Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Leather Apron' Discussion

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

  • #46
    Semitic Looks R Us

    Hello Debs. Thanks.

    World renowned? Well, he DOES know a good bit about the case.

    But, from my point of view, there may well be NO Semitic look. Of course, some ladies have me to understand I have an EMETIC look. (heh-heh)

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #47
      What do you think of the Goulston Street Graffito?

      Its hard to say whether it was written by the Ripper but it could have been.written to incriminate the Jewish citizens of Whitechapel.

      Comment


      • #48
        GSG

        Hello Sleuth. Thanks.

        No reason to believe it real. After all, could not a much better/more direct incrimination be conceived?

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #49
          Lynn
          Whether you think there is no actual Jewish look is irrelevant (and these particular Jewish people would not be Semitic - they were mostly Ashkenazi) - we are concerned whether Isenschmid looked like the late 19th century stereotype. I would say he looks nothing like it.

          I have read the Isenschmid asylum records thread on Casebook and saw no reference to Isenschmid being registered as a Jew - that's why I asked. Maybe I missed it.

          I take it there is no reference anywhere to Isenschmid extorting money from prostitutes apart from in your article.

          It wasn't in Pizer's testimony, under oath, that he denied being Leather Apron. It was what he told a newspaper - not under oath on his holy book. Yes I can see why he changed his story and why he lied about a number of things.

          Comment


          • #50
            Semitic look--again

            Hello Edward. Thanks.

            "Whether you think there is no actual Jewish look is irrelevant (and these particular Jewish people would not be Semitic - they were mostly Ashkenazi) - we are concerned whether Isenschmid looked like the late 19th century stereotype. I would say he looks nothing like it."

            Do you know what that look is like? I don't. Do you know how the "typical" (whatever that means) east ender regarded such a look?

            "I have read the Isenschmid asylum records thread on Casebook and saw no reference to Isenschmid being registered as a Jew - that's why I asked. Maybe I missed it."

            I daresay--along with a good many other things.

            "I take it there is no reference anywhere to Isenschmid extorting money from prostitutes apart from in your article."

            Right--as with Piser.

            "Yes I can see why he changed his story and why he lied about a number of things."

            When he testified under oath, it was AFTER he had learned that he was referred to by that epithet. Perfectly natural.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #51
              Lynn

              On the supposed Jewish look as regarded at that time, books were published with photographs describing alleged racial characteristics. These images were used in cartoons and other sketches that found their way into the popular press. They are not difficult to find.

              We are not talking about whether or not Pizer extorted money or not.
              You made the specific claim that Isenschmid may have been able to afford to stay in lodging houses as he could have extorted money from prostitutes. That is a totally baseless suggestion. As is the suggestion that he stayed in any lodging houses in the East End. You are effectively making it up.

              On Pizer admitting he was Leather Apron - you say he only admitted it because he was told he was known as Leather Apron. But this isn't what he said is it. Under oath he could have said 'No I am not Leather Apron, I have been falsely accused of being Leather Apron'. But he didn't. It is always best to work on what he said rather than on what you want him to have said.

              Comment


              • #52
                false suspicion

                Hello Edward. Thanks.

                "On the supposed Jewish look as regarded at that time, books were published with photographs describing alleged racial characteristics. These images were used in cartoons and other sketches that found their way into the popular press. They are not difficult to find."

                No doubt, very scientific. If one does not read the books, the sketches will set you right. (heh-heh) Sounds like Inspector Harry "Snapper" Organs reading the colour supplements.

                "We are not talking about whether or not Pizer extorted money or not."

                But the ladies who complained of "Leather Apron" averred that he did.

                "You made the specific claim that Isenschmid may have been able to afford to stay in lodging houses as he could have extorted money from prostitutes. That is a totally baseless suggestion. As is the suggestion that he stayed in any lodging houses in the East End. You are effectively making it up."

                I am suggesting that Isenschmid was the wandering lunatic who asked for money from prostitutes. He claimed that "All things belong to me." It does not take a large intellect to see that these go together. Nor does it take a genius to see that, since he was known to have worn an apron on some of his wanderings, along with his knives . . .

                "On Pizer admitting he was Leather Apron - you say he only admitted it because he was told he was known as Leather Apron. But this isn't what he said is it."

                Yes, it is. He claimed that he did not know that he was known by that name. Later--after being apprised of this, he said he WAS known by that name. But why not? Thick had said as much.

                "Under oath he could have said 'No I am not Leather Apron, I have been falsely accused of being Leather Apron'. But he didn't."

                In effect, he did. He called it a false suspicion.

                "It is always best to work on what he said rather than on what you want him to have said."

                Totally agree. Hopefully, some day (AFTER you do your research), you will mind your own advice.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #53
                  I think I'll leave you to your 'research'.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    research, not "research"

                    Hello Edward. Thanks.

                    A wise decision. And someone MUST to combat all the nonsense.

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Of course needless to say someone could be known as "Leather Apron" and not be the murderer. Just saying.

                      Chris
                      Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                      https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                      Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                      Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        right

                        Hello Chris. Thanks.

                        Just so. In fact, of the half dozen or so who helped create the legend, most were likely NOT killers.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                          Hello Chris. Thanks.

                          Just so. In fact, of the half dozen or so who helped create the legend, most were likely NOT killers.

                          Cheers.
                          LC
                          Thanks, Lynn.

                          Given that many men working in the East End would have worn leather aprons in their trade, it would be surprising if one or more, if not a number of them, were not known as "Leather Apron." So the characterization describes a man, a tradesman, but it doesn't necessarily describe the person who committed the Ripper crimes.

                          All the best

                          Chris
                          Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                          https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                          Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                          Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            in agreement

                            Hello Chris. Thanks.

                            Absolutely. I believe I observed as much in one essay. It's rather like a ship's cook being designated, "Cookie."

                            And I also agree about the lack of a necessary causal link between the "Leather Aprons" and killing.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Who was 'Eyewitness'?

                              (I thought I should post this here as it concerns Pizer's veracity)


                              The letter printed in Lloyd's Weekly on 9th September, 1888 describing the incident in 'Church Street' involving John Pizer and two women is intriguing largely because of the writer's desire for anonymity. If we could identify him as an upstanding member of society, we could accept his version of events more readily, including Pizer's bald-faced denial of knowing the women and his subsequent admission that one of them habitually harrassed him.


                              The information we can glean from the letter is -

                              The writer was coming 'from school' on a Sunday afternoon. Presumably, then, a Sunday school.

                              The writer was clearly an educated adult, so possibly a minister or lay teacher.

                              The route he was taking suggests he is heading for somewhere to the north or north east of where the incident took place.

                              He lived a few minute's walk from the place where the woman (presumably Nichols) was killed.

                              His use of the names Church Street and Albert Street for what had been for many years Hanbury Street and Deal Street suggest he had a long familiarity with the area. As does his reference to Cohen's sugar refinery, which had ceased operating some years before (it was actually Dakin's refinery, possibly Cohen had been a manager).

                              Not a lot to go on, but I think it may be enough.


                              The nearest Sunday school to where the incident took place was just a few yards away in the Trinity Congregational Church at the eastern end of Hanbury Street (the writer's 'Church Street'). The minister in 1888 was William Tyler. He held the position from 1844 until his death in 1890. For most of that period he lived approximately a mile to the north east of Buck's Row at 247, Hackney Road.

                              If Tyler wasn't 'Eyewitness' then the mysterious writer was either his doppleganger or a mischief-maker who struck lucky with a fictional character whose actions that Sunday afternoon exactly matched those expected of William Tyler.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Nice work, Gary !
                                To Join JTR Forums :
                                Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X