Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[Joshua Rogan]

Interesting that, according to Pizer's evidence reported in the Daily News, he and Sgt Thick had known each other for quite some time;

"The Witness (bowing several times)-Thank you, sir. I am quite satisfied, and I hope you are. Mr. Thicke, that has my case in hand, has known me for upwards of eighteen years"

[Scott Nelson]

Why didn't Pizer's family or neighbors know he was known as "Leather Apron"?

[David Orsam]

Why didn't Pizer's family or neighbors know he was known as "Leather Apron"?

I've already explained it. It obviously wasn't a nickname that local people used to address Pizer to his face. It's rather like giving the local weirdo the nickname "The Local Weirdo". It's not something you call them or tell their family of friends that you are calling them. It's kind of spoken about within groups.

If, as seems likely, Pizer's neighbours were Jews and it was the non-Jewish residents of Whitechapel who referred to Pizer as Leather Apron then that would completely explain it because the two communities probably didn't mix much.

[Joshua Rogan]

I wonder just how many people were known as "Leather Apron" they were a pretty common bit of work attire in the type of occupations many in the area would have worked in (those with steady work anyway).

Exactly what the Echo postulated on 11th Sept;

" It is not unreasonable to suppose that in a district where cabinet and shoe makers constantly wear such aprons more than one man may have been called by the name which has lately produced so much terror in and around Spitalfields."

[Joshua Rogan]

Michael, do we have a negative ID recorded from the folks at Wilmots? Nope.

And if Pizer on the 10th September was "waiting to be recognized, or the contrary" yet admitted that he was Leather Apron when he gave his evidence at the inquest two days later, doesn't that suggest that he was indeed recognized as Leather Apron?

Echo 11th Sept;
"When interrogated the police admitted they had arrested him, but the day passed without the prisoner having been charged. It was reported on some show of authority that the man had been confronted with witnesses who failed to recognize him as the character they had known, and it was rumoured that he had been released, much to the satisfaction of his co-religionists, who refuse to believe that a man of Piser's intelligence could be guilt of such ferocity."

[Darryl Kenyon]

Being a postman where i live when people talk about other posties to me they say [ and this has happened ]. " You know who i mean, that Postman who always wears shorts ". Now there are a few posties who regularly wear the attire at our office, even in inclement weather, but i know straight away who they mean - Arthur. Mainly because he wears them all the time and delivered in the district for years. I am assuming that Pizer had lived in the district for some time [ known Thicke eighteen years ], so it could be a similar case IE the jew who always wears a leather apron, they could be referring to someone else when they reply in the affirmative but at the same time a lot of people will immediately think of Pizer.

[MrBarnett]

Pizer was clearly a liar. One minute he's never heard of his nickname, the next he stands up in court and admits he has. He also initially denied knowing the women who accosted him on Church Street and then admitted that one of them was constantly bothering him. And he claimed to have only worn his apron for work, yet a local publican who had known him for years described him as a wastrel who habitually wore it whether he was working or not.



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.

[Michael W Richards]

Quite possibly but it seems you are losing track of your own arguments. Let me remind you what you said about Sgt Thick:

"Therefore he went after Piser as a suspect for the recent murders after the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury...based on a belief that the apron connected Leather Apron to the crime, and the belief that Piser was Leather Apron."

If Thick was contributing to a report, dated 7 September, saying that Pizer was Leather Apron, his "belief" that Pizer was Leather Apron had absolutely nothing do with the leather apron found in the backyard being connected with the crime does it?

And it means that he was going after Pizer as a suspect before that apron was found doesn't it?

That report doesn't refer to a specific victim, and If I recall correctly some unsolved murders in the vicinity preceded Polly and Annie's, so the "recent murders" needs context for you to have an argument.

The last post that Joshua made also demonstrates that the people could not identify him as Leather Apron, I'm sure including some of the people who had claimed he was.

Your focus on the word belief vs knowledge is puzzling, surely you know that a statement of fact requires supporting evidence. Thickes claim that he knew him to be Leather Apron is based on what he heard from others, he did not encounter a shakedown by Leather Apron on a street woman, he heard others speak of him and he seemingly readily accepted the gossip as fact.

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.

[David Orsam]

Exactly what the Echo postulated on 11th Sept;

" It is not unreasonable to suppose that in a district where cabinet and shoe makers constantly wear such aprons more than one man may have been called by the name which has lately produced so much terror in and around Spitalfields."

It's possible but there was only one who had been in hiding and only one known to the police by that name.

[David Orsam]

Echo 11th Sept;
"It was reported on some show of authority that the man had been confronted with witnesses who failed to recognize him as the character they had known "

This is of course only a newspaper report and should not be taken as gospel.

The police did not need to identify Pizer as Leather Apron because they already knew that was his nickname (per Helson's report of 7 September).

The only question for the police was whether Leather Apron was also the Whitechapel Murderer.

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.

[David Orsam]

Pizer was clearly a liar. One minute he's never heard of his nickname, the next he stands up in court and admits he has. He also initially denied knowing the women who accosted him on Church Street and then admitted that one of them was constantly bothering him. And he claimed to have only worn his apron for work, yet a local publican who had known him for years described him as a wastrel who habitually wore it whether he was working or not.

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.

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 Orsam]

That report doesn't refer to a specific victim, and If I recall correctly some unsolved murders in the vicinity preceded Polly and Annie's, so the "recent murders" needs context for you to have an argument.

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.

[David Orsam]

The last post that Joshua made also demonstrates that the people could not identify him as Leather Apron, I'm sure including some of the people who had claimed he was.

But what is your certainty based on?

Joshua was quoting an unsourced newspaper report and I've explained that the police did not need to identify Pizer as Leather Apron, they already knew that he bore this nickname. It was the very reason why Pizer was in hiding, something you still have not acknowledged to have been the case.

[David Orsam]

Your focus on the word belief vs knowledge is puzzling, surely you know that a statement of fact requires supporting evidence.

That is actually quite funny Michael. For it was you who focused on the word "belief" or "believed" by highlighting it in bold six times in #47. I was making the point to you that Thick never used that word in his evidence.

If you are happy that knowledge and belief are the same thing then I can't imagine why you kept highlighting the latter in #47.

[David Orsam]

Thickes claim that he knew him to be Leather Apron is based on what he heard from others, he did not encounter a shakedown by Leather Apron on a street woman, he heard others speak of him and he seemingly readily accepted the gossip as fact.

I honestly do not know how you can be saying that Sergeant Thick "accepted gossip as fact". It's got nothing to do with "gossip". We are talking about a person's nickname. That's not "gossip".

Sergeant Thick was saying that he knew prior to 31 August 1888, when the rumours about Leather Apron being the murderer started, that Pizer was called Leather Apron. It's just local knowledge. There's no "gossip" about it.

AFTER THE MURDER OF NICHOLS then and only then was there rumours, or gossip if you like, about Leather Apron being the Whitechapel Murderer but neither the police or Thick believed it.

And of course Thick had heard others referring to Pizer as Leather Apron. How else could he possibly have known it? How can anyone know someone's nickname unless they are told it by someone else? Unless they invented it!