Leather Apron found at Hanbury Street

[Pandora]

I believe it's possible, that this specific apron could have actually been worn by JtR in the Chapman & previous murders, which started the Leather Apron rumours in the first place. If he washed the blood off it immediately after the murder, with Mrs Richardson claiming it was only wet due to being washed days earlier, then it is likely a piece of evidence that has largely been over looked.

Of course, this could make Mrs Richardson complicit in the crime, as an accessory after the fact - which I suspect she would only do to protect a member of her own family.

But that's another story.

[Joshua Rogan]

Morning Advertiser 12th Sept;
"mrs. Fiddyman, the landlay of the house into which it was stated a blood-stained and wild-looking man entered shortly after the hour at which the murder was probably committed on Saturday morning, has been taken to Leman-street station, and on seeing Pizer she expressed herself as quite certain that he was not the man who came into her house on the occasion spoken of."

[David Orsam]

"I said so" isn't a reasonable argument, which is Mr O's style

Actually, Michael, that is the very opposite of my style. My style is invariably to provide supporting evidence of my claims in my posts, even at the risk of those posts being overlong. You would have appreciated this had you actually taken the time to read my posts rather than trying to avoid responding to them.

In this thread for example, I repeatedly mentioned Inspector Helson's report as evidence that Pizer was known as Leather Apron, something which you all but ignored until you wrongly claimed, for some reason, that it didn't mention Mary Ann Nichols, and then got all upset when I pointed out you were wrong about that.

If you want an example of someone making a post without any evidence in support look no further than your own at #7 in this thread:

"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."

Why should we believe any of that? Because you said so?

[David Orsam]

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?

No I'm not saying that at all. We are not talking about what the police were doing, we are talking about what a newspaper reporter thought the police were doing. That is very different.

It would appear that the reporter had an understanding that the police were keeping watch on some suspects and he also understood that they had a particular interest in Leather Apron and a sailor - so he wrote an ambiguous report about that. He might have assumed they were the same people or might have kept his options open, hence the ambiguity. That's as far as it goes.

We know exactly what the police were doing in respect of Leather Apron at the time because we have Inspector Helson's report on 7 September which says:

"...careful search has been, and is continued to be made to find this man.."

We don't, therefore, need to rely on an ambiguous and uninformed newspaper report.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I wouldnt expect someone like yourself to understand why "I said so" isn't a reasonable argument, which is Mr O's style, since you seem to spend inordinate numbers of posts contributing your opinion on others posts. I'm not thin skinned, I just prefer to debate with people who have an argument to make without the condescension...something you are familiar with I trust.

[Henry Flower]

OT but cute

[ATTACH]18299[/ATTACH]

[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?

[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......

[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]

"Keeping a Watch " then? 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.

[David Orsam]

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

That's not my reading of it Pat.

[Paddy]

Dundee Courier and Birmingham Newspaper Sept 6th 1888

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

Pat......

[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.

[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.