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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by John G 4 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Varqm 12 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Abby Normal 18 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Elamarna 40 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Jon Guy 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by Elamarna 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (96 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
General Police Discussion: City of London Precincts and Divisions involved in the Investigation - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (2 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
  #91  
Old 09-03-2017, 08:40 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-03-2017, 10:31 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-03-2017, 10:41 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:22 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,222
Default

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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:49 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:56 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-03-2017, 02:17 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
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.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Abby Normal : 09-03-2017 at 02:19 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-03-2017, 02:34 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-04-2017, 10:27 AM
Paddy Paddy is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 786
Default Dundee Courier and Birmingham Newspaper Sept 6th 1888

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

Pat......
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-04-2017, 10:40 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy View Post
According to the following article he and another were actually followed by police
That's not my reading of it Pat.
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 10:55 AM.


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