Perhaps they were Ed's, but from a later time? Then, family lore being such as it is, they became more "interesting"?
That's a distinct possibility. I wondered that about the whistle. Errors in the dating and identification of family antiques are incredibly common; I see it all the time.
It doesn't usually derive from an effort to make things "more interesting", but just from family members honestly confusing old family stories with old family possessions.
Most people don't write down family history, stories, trivia, anecdotes, etc. So as the items pass from one generation to the next it's like a whispering game, and things become garbled. This confusion often happens in the span of just one generation, and it never ceases to me.
It's very common for more obscure items to lose their identity completely and be tossed out or donated. Sometimes people know "something" in the family was supposed to be special but they get muddled about which one it was, and accidentally let the truly valuable item go.
Does anybody what the rules were about constables keeping their official gear such as truncheons, etc?
Were they free to keep their duty items when they retired, or were they viewed as the official property of the department to be turned back in upon leaving the force?
The article doesn't say he had these items the night he found Eddowes' body but that they are items "which belonged to PC Edward Watkins". Having been with the police for some 25 years, it could have been one of his last notebooks, whistle, etc.
RE would have said he did the same with his truncheon Simpson did with the shawl, offer it to his wife. LOL
Last edited by Hercule Poirot : 11-25-2014 at 09:52 PM.