Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 5 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Joshua Rogan 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 34 minutes ago.
Research Related: Henry Kelly - by Paddy 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (59 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)
General Discussion: The man who named JtR! - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:56 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Quote:
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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:18 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:33 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:58 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,101
Default

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!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-29-2017, 04:34 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Quote:
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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:15 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Piser was suspected by Sgt Thicke of being Leather Apron.
Not quite correct. Sgt Thick knew that Pizer was referred to locally as "Leather Apron". It wasn't a question of "suspicion". But he also knew that the person known locally as Leather Apron was suspected by the press and public of being the murderer of Nichols and, subsequently, of Chapman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
He had been referring to Piser as such for some time prior to the murders.
There is no evidence of this. The sergeant said: "when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
When the apron was found suspicion then fell on this Piser fellow,
Not correct. Suspicion fell on Leather Apron from as early as 1 September (possibly even from 31 August) and a letter was published in newspapers on 6 September (possibly also on 5 September), two days before the murder of Chapman and the discovery of the Leather Apron, from a local person who said that on Sunday 2 September he saw a woman shouting at a man in the street who she was accusing of being Leather Apron. Pizer and his brother also related a similar incident which occurred on the same day, a full six days before the murder of Chapman. In fact, Pizer went into hiding five days before the Chapman murder which was precisely how was able to provide an alibi for that murder (i.e. he was hiding away with his family).

Inspector Helson's report of 7 September, the day before the Chapman murder, confirms that the police were already searching for "Jack Pizer, alias Leather Apron".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Thicke and perhaps others had wrongly tagged him with the name. Piser went into hiding, fearing for his safety.
You are getting confused when you say "wrongly". That had been Pizer's nickname for a long time. There is nothing right or wrong about it. Pizer didn't go into hiding simply because he was being called Leather Apron but because Leather Apron was suddenly being referred to as the murderer of Nichols.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Piser had never heard that name used in reference to himself before, nor had any of his family.
No, indeed. It wasn't a nickname he adopted for himself or something that people called him to his face. It was what people in the neighbourhood, probably non-Jews who never spoke to him, called him amongst themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
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.
Well now that is rather different to the police "coercing him" into accepting it was his name which you said before. And although you say it is "likely" that he agreed this, surely what is more likely to have been the case is what he said in September 1888, namely that once he was told by Sergeant Thick that people in the neighbourhood called him "Leather Apron" he accepted that this was the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
The apron drew Pizer into this mess due to his being erroneously called Leather Apron,
No, it wasn't "the apron" that drew Pizer into this mess because he was drawn into it before Chapman's murder and the discovery of the apron. Unless by "the apron" you mean Pizer's own leather apron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Once Piser proved he could not have committed any murder they suspected him of, the police publicly cleared his name.
But the police never really suspected him of committing the murder. It was the newspapers and members of the public who did. Inspector Helson's report of 7 September says "at present there is no evidence whatsoever against him".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
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.
That is seriously messed up. It wasn't a crime to be known as Leather Apron. If 100 people had identified Pizer as Leather Apron the police couldn't have charged him. They would only have laid charges if there was evidence that Leather Apron had committed the murders (or, indeed, any other criminal offence) but there was none. The issue was not whether he was Leather Apron or not but whether he was a murderer or not.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:19 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

So, Michael, Let's see how you did with the questions I asked you:

Sorry Michael, how was the leather apron found at the crime scene "used as an excuse to exonerate Pizer by the police"? NOT ANSWERED

How was Pizer "coerced" into anything?
NOT ANSWERED

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?
NOT ANSWERED

Are you describing what actually happened in 1888 or a fictionalised version of what happened that you have created in your mind? NOT ANSWERED. But it must have been a fictionalised version. Hopefully you now understand what did happen in 1888.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:22 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Thicke acknowledged that he had been characterizing Piser as Leather Apron for some time, all the while without any evidence to support the accusations. Piser, nor his family, had ever heard him referred to by that name by anyone. The appearance at the Inquest cleared him of suspicion. All historically accurate.

There is zero proof that Piser was Leather Apron, and stop trying to pretend that people yelling in the street is proof of anything.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:41 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Thicke acknowledged that he had been characterizing Piser as Leather Apron for some time all the while without any evidence to support the accusations.
The accusation was not that Pizer was Leather Apron. The accusation was that he was the Whitechapel Murder. As to that, the police certainly agreed that there was no evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Piser, nor his family, had ever heard him referred to by that name by anyone. The appearance at the Inquest cleared him of suspicion. All historically accurate.
Well those two sentences are accurate but it's not what you said earlier, or anything like it, which was what I was challenging as imaginative fiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
There is zero proof that Piser was Leather Apron, and stop trying to pretend that people yelling in the street is proof of anything.
Saying "zero proof" is a quite nonsensical statement.

From inquest testimony:

Pizer:
Are you known by the nickname of "Leather Apron?" - Yes, sir.

Thick:

Detective Sergeant William Thicke, H Division, said that a man named "Leather Apron" having been suspected of the murder, on Monday morning he arrested Pizer at 22 Mulberry-street. He had known Pizer for many years, and when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer.

So there is plenty of proof that Pizer was "Leather Apron". Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. But let's not start imagining evidence that isn't there.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-29-2017, 01:38 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

I know you like these rude tennis-style written conversations, but frankly I don't have that kind of time to waste...so, this will be my final rebuttal on this point...since its off topic anyway....

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

The accusation was not that Pizer was Leather Apron. The accusation was that he was the Whitechapel Murder. As to that, the police certainly agreed that there was no evidence.

The accusations prior to the murders were that Piser was Leather Apron, fostered by Thicke himself, without any proof. When this mythical Leather Apron fellow came to the forefront is when street women were interviewed after the first murder, at which point Thicke's baseless accusation that Piser was Leather Apron became an accusation of suspicion for the murders. He was tagged Leather Apron by Thicke before the first Canonical murder. One begat the other.


Well those two sentences are accurate but it's not what you said earlier, or anything like it, which was what I was challenging as imaginative fiction.

Sorry....Ill try to phrase things in a way that I hope makes sense to you specifically.


Saying "zero proof" is a quite nonsensical statement.

Sorry again, I should have said NO Proof..again, my shameless manner of explaining things most of the other grown ups here would understand.


From inquest testimony:

Pizer:
Are you known by the nickname of "Leather Apron?" - Yes, sir.


I think I dealt with Fear for Safety as being a catalyst for accepting this moniker. Since they were there at the Inquest to clear his name. Since there were no charges pending against anyone nicknamed Leather Apron, it seems a small concession to escape possible physical harm.

Detective Sergeant William Thicke, H Division, said that a man named "Leather Apron" having been suspected of the murder, on Monday morning he arrested Pizer at 22 Mulberry-street. He had known Pizer for many years, and when people in the neighbourhood spoke of "Leather Apron" they meant Pizer.

That is all Thicke, there is no proof for any of it, and Thicke acknowledged he had no evidence that Piser was Leather Apron, or the unnamed killer of Polly and Annie.

So there is plenty of proof that Pizer was "Leather Apron". Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. But let's not start imagining evidence that isn't there.

You and your imagination bs ......its so clear its transparent, and yet you choose to accept the opinion of Thicke as "evidence".
The fact that Thicke referred to Piser as Leather Apron before the murders...without any evidence that he was, and then imagined that this Leather Apron fellow was involved in the Whitechapel murders because some street whores said a Leather Apron fellow scared them constitutes only the very worst kind of policework by Thicke, not evidence of any kind.

As I said before, and none of which is disproven by your rude and contrite responses, is that there is ZERO PROOF that Piser was the person that street whores called Leather Apron, and enough proof that he didn't kill any street whores that Fall. He denied being known by that name prior to his appearance at the Inquest...which was to his benefit...his family have never heard anyone refer to him by that name, and the fact that plenty of immigrant men in the East End wore leather aprons in the course of their work make his involvement in this affair simply a result of a policeman who judged without evidence and misidentification.

All cleared up at the Inquest. Except of course who Leather Apron really was.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.