Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The clue of the coins

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by MayBea View Post
    Why exactly would a police report necessarily be complete, comprehensive and the last word on what was found at the scene, especially when the doctor said he immediately picked the items up and put them in the hands of the police? He didn't list them all. Why should the police?
    I think it is fair to say that most people expect a police report to be exhaustive, and list everything.

    The problem with this is, no such police report has survived. What we have is a report by Abberline on the murder where nothing found by the body was itemized. Likewise, a report by Insp. Chandler with the same problem, nothing is itemized.
    There is one report, f. 146, where specifics are to be listed, and all we read concerning items found is:
    "On person portion of an envelope stamped “Sussex Regiment” dated 23rd Augst. 1888"

    The fact the envelope was not found "on her person" but in the yard only serves to illustrate that even notes made by police cannot be relied on entirely.


    Why would Reid mention "six pence" instead of a "sovereign"?
    I would say 'experience', apparently Reid also thinks the idea a sovereign would be given to an Unfortunate for her 'fee' is also ridiculous.

    It is strange that both Dr. Phillips and Insp. Chandler claim to have found the same items;
    Chandler - a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case.
    Phillips - a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case
    But Phillips adds, "I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police."
    (as you noted)

    The existence of these farthings at the Chapman murder has been a contentious issue for a long time - there is no clear and certain 'proof' either way.
    The difficulties appear to be threefold.
    - If they did exist it is difficult to explain why they are not mentioned at the inquest.
    - If they didn't exist, it is also difficult to explain why the rumor began in the first place.
    - Also, if they didn't exist it is more difficult to explain why Det. Insp. Reid recalls them actually existing.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #62
      Annie Chapman wore two or more brass rings on the ring finger of her left hand. When her body was found these rings were missing, maybe taken by her killer. The Pall Mall Gazette printed an assertion on the day of her murder that her rings were laid at her feet.

      The following Monday the Daily Telegraph (probably wanting to go one better) carried a report that 'There were also found two farthings polished brightly and according to some, these coins had been passed off as half-sovereigns upon the deceased by her murderer.'

      IF there were any coins lying about in the yard, and I don't think there were, then they very likely came from Annie's inner pocket. However, if her killer took brass rings from her fingers surely he'd scoop up the contents of her pocket too.

      Reid was on leave at the time of the Chapman murder and perhaps the tales of scams with polished farthings got muddled up with newspaper reports in his memory by the time he stated at another murder inquiry in 1889 that coins had been found near Annie Chapman.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Rosella View Post

        Reid was on leave at the time of the Chapman murder and perhaps the tales of scams with polished farthings got muddled up with newspaper reports in his memory by the time he stated at another murder inquiry in 1889 that coins had been found near Annie Chapman.
        So Det. Insp. Reid was muddled between Whitechapel murder files and newspaper speculations?
        If such were true, it's time he quit...
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #64
          Smith also came up with the story some time later that polished farthings were found in the yard near Annie, and, to put it bluntly, he was hardly a model of credibility! It's just strange that the story of the coins is found in newspaper reports but not in any official police reports that we know of.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Rosella View Post
            Smith also came up with the story some time later that polished farthings were found in the yard near Annie, and, to put it bluntly, he was hardly a model of credibility!
            The reliability of a subject cannot be judged by listing those who repeated it.

            All that matters here is that the head of the local CID mentioned them in reply to a serious question by the Coroner.

            A couple of days after McKenzie was murdered the Daily Telegraph mentioned the farthing found by her body.
            In one report they suggest the subject of the farthing may have been 'hushed-up'.

            "....underneath the body was found a bloodstained farthing. To this discovery only a vague reference was made in yesterday's issue, as it was considered undesirable to give publicity at that time to the circumstance. The assumption is that this farthing was given to the deceased by her murderer in the same way as similar coins were passed upon the Hanbury-street victim as half-sovereigns, it was believed, for in that instance they had been brightly polished."
            Daily Telegraph, July 19 1889.

            The reason the Hanbury St. farthings were not mentioned at the inquest may have been due to the same reason. Purposely withheld by police.

            It's just strange that the story of the coins is found in newspaper reports but not in any official police reports that we know of.
            No police reports have survived.
            Last edited by Wickerman; 09-19-2014, 06:48 PM.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment

            Working...
            X