Leather Apron story appears begins: 'The Star reporter says...'.

This makes it almost certain that the story about Leather Apron was first published in the Star on 31 August 1888. Confusion probably arises from the fact that the microfilmed copy of that day's Star which is held at the British Library (from which the extracts in the Casebook's Press Reports section have been obtained), and stated to be the 'Fourth Edition', does not include any mention of Leather Apron. However, the likelihood is that there was a later edition (or editions) which did include the Leather Apron story but which has not survived.

This would certainly make sense of the fact that the Star's report of 4 September 1888 about Leather Apron having gone missing commenced: 'With regard to the man who goes by the sobriquet of 'Leather Apron'...' as if its readers would know exactly who 'Leather Apron' was.

It also makes sense of the fact that the New York Times report from London on 3 September 1888, which told the story of 'Leather Apron', also refers to Edgar Allan Poe's Murders of the Rue Morgue, which was originally mentioned in the Star's report of 1 September 1888 (in the surviving edition). The New York Times reporter in London was unlikely to have spent his time reading the Sheffield newspapers as Wood seems to suggest (p.337).

http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm

The short point is that it is almost certain that Leather Apron was mentioned in a late edition of the Star on 31 August which is now lost. So, again, there is no mystery at Pizer being identified as Leather Apron on 2 September.

[David Orsam]

Pizer’s explanation for the suspicion against him, according to the 12 September Echo, is that he was walking along Church Street, Spitalfields on the previous Sunday (the 2nd) when he was accosted by two women, the younger of whom accused him of being the Buck’s Row murderer. Pizer denied the accusation and quickly walked away; he did not mention any policeman being involved. This story is different from another story that happened on the same day, in which an ‘eye-witness’ wrote to Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper (and published on 9 September) stating that a woman rushed up to a policeman shouting, ‘There goes Leather Apron, the Whitechapel murderer.’

After following and questioning this man in the company of two other constables, the policeman let the man go. So Pizer may not have been the same man in the eyewitness story that the woman in the Echo story denounced as being Leather Apron and who was temporarily detained by the police. Pizer could have been confused with this other man because both men were near the same street on the same date, but at different times, fostering subsequent police beliefs that Pizer was actually Leather Apron. The man temporarily in police custody was described as aged 30 years; height 5 ft 3 in; complexion dark, sallow; hair and moustache, black; thick-set; dressed in old and dirty clothing; and of Jewish appearance.

I appreciate that there is always a desire for two stories to tally exactly, down to every last detail, but in the real world you will find that rarely happens, people edit stories and omit to mention everything, especially when a story is run through a newspaper reporter.

But anyway it doesn't matter if a similar thing happened to another person who was also accused by a woman in the street. It was Pizer who was forced into hiding and Pizer who was known to the police as Leather Apron. There is no mystery about it at all.

[Scott Nelson]

Pizer’s explanation for the suspicion against him, according to the 12 September Echo, is that he was walking along Church Street, Spitalfields on the previous Sunday (the 2nd) when he was accosted by two women, the younger of whom accused him of being the Buck’s Row murderer. Pizer denied the accusation and quickly walked away; he did not mention any policeman being involved. This story is different from another story that happened on the same day, in which an ‘eye-witness’ wrote to Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper (and published on 9 September) stating that a woman rushed up to a policeman shouting, ‘There goes Leather Apron, the Whitechapel murderer.’

After following and questioning this man in the company of two other constables, the policeman let the man go. So Pizer may not have been the same man in the eyewitness story that the woman in the Echo story denounced as being Leather Apron and who was temporarily detained by the police. Pizer could have been confused with this other man because both men were near the same street on the same date, but at different times, fostering subsequent police beliefs that Pizer was actually Leather Apron. The man temporarily in police custody was described as aged 30 years; height 5 ft 3 in; complexion dark, sallow; hair and moustache, black; thick-set; dressed in old and dirty clothing; and of Jewish appearance. And how did the woman come to know the name, ‘Leather Apron’ and that the police had been looking for him, two days before that sobriquet was first announced in the London press?

[David Orsam]

All I can say is thank God that we have you to interpret in absolute terms what is not worded in the absolute. You are a waste of my time, and anyone who pursues arguments with you is wasting theirs. Im no longer interested in reading anything you post here. Good luck to you.

Well now, Michael, I fully appreciate that some people cannot stand to be told they are wrong, they cannot be corrected, they cannot accept it, it is alien to their nature. But I'm afraid you were wrong and that is why I said you were wrong. Tough luck. You have to suck it up.

You said:

"That report doesn't refer to a specific victim."

So you were wrong. You made a mistake. It was a report about the murder of Mary Ann Nichols. But rather than admit that you did make a mistake, you lash out and attack the messenger, i.e. me, the person who actually bothered to read the report in question. And then you purport to flounce out of the discussion.

Well, by my count, this is the third time you've said in this thread that you aren't going to continue discussing the subject with me and I, for one, have no problem if that finally and thankfully turns out to be the case.

[Michael W Richards]

You are quite wrong Michael. Helson's report is headed "Murder of M.A. Nichols at Whitechapel". So when the report says that Pizer's movements were to be accounted for "on the night in question", it means on 31 August.

All I can say is thank God that we have you to interpret in absolute terms what is not worded in the absolute. You are a waste of my time, and anyone who pursues arguments with you is wasting theirs. Im no longer interested in reading anything you post here. Good luck to you.

[David Orsam]

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?

The letter writer says that the woman ran up to the man and begun to accuse him of being "the man the police were looking for". The letter writer then adds "Leather Apron", making it ambiguous as to whether she actually called him Leather Apron or whether this was the letter writer's own interpolation.

Pizer's account of the incident was as follows:

"Last Sunday week I was accosted in Church-street by two females, unknown to me. One of them asked me, ‘Are you the man?’ – presumably referring to the Buck’s-row murder. I said ‘God forbid, my good woman."(Evening Post, 12 September 1888)

Or as told in the Echo of the same day:

"On Sunday week last, while I was walking through Church-street, two women accosted me. I did not know them. One of them accused me of committing the crime in Buck's-row. The other, the elder of the two, however, said, "You are not the man, are you?" I said, "I know nothing about it."

But frankly it doesn't matter. If the woman had come up and accused Pizer of being Leather Apron, he could just have thought she was crazy and thinking of someone else. The chances of his knowing at that time that the newspapers were saying that "Leather Apron" was the murderer are slim.

Further, it doesn't even matter if Pizer DID know or suspect at the time that he was called Leather Apron. In the end, he said at the inquest that this was what he was known as.

So, basically, end of story.

[MrBarnett]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[David Orsam]

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.’'

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[Paddy]

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.....