Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Abby Normal]

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 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.

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Yes, if it was Pizer who was the one identified as Leather Apron in these early stories.

[Paddy]

Dundee Courier and Birmingham Newspaper Sept 6th 1888

According to the following article he and another were actually followed by police

Pat......

[David Orsam]

According to the following article he and another were actually followed by police

That's not my reading of it Pat.

[David Orsam]

Yes, if it was Pizer who was the one identified as Leather Apron in these early stories.

No, not really Scott, regardless of that there is no mystery.

If the original ladies who spoke to a reporter on 31 August were thinking of someone else it doesn't make any difference - because when the story was published in the Star it was clearly Pizer who the locals thought was Leather Apron which is why he was harassed in the street and forced into hiding. Then, while he was in hiding, the police independently identified him as Leather Apron in an internal report.

If those original ladies were thinking of a different person it was probably just another innocent Jewish man because there was never any actual evidence or good reason to think that Leather Apron had murdered Nichols.

However, bearing in mind the close similarity between the description of Leather Apron given in the Star of 5 September and the description of Pizer when he appeared at the inquest, it is very likely that they were the same person.

So, really, I do repeat there is no mystery here whatsoever.

[Paddy]

"Keeping a Watch " then? Pat......

[David Orsam]

"Keeping a Watch " then? Pat......

Well there are two sentences here:

1. Considerable activity is quietly being exercised in keeping a watch on suspected persons.

2. It is believed that the police attention is particularly directed to two individuals.

Read literally, it is only an assumption that the "two individuals" whose attention the police was directed towards are the same as the "suspected persons" on whom the police were said to be keeping a watch.

We know that police attention was certainly directed towards Pizer at this time. But we also know that they were not keeping "a watch" on him (because they didn't actually know where he was) .

That newspaper article changes nothing.

[Paddy]

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?

I have been reading about Pizer and more and more he fits the man that my Henry was watching. I always thought it could have been Kosminski but Pizar fits well too.

Jewish
South of Whitechapel Rd
several shops (temp shoemaker?)
In care of Brother.
Cant find on census in 1891 (away?)
Dead in 1897

The Carbuncle affliction interests me (Mr Blotchy?)

Pat......

[Debra A]

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?

I have been reading about Pizer and more and more he fits the man that my Henry was watching. I always thought it could have been Kosminski but Pizar fits well too.

Jewish
South of Whitechapel Rd
several shops (temp shoemaker?)
In care of Brother.
Cant find on census in 1891 (away?)
Dead in 1897

The Carbuncle affliction interests me (Mr Blotchy?)

Pat......

Pizer had been convalescing at the Jewish Convalescent Home, Norwood, after his surgery for a ruptured carbuncle at Paddington Infirmary in May/June 88 IIRC, entry organised through an establishment in the City. The Norwood Home also had a seaside branch in Brighton. Maybe he went there again?