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:
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - by Fisherman 1 minute ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Practicality or madness? - by Fisherman 11 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Practicality or madness? - by Michael W Richards 20 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - by Batman 29 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (68 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - (28 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (12 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Practicality or madness? - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (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 > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #141  
Old 10-29-2018, 01:49 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krinoid View Post
One the insults are back.Two, my name is spelt wrong showing "ignorance" on your part. Three, my supposed "ignorance" of where my information came from on how big the discovery was supposed to be is quoted in full at at the first post of this thread.
If you did not show you are illiterate and your own ignorance on jumping on me twice just because I wanted to find out what was discovered. And now we know, no thanks to the ignorant monty.
God, ripperologists suck and and are arrogant ASSH*****. Go ahead and ban me, it's unbelievable the snobbishness and idiots on here. Like it's more important to argue about the con organizers than if someone actually important found something at he con in question and blacklist Fido!
And it took me all this bull to find out what the info out as everyone was stuck up about it and again attacking.don't bother to reply, won't be reading. If any news breaks it won't be on this site. Too many know it alls pompous arrogant ass*****
You shall be missed

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 10-29-2018, 02:57 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Is it a coroner's role to chastise witnesses for behaviour that has nothing to do with the case he is looking into?

And was Baxter the sort of coroner who would allow witnesses to launch into monologues?

No and no, I'd say. Nothing strange there at all.
But Baxter had Pizer before him at the Inquest and he did have something to do with the case (Pizer's possible involvement in Chapman's death). So Baxer should have questioned Pizer's past whereabouts. There are ample examples from other Ripper Inquests where Baxter allowed witnesses to respond at length to questions.

That said, it was the Cornor's responsibility to rule on the cause of death.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 10-29-2018, 04:17 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmenges View Post
[Quoting Martin Fido] "it is safe to assume that he was never a real suspect, but a necessary Jew who could be proven innocent to damp down the threat of race riots provoked by the knowledge that the police thought the Ripper was Jewish."
I wish I could have heard Martin's talk, and thus got his full theory. But isn't the chronology a bit "off"? This was prior to the house-to-house search. So--before the Pizer affair--what would have led the public to believe the police were looking for a Jewish Ripper?

Yes, it goes without saying there were racial tensions, but I don't quite see how this 'threat' suggests a police theory of the crimes, and it is hard to accept that Arnold, let alone Warren, would have gone along with such a radical scheme.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 10-30-2018, 12:33 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,211
Default

One of the mysteries of the Eyewitness letter is why the sugar refinery was referred to as 'Cohens'. Thomas Dakin had owned the refinery since 1868 and he was still being listed on the 1888 electoral register as the owner of a 'tenement' on Hanbury Street.

This extract from a report of a banquet held by the SW Bethnal Green Conservative Club from the East London Observer of 15th December, 1888 may provide a clue:

Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 281
Size:  41.1 KB

This is most likely the Col. Cowan whose sugar refinery near Hammersmith Bridge had been totally destroyed by fire in April, 1888.

So it seems that Eyewitness had his finger on the pulse of affairs in the eastern section of Hanbury Street in 1888. Perhaps there was a large sign stating 'Cowans' on the side of the building, but then the obviously educated author would surely have spelt it that way. Or perhaps Cowan had so recently taken over the business that the signage hadn't been changed and EW had misheard the new owner's name as Cohen.

Last edited by MrBarnett : 10-30-2018 at 12:59 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 10-30-2018, 12:41 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
But Baxter had Pizer before him at the Inquest and he did have something to do with the case (Pizer's possible involvement in Chapman's death). So Baxer should have questioned Pizer's past whereabouts. There are ample examples from other Ripper Inquests where Baxter allowed witnesses to respond at length to questions.

That said, it was the Cornor's responsibility to rule on the cause of death.
But once Pizer had provided satisfactory alibis for both the Nichols and Chapman murders, his appearance at Chapman's inquest was superfluous. Baxter told him that he had been called to give evidence for his own interest i.e. to place his alibis on record. His dubious character was of no relevance to the business at hand and capricious Baxter was a man who did not suffer fools in his court. There is nothing suspicious about Baxter's behaviour that I can see. Unless someone wants to see something untoward to bolster a conspiracy theory.

Last edited by MrBarnett : 10-30-2018 at 12:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 10-30-2018, 01:10 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Scott,

It's an interesting idea, except that Eye Witness mentions time, place and policemen. John Pizer mentions Church Street, but no policemen, and gets the day right. Gabriel [who is repeating what John Pizer told him] mentions Spitalfields and a policeman and gets the day right.

Two or more similar events in a single day?

Regards,

Simon
The fact that Gabriel mentions Spitalfields is actually a discrepancy between his account and EW's, but as you say he is simply relaying his version of the story told to him by his brother.

'Send reinforcements we're going to advance' soon becomes 'Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance.'
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 10-30-2018, 08:26 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,579
Default

Hi MrBarnett,

Nice find.

A couple of years ago I posted about the Cowan/Cohen homophone and got unmercifully savaged by Lord Snooty.

Bryan Mawer of the Sugar Refiners and Sugarbakers database, citing the ‘Eye Witness’ report from the “Dundee Evening Telegraph,” 6th September 1888, told me, “I have to assume, therefore, that Mr. Cohen was probably the manager of the [Dakin’s] refinery, which at that time was on its last legs. Dakin put it up for sale in 1889.”

Cowan was an unlucky chap. Prior to his 1888 fire, there was an explosion at his Barnes premises which killed a couple of workers.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 10-30-2018, 08:57 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi MrBarnett,

Nice find.

A couple of years ago I posted about the Cowan/Cohen homophone and got unmercifully savaged by Lord Snooty.

Bryan Mawer of the Sugar Refiners and Sugarbakers database, citing the ‘Eye Witness’ report from the “Dundee Evening Telegraph,” 6th September 1888, told me, “I have to assume, therefore, that Mr. Cohen was probably the manager of the [Dakin’s] refinery, which at that time was on its last legs. Dakin put it up for sale in 1889.”

Cowan was an unlucky chap. Prior to his 1888 fire, there was an explosion at his Barnes premises which killed a couple of workers.

Regards,

Simon
Thanks, Simon.

I chatted with Bryan about the Eyewitness episode some time ago and I've alerted him to the Cowan info. Did you know that Bryan's ancestors once ran the Hanbury Street refinery?

I was tempted to extend my Sherlock Holmes impression by suggesting (tongue in cheek) that since EW either couldn't read Cowan's sign or misheard the name, he was probably an older gentleman - like William Tyler. ��Thought better of it, though.

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 10-30-2018, 12:16 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,579
Default

Hi Gary,

You say that other than establishing an alibi for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, Pizer's appearance at Chapman's inquest was superfluous.

I respectfully disagree. Ponder this.

Just prior to the inquest Pizer was asked by an Echo reporter—

“‘Were you not surprised when he [Sergeant Thick] said you were known as ‘Leather Apron’?

‘Yes,’ replied Pizer, sticking firmly to his statement made the previous day. ‘I was not aware that I was known by that name. None of my neighbours have ever called me by it.’”

Later that afternoon at the inquest—

Coroner Wynne Baxter— “Are you known by the nickname of ‘Leather Apron’?”

John Pizer— “Yes, sir.”

With his innocence established, incontrovertible evidence sworn on oath that John Pizer was alone known as Leather Apron was delivered by the next witness.

“Detective-Sergeant Thick deposed that on Monday morning he apprehended the last witness [Pizer] at 22 Mulberry Street.

“Coroner Wynne Baxter— ‘When people in the neighbourhood speak of ‘Leather Apron’, do they mean Pizer?’

“Detective Sergeant Thick— ‘They do, sir.’”

On the sole testimony of Detective Sergeant Thick, John Pizer and Leather Apron were officially conjoined.

Allegedly the Star had libelled the innocent Leather Apron, dubbing him a “lunatic” and a “murderer.” As long as Pizer denied being known as Leather Apron no libel could attach to him. But if Pizer changed his story, he and Leather Apron would become as one and thus able to pursue a libel case against the Star.

The problem is that neither the Star nor any other newspaper had uttered a libel. Until the police arrested John Pizer at his stepmother’s house on the morning of 10th September, his name had not been mentioned in the press, let alone associated with the person of Leather Apron.

The libel was on the Metropolitan Police. It was solely them, in the person of Sergeant Thick, who had conjoined John Pizer with Leather Apron.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 10-30-2018, 01:01 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Gary,

You say that other than establishing an alibi for the murders of Nichols and Chapman, Pizer's appearance at Chapman's inquest was superfluous.

I respectfully disagree. Ponder this.

Just prior to the inquest Pizer was asked by an Echo reporter—

“‘Were you not surprised when he [Sergeant Thick] said you were known as ‘Leather Apron’?

‘Yes,’ replied Pizer, sticking firmly to his statement made the previous day. ‘I was not aware that I was known by that name. None of my neighbours have ever called me by it.’”

Later that afternoon at the inquest—

Coroner Wynne Baxter— “Are you known by the nickname of ‘Leather Apron’?”

John Pizer— “Yes, sir.”

With his innocence established, incontrovertible evidence sworn on oath that John Pizer was alone known as Leather Apron was delivered by the next witness.

“Detective-Sergeant Thick deposed that on Monday morning he apprehended the last witness [Pizer] at 22 Mulberry Street.

“Coroner Wynne Baxter— ‘When people in the neighbourhood speak of ‘Leather Apron’, do they mean Pizer?’

“Detective Sergeant Thick— ‘They do, sir.’”

On the sole testimony of Detective Sergeant Thick, John Pizer and Leather Apron were officially conjoined.

Allegedly the Star had libelled the innocent Leather Apron, dubbing him a “lunatic” and a “murderer.” As long as Pizer denied being known as Leather Apron no libel could attach to him. But if Pizer changed his story, he and Leather Apron would become as one and thus able to pursue a libel case against the Star.

The problem is that neither the Star nor any other newspaper had uttered a libel. Until the police arrested John Pizer at his stepmother’s house on the morning of 10th September, his name had not been mentioned in the press, let alone associated with the person of Leather Apron.

The libel was on the Metropolitan Police. It was solely them, in the person of Sergeant Thick, who had conjoined John Pizer with Leather Apron.

Regards,

Simon
The simple attribution of the nickname itself wasn't libellous, surely, especially if Pizer himself admitted it in court.

Where do you imagine Helson received his information linking Pizer and LA and claiming that he abused unfortunates? That's the first 'official' record of the link isn't it?

Bryan Mawer responded and reminded me it was 4 years ago that we discussed the Church Street incident. I'm going to send him some info about Pearly Poll's husband stealing a sugar titler from Martineau's refinery. Ironically when he was committed to Claybury 30 years later it was a member of the Martineau family who authorised the committal.

Last edited by MrBarnett : 10-30-2018 at 01:08 PM.
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 04:53 AM.


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