Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

    Hi all. Thinking a bit here about a clean leather apron that was apparently found at the Annie Chapman scene. If that's true and one was indeed left there, is this some sort of Zodiac-style taking taunting of the police, given the fuss that was going on around John Pizer/'leather apron' at around that same time?

    I'm just thinking here. There seem to be a few instances where Z took inspiration from JtR. What think you, kind people?

  • #2
    Originally posted by ArmchairsLeuth View Post
    Hi all. Thinking a bit here about a clean leather apron that was apparently found at the Annie Chapman scene. If that's true and one was indeed left there, is this some sort of Zodiac-style taking taunting of the police, given the fuss that was going on around John Pizer/'leather apron' at around that same time?

    I'm just thinking here. There seem to be a few instances where Z took inspiration from JtR. What think you, kind people?
    No. it was left there by one of the tenants sons-they had a tools and stuff in the basement. I believe he had washed and left it there to dry.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ArmchairsLeuth View Post
      Hi all. Thinking a bit here about a clean leather apron that was apparently found at the Annie Chapman scene. If that's true and one was indeed left there, is this some sort of Zodiac-style taking taunting of the police, given the fuss that was going on around John Pizer/'leather apron' at around that same time?

      I'm just thinking here. There seem to be a few instances where Z took inspiration from JtR. What think you, kind people?
      If memory serves it belonged to John Richardson (he who cut an offending bit of leather from his boot at the back of number 29 at around 4:45 the night of the murder). He was - I believe - a porter at Spitalfields Market (?) and helped with is mother's business (she lived in and ran a packing business out of 29 Hanbury Street). Richardson had stopped to check the locks that morning since there'd been a recent robbery at the property. The apron aws his, had become mildewed and his mother had washed it and left it in the yard a few days previous.

      In my view, Jack the Ripper didn't taunt the police. I don't believe that the killer wrote any of the letters to the police, to the press, or to Lusk. I don't believe that the killer wrote in Goulston Street. That said, the Zodiac may have written his letters, emulating his impression or understanding of what HE believed Jack the Ripper had done. The letters are well known and many believe they were written by the killer (especially those not all that familiar). So, Zodiac may have believed it as well and used it as inspiration. For me, that's where any comparison must end. I see two very different killers. Of course, neither were identified. So, they are very much linked in that way.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
        If memory serves it belonged to John Richardson (he who cut an offending bit of leather from his boot at the back of number 29 at around 4:45 the night of the murder). He was - I believe - a porter at Spitalfields Market (?) and helped with is mother's business (she lived in and ran a packing business out of 29 Hanbury Street). Richardson had stopped to check the locks that morning since there'd been a recent robbery at the property. The apron aws his, had become mildewed and his mother had washed it and left it in the yard a few days previous.

        In my view, Jack the Ripper didn't taunt the police. I don't believe that the killer wrote any of the letters to the police, to the press, or to Lusk. I don't believe that the killer wrote in Goulston Street. That said, the Zodiac may have written his letters, emulating his impression or understanding of what HE believed Jack the Ripper had done. The letters are well known and many believe they were written by the killer (especially those not all that familiar). So, Zodiac may have believed it as well and used it as inspiration. For me, that's where any comparison must end. I see two very different killers. Of course, neither were identified. So, they are very much linked in that way.
        yes that's it thanks Patrick.
        and yes, the Zodiac and the ripper were completely different kinds of serial killers. Zodiac was a thrill killer and ripper post mortem mutilator. The former (like son of sam)are much more known to write letters than the latter (think Dahmer, bundy).
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #5
          Patrick, I don't believe most of the letters to be genuine. The only one that gives me pause (far from convinced though) is the Lusk Letter. Dear Boss had to have been fake, the language used in it doesn't fit with the sort of person who could do what the ripper did to MJK and to a lesser extent CE.

          I also agree that JtR did not write the GSG. I cannot make my head get to a place where that makes sense. Crazed killer with somewhat bloody hands and the knife fleeing through the streets knowing police are all over the place stops and thinks 'ooh, hang on. Gotta write this on a wall, now where did I put my chalk?' Nope. Not working for me at all. The apron found there too on the other hand.........

          Abby, thank you! You guys amaze me, all of you. I've considered myself a when-I-can ripperologist for about 10 years now I think and haven't even scratched the surface yet. (Edit: horrific pun was NOT intended) And yes, you make an excellent point. SoS, Z et al were all about the psychology as well as the actual killing. This guy was.....not. Especially since today i think it was AK. yesterday I was convinced it was Cohen, last week it was Cream. Not sure why I never thought of that myself, it makes much more sense now you point it out!
          Last edited by ArmchairsLeuth; 08-21-2017, 11:00 AM. Reason: Oh good grief, I'm so sorry.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
            If memory serves it belonged to John Richardson (he who cut an offending bit of leather from his boot at the back of number 29 at around 4:45 the night of the murder). He was - I believe - a porter at Spitalfields Market (?) and helped with is mother's business (she lived in and ran a packing business out of 29 Hanbury Street). Richardson had stopped to check the locks that morning since there'd been a recent robbery at the property. The apron aws his, had become mildewed and his mother had washed it and left it in the yard a few days previous.

            In my view, Jack the Ripper didn't taunt the police. I don't believe that the killer wrote any of the letters to the police, to the press, or to Lusk. I don't believe that the killer wrote in Goulston Street. That said, the Zodiac may have written his letters, emulating his impression or understanding of what HE believed Jack the Ripper had done. The letters are well known and many believe they were written by the killer (especially those not all that familiar). So, Zodiac may have believed it as well and used it as inspiration. For me, that's where any comparison must end. I see two very different killers. Of course, neither were identified. So, they are very much linked in that way.
            Of all the letters claiming to be from the killer at large, only 1 came with biological material that was never proven, or disproven, to have been taken from the Mitre Square victim. The fact that they could not connect that specific organ to Kate is hardly dismissal grounds, they were not able to using their primitive scientific tools. Had the kidney survived, who knows?
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              What they did is extinguish the idea that this Leather Apron fellow some of the street girls talked about was still roaming about untethered. Which of course he was. They never removed the Leather Apron threat at all, they instead tried to pin it on someone else, someone they could exonerate.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                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.
                Sorry Michael, how was the leather apron found at the crime scene "used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police"? How was Pizer "coerced" into anything? And how are you in a position to say that the name "Leather Apron" was never known to be used to describe him by anyone? What about the woman who accosted him in the street? What about Sergeant Thick?

                Are you describing what actually happened in 1888 or a fictionalised version of what happened that you have created in your mind?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  Of all the letters claiming to be from the killer at large, only 1 came with biological material that was never proven, or disproven, to have been taken from the Mitre Square victim. The fact that they could not connect that specific organ to Kate is hardly dismissal grounds, they were not able to using their primitive scientific tools. Had the kidney survived, who knows?
                  I'm careful to uses terms like "I believe" and "in my opinion". I'm pretty sure I did so here. I'm not in the business of "dismissing" much of anything related to the Whitechapel murders.
                  Last edited by Patrick S; 08-28-2017, 12:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    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.
                    It came up because someone rather new to the boards asked a question about it. I don't sense any burgeoning fascination, however.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      Sorry Michael, how was the leather apron found at the crime scene "used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police"? How was Pizer "coerced" into anything? And how are you in a position to say that the name "Leather Apron" was never known to be used to describe him by anyone? What about the woman who accosted him in the street? What about Sergeant Thick?

                      Are you describing what actually happened in 1888 or a fictionalised version of what happened that you have created in your mind?
                      I am not going to explain what is already in print for all to know just because some pretentious prig asks for it.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        I am not going to explain what is already in print for all to know just because some pretentious prig asks for it.
                        Abuse is no substitute for facts, Michael, although I appreciate that you have none of the latter so must rely entirely on the former.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          I am not going to explain what is already in print
                          Is your point there that the scenario you mentioned is the fictional product of someone else's imagination, not yours?

                          I'm sure the novel you must be referring to is very entertaining.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Pizer was exonerated because he had alibis. The apron surely played no part in it?
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              Abuse is no substitute for facts, Michael, although I appreciate that you have none of the latter so must rely entirely on the former.
                              Lets not get a nosebleed, shall we?

                              Piser was suspected by Sgt Thicke of being Leather Apron. He had been referring to Piser as such for some time prior to the murders. When the apron was found suspicion then fell on this Piser fellow, without merit, due to the fact that Thicke and perhaps others had wrongly tagged him with the name. Piser went into hiding, fearing for his safety. Piser had never heard that name used in reference to himself before, nor had any of his family. Its likely he only agreed to accept the moniker in exchange for a public clearing of his name with respect to the murderer suspicions at Annies Inquest.

                              The apron drew Pizer into this mess due to his being erroneously called Leather Apron, the man who was allegedly threatening street women in the neighborhood. Once Piser proved he could not have committed any murder they suspected him of, the police publicly cleared his name. They chose Annies Inquest.

                              If there was any proof at all that he was Leather Apron they would have brought in street woman to identify him and then lay charges. There were none.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X