by Covell, Mike
The Star, a London based newspaper, featured the following, dated September 11th 1888,
WHITECHAPEL. PISER IDENTIFIED THIS MORNING AT LEMAN-STREET. No Further Arrests - Pigott Still Unidentified, and Pronounced Insane - The Identification of Piser with “Leather Apron” Doubtful. This morning there are two men detained on suspicion in connection with the Whitechapel crimes. One is the man Piggott, arrested at Gravesend, and supposed to be the man who went into Fiddymont's public-house at seven on the morning of the murder with blood upon his hands. He was brought to Commercial-street Police Station yesterday afternoon, and placed among a number of other men taken from the street, in order that the builder Taylor, Mrs. Fiddymont, and Mrs. Chappell, the three people who saw the man with the blood-stained hands, might, if possible, identify the captured one. Taylor and Mrs. Fiddymont declared the man at the station not the one they saw, and Mrs. Chappell, though she picked the right man out, failed to positively identify him. This morning, however, Piggot was still in the infirmary recovering slowly from an attack of delirium tremens. The other man in custody is JOHN PISER, who was arrested yesterday morning at 22, Mulberry-street, Commercial-road, by Sergeant Thicke. There were reports yesterday afternoon that Piser had been released but, as stated in our extra special edition of last night, these were untrue. At nine o'clock this morning Piser was still comfortably quartered in a room at Leman-street Police Station, and there he is likely to remain until the detectives have cleared up the strong suspicion there is against him. No one is allowed to see the prisoner but his brother this morning called at the police-station and left both food and drink, which was afterwards given to the prisoner. Piser asked to be allowed to see his brother, but was refused. The police have made a thorough search again at Piser's lodgings, but beyond the buffers or kind of knife used for scraping leather they have found nothing. The vexed question - owing to conflicting reports, it is vexing to the public at any rate - is whether John Piser is the much-talked-of “Leather Apron.” John Piser, John Piser's step-mother, step-brother, step-sister, and neighbours all say “No;” Sergeant Thicke, who is an officer of high reputation, and who knows, perhaps, more of the East-end and its rough denizens than any other man in the force, says almost positively that Piser is “Leather Apron.” In view of the conflict of testimony on this point a Star reporter went to Mulberry-street yesterday morning and interrogated the neighbours standing in little crowds at the doorways. The man who seemed TO KNOW THE SUSPECT best was a tall man leaning against the doorpost without coat or waistcoat. He, like the Pisers, is a German Jew, and, like the man in custody, is a shoemaker; indeed, John Piser, he said, had worked for him. The Pisers have lived for 20 years in the neighbourhood - the arrested man's father died in the very house the son was taken from. “Has Piser been about this neighbourhood during the last few weeks?” our reporter asked. “Yes,” said the man. “I have seen him in this street five or six times during the last few weeks. He has been in and out in his ordinary manner - he has not been hiding.” In answer to further inquiries, the man said the knives which had been found in the house proved nothing. In fact at that moment he had in his own house knives nearly half as long as his arm - he and Piser used them in their business. “Is this the man known as `Leather Apron'?” asked the reporter. “No, no, I don't know - I don't know him as `Leather Apron,' said the man, hastily. After a little further conversation, however, The Star reporter innocently asked him to describe the man he had seen taken. This he did readily, and gave a strikingly faithful description of the man whom everybody has been talking of since The Star first described him. The man's identity was borne out by what a Star reporter subsequently gleaned from SERGEANT THICKE, a stout-built, keen, but pleasant-faced man, with thick, drooping, yellowish moustache, dressed in a light check suit. The Sergeant who, by the rough characters among whom his profession takes him, is better known as Johnny Upright, had just been deep in consultation in the station yard with a crowd of detectives, when our representative had the good fortune to get an introduction.”Of course, you've come about the Whitechapel murder," he said, when a Star card was handed to him. “Now, you know as well as I do that I cannot tell you anything.” Our representative urged that he might be able to say something without damaging the public interest, and with a little questioning a few facts were obtained. The sergeant emphatically denied that, as the neighbours had said, “Leather Apron” had for the last six weeks been going about his business in an ordinary manner. “He's been in hiding safe enough, and it's my opinion his friends have been screening him. He has not been in lodging houses; he is too well known there and the people who frequent them would have been ready to lynch him. Why the other day a woman told me plainly that if she saw him she would kill him, and I could do what I liked with her afterwards. No,” keen Johnny Upright continued, “ `Leather Apron' has not been into a lodging-house since the Sunday THE WOMAN DENOUNCED HIM IN WHITECHAPEL, and the police were bamboozled into letting him go.” The Sergeant modestly disclaimed any great deal of credit in making the capture. “I've known him for years,” he said. “I didn't take him on the strength of any published descriptions of him. It was not, however, till the early hours of this morning I was told where I could put my hands on him.” The Star reporter mentioned that the people in Mulberry-street discounted the importance of the finding of knives. But the Sergeant was not to be trapped into saying anything about the knives - whether there were any bloodstains on them. “I don't mean to say anything to prejudice the case against the man. We are still making inquiry, and in the present stage of the case I can't say any more.” The report yesterday afternoon that a second “Leather Apron” - “the real man” - had been arrested and taken to the Bethnal-green Police-station was quite without foundation; nobody was detained there at all yesterday. From inquiries at all the police stations this morning it seems that the police are in possession of no further clue. PISER PICKED OUT. Just before one o'clock this afternoon 11 men passing by Leman-street Police-station were asked and consented to go into the station-yard for a few minutes. Piser was brought out, and put amongst them. A middle-aged man, with a face of negro cast, but not black, was then asked whether he could “identify the man,” and unhesitatingly he picked out Piser. “What,” said Piser, “you know me?” But an inspector raised a warning hand, and without anything else being said the men dispersed and Piser was led back to his room. It has been asserted by one witness that two men were with deceased in Hanbury-street at an early hour on the morning of the murder. These two men have not yet been traced, and the authorities are anxious to know whether one of these was Piser before releasing or charging him. The police say they do not believe “Leather Apron” the guilty man, and point out that the public and the newspapers have accused him - not they. Although Pigott has been declared to be of unsound mind the police are by no means relaxing their inquiries concerning him. No more arrests in connection with the murder at Whitechapel had been made up to one o'clock to-day. THE SLAUGHTERMAN THEORY. A Correspondent Examines How Far the Facts Support It. While the police are pursuing the empirical method in their investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and apparently looking out for persons who had blood upon them on the days of the crimes (as though at any given time in such a district as Whitechapel there are not any number of people who have just been engaged in personal and pugilistic encounters), it may be well in the columns of a newspaper to follow another method, perhaps more suited to a philosopher's study than a detective's office. To this end let us start with a theory, and then by the light of it look at the facts. The theory. That the four women were killed by someone to whom bloodshed and slaughter is an everyday affair - e.g., a knacker or slaughter man. Such a man would have the skill, acquired by practice, necessary to do the work silently, swiftly, and with the minimum of bloodiness. He would have by him, without fear of thereby attracting suspicion, the kind of weapon exactly suited to the purpose. He would be the only man in all London who could walk along the streets in the early daylight
with blood on his hands and clothes without exciting undue notice or remark. He would have the needful anatomical knowledge by which he would be able to find quickly such internal organs as the heart and liver, supposing he desired to add horror to horror by placing them outside the victim's body. He would commit the murders within a reasonable distance of his place of trade, so as to be able to reach it at the usual time for beginning work or not to be absent from it long enough to excite notice if the crime were committed during work hours. On Bank-holidays our hypothetical murderer would not be in workaday clothes or have his tools about him, but he would be armed with a stick, which is part of the holiday paraphernalia, or with a bayonet, supposing he were a Volunteer, and in the early hours of the morning after Bank holidays he would be in the immediate vicinity of his workshop. He would strike with a heavy, swift hand, and not with the light swift stroke of the surgeon or anatomical demonstrator. In mutilating he would strike downwards in the same way as though he were disembowelling a sheep. Now what are the facts? The woman Nicholls was discovered in the immediate vicinity of a slaughter-house - and of her Dr. Ralph Llewellyn said, “She was ripped open just as you see a dead calf in a butcher's shop. The murder was done by someone very handy with the knife.” The throat was cut, as a calf's or pig's is cut, with one hard blow from left to right. It was not sawn asunder, and there was very little blood on the clothes or on the ground. She was killed in the early morning. Annie Chapman was found also not far from a slaughter-house. Her throat was cut in precisely the same way, and with the same sort of weapon as Nicholls's. She was ripped up as a calf is ripped up. Some of her internal organs were taken out of her body, and there was very little blood on the spot where she lay. She was found in the rear of premises inhabited by a seller of cat's-meat - a place which would be known by a knacker or slaughter man. She was killed early in the morning. The other and earlier victims were killed on the mornings after Bank holidays. One was wounded with a stick and the other with some weapon like a bayonet. Question for the police and the public - Is there a slaughter man or knacker living in Whitechapel who cannot account for his whereabouts on the mornings of these murders, and is he in the Volunteers, or has he a pal a Volunteer who is given to heavy drinking?
September 12th 1888
The Evening Standard, a London based newspaper, featured the following, dated September 12th 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS. A discovery, which may prove of importance, was made yesterday afternoon in connection with the recent murder in Whitechapel. A little girl happened to be walking in the back garden, or yard, of the house, 25 Hanbury street, the next house but one to the scene of the murder, when her attention was attracted to peculiar marks on the wall and on the garden path. She communicated her discovery to Detective Inspector Chandler, who had just called at the house to make a plan of the back premises of the three houses, for the use of the Coroner. The yard was then carefully examined, with the result that a bloody trail was found distinctly marked for a distance of five or six feet in the direction of the back door of the house. The appearances suggested that the murderer, after his crime, had passed through or over the dividing fence between Nos. 29 and 27, and thence into the garden of No. 25. On the wall of the last house was a curious mark, between a smear and a sprinkle, as if the murderer, alarmed by the blood soaked state of his coat, had taken it off, and knocked it against the wall. Abutting on the end of the yard of No. 25 are the works of Mr. Bailey, a packing case maker. In the yard of this establishment, on an out of the way corner, the police yesterday afternoon found some crumpled paper, stained, almost saturated, with blood. It is supposed that the murderer found the paper in the yard of No. 25, wiped his hands with it, and threw it over the wall into Mr. Bailey's premises. the house No. 25, like most of the dwellings in the street, is let out in tenements direct from the owner, who does not live on the premises, and has no direct representative therein. The back and front doors are always left either on the latch or wide open, the tenant of each room looking after the safety of his own apartment. The general appearance of the trail of blood and other indications seem to show that the murderer intended to make his way into the street through the house next door but one, being frightened by some noise or light in No. 29 from retreating by the way which he came. On reaching the yard of No. 25, he made for the back door, and then suddenly remembering his blood stained appearance, he must have stopped, and, catching sight of the pieces of paper lying about, he doubtless retraced his steps to the end of the yard, and then performed his gruesome toilet. He might have had some thought of retreating by way of Bailey's premises, but the height of the walls made such a course somewhat perilous, and he finally made his way into Hanbury street through the house. He could have met with no difficulty, as both back and front doors were open, and he could wait in the passage if any one was passing down the street. These matters suggest that the murderer was alive to the risk of detection, and acted with so much circumspection as to dispel the idea that he was a reckless maniac. A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, “Will you?” and the woman replied, “Yes.” They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple. Although no fresh arrests were made yesterday in connection with the Whitechapel murders, the police obtained information which at one time promised to develop into important evidence. It had been intended to liberate John Piser on Monday evening, but at the last moment it was decided to keep him in custody, the police not being quite satisfied upon one or two points in respect to him. Yesterday morning information was received, which, if well founded, would have made out a case of some strength against Piser. On the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman a man in Hanbury street noticed a woman in the company of two men. They appeared to be quarrelling, and the heard the men make use of threats. Such an incident is, however, very common in the district, and the man, after taking a good look at the disputants, passed on his way. Yesterday the police resolved to inquire if Piser was one of the men seen in Hanbury street at the time in question. The man who saw the quarrel was requested to attend at Leman street Police station. On his arrival about one o o'clock, some twenty men, mostly brought in from the adjacent thoroughfare, were paraded before him. The man, without a moment's hesitation, pointed to Piser as the man whom he heard threatening the woman in Hanbury street on the morning of the murder. Piser protested that the man was entirely mistaken, but he was put back in the cells, and more closely watched. The police, during the afternoon and evening, made careful inquiries into the statements made by the man who professed to identify Piser. The manner of this man, who is, apparently, of Spanish blood, and displays a blue ribbon on his coat, did not inspire much confidence in his veracity, and he was severely cross examined by a sort of informal tribunal, consisting of experienced detective officers. The witness added to his first statement that he not only saw the prisoner in Hanbury street on the day of the murder, but that he actually took him by the collar when he was about to strike the woman. The man first volunteered his statement on Monday, and he subsequently displayed anxiety to view the remains of Mrs. Chapman, which, however, was not permitted. Piser's brother declares that he did not leave the house between Thursday and the day of his apprehension, because he had been subjected to annoyance at being followed by people, who called him Leather Apron. Piser is physically a very weak man, and for that reason does not work very closely. He suffers from hernia, is in other ways infirm, and has been under hospital treatment for a long time. From his lodgings the police have carried off five knives, which have been subjected to careful examination. All of them are of the class used in the leather currying trade, having blades about six inches in length, with stout handles, sometimes notched in a peculiar way. There is apparently, no blood either on the blades or the handles, but on som
e of the blades are marks apparently caused by rust. The examination of the knives led to the conclusion that none of the marks was a blood stain. About eight o'clock last evening the police arrived at the conclusion that the man referred to above had not stated the truth, and that there were no grounds for keeping Piser any longer in custody. He was accordingly set at liberty, and at once proceeded to Mulberry street, where he received the congratulations of his relatives and friends.
