Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[David Orsam]

When Piser was cleared of suspicion the Star recognized that the prejudicial article to which Thicke contributed information could be considered libelous, and they paid him 50L, a not inconsiderable amount of money, for his agreement not to sue.

Yes because he, Pizer, otherwise known as Leather Apron, had been falsely accused in the Star of having committed the Whitechapel murders. What's your point here?

[David Orsam]

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.

But isn't that claim totally disproved by the report of Inspector Helson dated 7 September 1888, i.e. before the murder of Chapman, and before the apron was found in the backyard at Hanbury, in which it was stated that a careful search was already being made for "a man named Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron"?

So the discovery of the apron had absolutely nothing to do with the police belief that Pizer was Leather Apron did it?

So far you've not even acknowledged the existence of Helson's report let alone commented on it. Can I ask you to now do so?

[David Orsam]

Im not sure why you have a problem understanding that this Leather Apron situation. Thicke believed Piser to be Leather apron, based it seems, on what he heard around the neighborhood. He had believed it for some time prior to the first murder. He used his belief to suggest Piser as the possible murderer on the loose. His belief was based on hearsay, not any evidence.

Well let's examine that then.

You are accepting, are you, that Sergeant Thick had believed for some time prior to the murders that Pizer was known as Leather Apron?

Why do you think he would have believed that?

And doesn't it only need a few other people to have believed the same thing for that to have actually been Pizer's nickname?

[Michael W Richards]

I agree with your points, Michael. The whole Leather Apron saga is very confusing. There was a theory (Neil Bell?) that Piser was a police informant working with Thick.

Thanks Scott...and I'm open to an explantion other than one that is being shoved at me here.

[Michael W Richards]

Im not sure why you have a problem understanding that this Leather Apron situation. Thicke believed Piser to be Leather apron, based it seems, on what he heard around the neighborhood. He had believed it for some time prior to the first murder. He used his belief to suggest Piser as the possible murderer on the loose. His belief was based on hearsay, not any evidence. 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.

When Piser was cleared of suspicion the Star recognized that the prejudicial article to which Thicke contributed information could be considered libelous, and they paid him 50L, a not inconsiderable amount of money, for his agreement not to sue.

There was never any proof at all that Leather Apron was in fact John Piser, and there was ample proof he didn't kill anyone on the respective murder nights of the first 2 victims.

You keep stating that Thicke knew Piser was Leather Apron, which is patently incorrect. He believed he was, based on hearsay.

[David Orsam]

I agree with your points, Michael. The whole Leather Apron saga is very confusing.

What is it that you find confusing? It all seems fairly straightforward to me, I must say.

There was a theory (Neil Bell?) that Piser was a police informant working with Thick.

There are many theories about lots of things and, of course, Pizer could have been an informant while also being known as Leather Apron.

[Scott Nelson]

I agree with your points, Michael. The whole Leather Apron saga is very confusing. There was a theory (Neil Bell?) that Piser was a police informant working with Thick.

[David Orsam]

I'm forgoing any further responses to posts on this thread David

Yeah, you said that earlier and you still never got round to explaining how the leather apron found at the Chapman crime scene "was used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police" or what evidence there is that the police "coerced" Pizer into agreeing that he was known as Leather Apron or why you claimed that Pizer was never known as Leather Apron by "anyone".

you are quite welcome to take Thickes unproven and therefore unfounded hunch anyway you want.

I truly find it absolutely extraordinary that after all these posts you refer to Thick's "hunch". There was no hunch! He personally knew that Pizer, who had spent five days in hiding in fear of his life, was known as Leather Apron. That's it. That's all he ever said.

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Timothy Donovan, the deputy at Crossingham's lodging house (35 Dorset St) where Annie Chapman last lived, also claimed he knew Leather Apron well, having thrown him out for threatening a woman. He expressed surprise to the Times that he hadn't been asked to identify Pizer. If only they'd both appeared at the inquest on the same day. However, he was called to identify Stanley as the Pensioner.

Incidentally, for cap fans, Donovan also claimed that the last time he'd seen him, Leather Apron had been wearing a double peaked deerstalker type hat....

[David Orsam]

Piser said he never wore a Leather Apron in the streets.

Did he? That is what was reported in the Star of 10 September (but not a direct quote).

On the other hand, the Star of 12 September carried a Press Association interview with Pizer in which Pizer was directly recorded as saying:

"I have been in the habit of wearing an apron. I have worn it coming from my employment, but not recently."

[David Orsam]

Not one person, including the folks I mentioned previously, specifically identified John Piser as the person they knew as Leather Apron.

But that's just not true. Sergeant Thick identified Pizer as the person he knew as Leather Apron. Sergeant Thick was a person wasn't he?

[David Orsam]

The same quote published a few different places doesn't make it fact, nor does Thicke saying he "knew him as".

Well perhaps not but I quoted those extracts for the sole purpose of showing that Thick is nowhere recorded as using the word "believed" or "belief".

You saying that he did certainly doesn't make it fact.

Without any supporting evidence it is mere fantasy.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

The same quote published a few different places doesn't make it fact, nor does Thicke saying he "knew him as". Not one person, including the folks I mentioned previously, specifically identified John Piser as the person they knew as Leather Apron.

Piser said he never wore a Leather Apron in the streets, and the Star printed this "He is a character so much like the invention of a story writer that the accounts of him given by all the street-walkers of the Whitechapel district seem like romances".

It seems like you've taken the bait too.

I'm forgoing any further responses to posts on this thread David, you are quite welcome to take Thickes unproven and therefore unfounded hunch anyway you want.

Ill continue to look beyond people opinions.

[David Orsam]

David, do we have a positive ID recorded from the folks at Wimots? Nope.

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?

[David Orsam]

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.

But the problem with what you say here is that it is based on Leather Apron having "committed the first 2 murders in the series". The whole point, and I think I need capital letters for this, is that LEATHER APRON WAS INNOCENT!!

So it sounds to me like you've found a good suspect for the murders of Nichols and Chapman. Well done!

I see none of this relating to Piser, I see a connection made by apron and false reputation.

False reputation yes but the connection had nothing to do with the apron discovered in Hanbury Street, which is what you were telling us at the start.

And, yes, Pizer was innocent of the murders and he quite possibly didn't ill-treat prostitutes but that doesn't change the fact that he was known in the neighbourhood as Leather Apron.