Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leather Apron - Let's re-examine the facts

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by seanr View Post
    When Jacob Isenschmid came under suspicion of being the murderer, one of the reasons being that he had told a number of ladies in the Holloway area that he was 'Leather Apron'. Isenschmid was a butcher, so may have had a leather apron. I wonder if actually the ladies were in fact the local prostitutes and they had their own 'Leather Apron' in Isenschmid or if Isenschmid perhaps genuinely believed he was the 'Leather Apron' of Whitechapel (a neighbourhood there's definitely some evidence he visited) - even if he wasn't the murderer.
    I think its entirely possible that Mr I was the killer in Hanbury Street, and the wild bloodied man seen in the pub down the road that morning.....and, as such, likely the killer of Polly too...considering the many similar characteristics of those 2 murders. I also think that would make him this "Jack" fellow people keep referring to, because it seems to me the established pattern and the similarities we see in these consecutive murders ends with C3. A "ripper" didn't kill Liz, and that's just based on the same filters we would use on the priors.

    If that is accurate, then there is your answer why the murders attributed to a wild killer at large suddenly stopped..he was institutionalized before Stride is killed. One wonders...was Lawende was taken to see Isenschmid for an ID? Maybe at some neutral location?
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-05-2019, 03:13 PM.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      I think its entirely possible that Mr I was the killer in Hanbury Street, and the wild bloodied man seen in the pub down the road that morning.....and, as such, likely the killer of Polly too...considering the many similar characteristics of those 2 murders. I also think that would make him this "Jack" fellow people keep referring to, because it seems to me the established pattern and the similarities we see in these consecutive murders ends with C3. A "ripper" didn't kill Liz, and that's just based on the same filters we would use on the priors.

      If that is accurate, then there is your answer why the murders attributed to a wild killer at large suddenly stopped..he was institutionalized before Stride is killed. One wonders...was Lawende was taken to see Isenschmid for an ID? Maybe at some neutral location?
      Lawende was almost certainly not taken to identify Jacob Isenschmid. As Isenschmid's whereabouts were known at the time of Catherine Eddowes murder. He had been confined to Grove Hall Lunatic Asylum after his arrest.
      As far as I can tell, the suspicion that had fallen upon Isenschmid was quietly dropped after the 'double event'. Prior to that, the police had been hoping to arrange an identity parade so Mrs Fiddymont and others could pick him out as the man they saw. The doctor at the asylum prevented the identification from taking place and the investigation seems to have stalled.

      Isenschmid's wife gave a statement saying that Isenschmid was fond of other women and had the nickname 'the mad butcher'.

      Could Isenschmid be the more wild 'Leather Apron'?

      Comment


      • #18
        I was wondering, was there ever any actual evidence against 'Leather Apron', whoever he was? Or was the case against 'Leather Apron' never really more than just rumours?

        The police clearly took it seriously and followed up on the suspicions against 'Leather Apron', but they really have any reason to do so, other than public opinion?

        Comment


        • #19
          [QUOTE=seanr;n703255]I was wondering, was there ever any actual evidence against 'Leather Apron', whoever he was? Or was the case against 'Leather Apron' never really more than just rumours?

          The police clearly took it seriously and followed up on the suspicions against 'Leather Apron', but they really have any reason to do so, other than public opinion?[/QUOTE

          not as the ripper
          "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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            Originally posted by seanr View Post
            I was wondering, was there ever any actual evidence against 'Leather Apron', whoever he was? Or was the case against 'Leather Apron' never really more than just rumours?

            The police clearly took it seriously and followed up on the suspicions against 'Leather Apron', but they really have any reason to do so, other than public opinion?
            not as the ripper
            I conclude broadly the same, from the documents we have there was no direct information seeming to connect Leather Apron to the crimes, but that's the point of my question, really. The police took the Leather Apron connection seriously enough to make enquiries and one arrest (possibly two if we include Ischenschmid). Yet without any actual evidence linking Leather Apron to the crimes, they might as well have been chasing the bogeyman for it.
            Either there was something more than this, the police were taking a wild stab in the dark or they prioritised satisfying public opinion over following credible leads. Perhaps there was something more...

            Comment

            Working...
            X