Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Leather Apron' Discussion

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

  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    round and round

    Hello Scott. Normally, I'd LOVE to. But you see, I'm havin' a wee bit o' difficulty and, well, you know how it is.

    I'm SURE you wish to stand first round? (heh-heh)

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    OK guys. I'm stalwart enough. Stand me a pint or two, will you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Tom's interpretation of events could well be correct.

    When I read the Eyewitness letter there were a couple of things that seemed odd. One was the use of the outdated street names and the other was the involvement of J division officers on H division territory.

    I wonder if any of our police experts can confirm that the corner of Deal Street and Hanbury Street was in H division, whereas it seems to have been J division who launched the search for Pizer on the 4th Sept.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Stalwart man wanted Pizer to stand him a pint. Hardly a Sunday School teacher.
    I don't believe Stalwart Man was Eyewitness. He was just a bystander who didn't feature in the letter because his role was insignificant.

    If you walked out of your door today and witnessed an assault and an arrest, who would feature in the story when you relayed it to others? The attacker, the victim and the cop who made the arrest? Definitely. The little old lady on the other side of the road carrying a red shopping bag and the small boy on his bicycle? Probably not.

    I think the reference to the Leigh Hoy pub is significant. It doesn't appear in the letter, so Eyewitness's account must have been checked out. He apparently provided his name and address, so presumably they checked it out with him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Stalwart man wanted Pizer to stand him a pint. Hardly a Sunday School teacher.
    Damn good point, Scott.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Stalwart man wanted Pizer to stand him a pint. Hardly a Sunday School teacher.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    A very sprightly 85.
    I think that should have been 75, sorry (judging by census entries rather than press reports of his death).

    He was listed on the 1889 elecoral register at 247, Hackney Road. If 247 in 1888 is the same as 247 today, it's about a mile from Durward Street, so about a twenty minute walk away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Gary. Good piece of sleuthing here. It's obvious from the newspaper report that Eyewitness is misrepresenting himself and perhaps the observation that it was a Sunday and yet he was 'coming from school' is further proof of that. I think it's most likely that Eyewitness and Pizer's 'Stalwart' man are one and the same, and Stalwart Man was obviously not 85 years old. Even supposing Eyewitness was an honest witness, he must have possessed eyesight beyond that of an average human, and that's an awful lot to expect of an 85 year old man.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Edward Stow
    replied
    Would he have chosen the Star? I doubt it.
    He seems to have followed the proceedings swiftly for 400 yards down the street as well.
    And again Hackney Road is too far away to meet the description.
    But I think it very likely the eyewitness was linked to that church.
    Tyler wrote some booklets so his writing style could be compared.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    He was still chairing meetings and attending benefits in 1888 so a gentle stroll home from church followed by dashing off a quick letter to The Star ( after a brief nap and a cup of Complan, no doubt) probably wouldn't have been beyond him.

    However, we shouldn't get hung up on a particular person. The point is that the internal evidence from the letter suggests a Sunday school teacher with a long familiarity with the area who lived to the North West of Hanbury Street. And the Trinity Congregational Church just a few yards away from where the incident took place is very likely the place he came from .

    There's no need for it to have been Stalwart Man. (Whose absence from the letter is in no way suspicious - he was simply not germane to the story.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Edward Stow
    replied
    I'd say he was way too old.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Ed,

    Actually, I'm beginning to have my doubts about Tyler as Eyewitness. After all what has he got going for him?

    The incident took place on his logical route to and from work.

    He had a long association with the area.

    His job would place him in Church Street on the day and around the time of the incident.

    He preferred to go by a false name.

    He's possibly a bit too old to fit the bill.

    He was to all appearances a responsible member of society.

    Doesn't stack up really, does it?

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Well yes, more likely than Le Grand but then that isn't saying much.
    How old was Tyler in 1888.
    A very sprightly 85.

    Leave a comment:


  • Edward Stow
    replied
    Well yes, more likely than Le Grand but then that isn't saying much.
    How old was Tyler in 1888.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Thanks.

    I am however dubious about your identification of the Eyewitness. Hackney Road is quite a long way off - I wouldn't describe it was a few minutes away.
    Those churches tended to be stuffed with do gooders (most of whom's names will be lost to us) ready to spread the gospel to any who had ears to hear. Do you have any specific reason to think that it was Tyler?

    Some interesting details in many of those Scotsman articles.

    In the context of which it is written, this piece from the same Scotsman article is also clearly about Pizer. I think it is undeniable that Pizer was known as Leather Apron and was the primary template for the Leather Apron stories.

    Some details of the man's past history, according to many householders, do not bear description. One gentleman stated yesterday that he had reason to thrash "Leather Apron" some four years since, and several stories are told of his shameful conduct. But those people who had most reason to rejoice that a "pestilent fellow," as they described him, had been apprehended, were careful to add that in no case of annoyance to women had he been detected in offering violence to them, such as has been attributed to the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. Further, those who were more or less familiar with his ways of life inclined to the opinion that he was of too weak a frame and of too cowardly a nature to commit such aggravated assaults as those which have been effected on the bodies of Mary Nicholls and Annie Chapman.
    Ed,

    Eyewitness would have expected his letter to have been read across the capital and beyond. In that context his home was a short distance from Bucks Row .

    His journey home from the Church in a Hanbury Street would have taken him past the junction with Deal Street.

    Tyler had been connected to the Trinity Congregational church for decades and could be expected to use outdated names for the streets through which he walked and the buildings he passed ( the sugar refinery had ceased operating some years previously and was shown on the electoral roll as a tenement).

    I think he, or someone like him, is a far likelier candidate than, say, Charles Le Grand.

    As for Pizer, I think the crucial question is whether Thick would have had a legitimate reason for pulling him in. Surely the weight of evidence would suggest he did.

    Gary.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X