HELP: The Farthing 'myth'

[ChrisGeorge]

Chris.
Given that the suggestion has been made of clients passing off a polished farthing instead of a half-sovereign to a prostitute, doesn't the question then arise as to "why give 10 shillings (half-sovereign) to a prostitute?"
I don't have a precise number for what they charged but I would think 10 shillings would be way over the top.

Regards, Jon S.

That's a good point, Jon. Though several scenarios occur to me: 1) it could have been an extra lure for the unfortunates. 2) Such women themselves, or Chapman at least, might have had a sideline in passing off the coins. 3) The killer could have thrown down the polished farthings at her feet as a sign of disdain.

Chirs

[Magpie]

Even the most apprehensive of prozzies is unlikely to turn down the prospect of a half-sovereign.

However, given that there seems to be some connection between Hanbury St. and the coining trade, it's possible that it was Chapman who had the fake half-sovereigns, with a view to passing them.


It's also possible that a prozzie would accept fake half-sovereigns knowing that the were fake, but confident that they could later pass them as the real thing...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all, did I miss something? Are we talking about the coins as though they were really at Chapman's feet?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[waterloo]

Hello all,

We should not assume that the muslin and the combs were the property of Chapman unless there is evidence of their ownership. There may well be I am quite new.
The envelope was certainly in her possesion as this is witnessed earlier. The combs and muslin could have belonged to JTR and if they did and they were stored somewhere. DNA would possibly be on the combs. Bit far fetched I know. Perhaps he put them on the floor carefully so that he could find them Perhaps they fell out of his pocket. I know somebody is going to tell me they were identified as Chapmans. I hope nobody can.

Thanks everyone

Waterloo

[Krinoid]

Is that true? I also thought one press report did mention this also at the time, why would they make this up?

Bennett's new book mentions this is wrong, but how do we know?I still don't get this?

[Wickerman]

Even the most apprehensive of prozzies is unlikely to turn down the prospect of a half-sovereign.

Just to clarify, the question I was asking essentially was, "who in their right mind would pay a prostitute 10 shillings?" Alternately, "what kind of prostitute is about to believe she is being offered a real half-sovereign (10 shillings)?"

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

To the best of my knowledge, the only reason to suppose there were any coins found at Chapman's feet is that Sir Henry Smith mentions them in his memoirs and Edmund Reid mentions them at the inquest of (I believe) Frances Coles. This sounds impressive, but compared against the actual police reports, which would certainly have mentioned them, it falls a little flat as evidence, particulary given Smiths reputation for boasting and Reid's dependence on his memory, versus notes. And let's not forget Reid is the guy who stated emphatically that none of the victims were missing organs!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

Hiya Tom.

I don't know whether there were farthings in Hanbury St. or not (certainly the arrangement of items seems farfetched). However, for the many, many years, Smith's views were dismissed (even by his colleagues, who really should have known better) because it was considered laughable that anyone could mistake a polished farthing for a sovereign (more properly a half-sovereign). A couple of hourse of research showed that, not only was it possible, it was so common that the Royal Mint had to start chemically blackening the farthings in order to counter the practice. Since that initial research, I've found several court cases involving the passing of farthings as half-sovereigns--enough to show that it wasn't even being done as a lark, but as an systematic and organized criminal endeavour.

So Hanbury St aside, I think Henry Smith deserves a tip of the hat for being more informed than previously given credit for.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Magpie. I'm not doubting Smith's veracity on the passing of polished coins, I'm questioning whether any coins were found in Hanbury Street. Smith actually put the coins in Chapman's pockets. I could totally see them keeping such a thing out of the inquest. Every Ripper inquest holds back important info. But why on earth would they leave it out of the internal police reports?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

To the best of my knowledge, the only reason to suppose there were any coins found at Chapman's feet is that Sir Henry Smith mentions them in his memoirs and Edmund Reid mentions them at the inquest of (I believe) Frances Coles. This sounds impressive, but compared against the actual police reports, which would certainly have mentioned them, it falls a little flat as evidence, particulary given Smiths reputation for boasting and Reid's dependence on his memory, versus notes. And let's not forget Reid is the guy who stated emphatically that none of the victims were missing organs!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

It's not just Major Smith telling the story about the presence of farthings though. The farthings also appear in the press reports but were said to be in Chapman's pocket and not at her feet..... maybe that's where the myth comes in, the supposed placement of the coins at her feet???

See for example,

"In the pockets of the deceased's dress were found a handkerchief, two small combs, two polished farthings, and an envelope stamped 'the Sussex Regiment.'"
Evening Standard, 10 September 1888

"The hapless prostitute butchered on Saturday morning in the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, had in her pocket two bright farthings only - possibly passed off upon her as half-sovereigns. . . ."
Daily Telegraph, 10 September 1888

"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."
The Star, 10 September 1888

"In the dress of the dead woman two farthings were found, so brightly polished as to lead to the belief that they were intended to be passed as half-sovereigns, and it is probable that they were given to her by the murderer as an inducement for her to accompany him."
Evening News, 8 September 1888

Best regards

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris. But I wonder if 'two small combs' wasn't taken by some as 'two small coins' and then profilgatd from there. After all, most of the reports that mentions the two coins do not mention combs. And let's say for a moment that there were coins....on whose authory is it taken that the Ripper gave them to her?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris. But I wonder if 'two small combs' wasn't taken by some as 'two small coins' and then profilgatd from there. After all, most of the reports that mentions the two coins do not mention combs. And let's say for a moment that there were coins....on whose authory is it taken that the Ripper gave them to her?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes but see the first press report that I cited in which both the two combs and the two farthings appear:

"In the pockets of the deceased's dress were found a handkerchief, two small combs, two polished farthings, and an envelope stamped 'the Sussex Regiment.'"
Evening Standard, 10 September 1888

I don't think of course that if there were any farthings there was any definite proof they came from her killer, but the fact that she went out looking for her doss money and had the two polished farthings in her pocket might imply he gave them to her, maybe to buy time with her in that backyard.

Best regards

Chris

[Bridewell]

Hi Magpie. I'm not doubting Smith's veracity on the passing of polished coins, I'm questioning whether any coins were found in Hanbury Street. Smith actually put the coins in Chapman's pockets. I could totally see them keeping such a thing out of the inquest. Every Ripper inquest holds back important info. But why on earth would they leave it out of the internal police reports?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The police reports don't mention any "polished farthings", but the press do. The only possibilities, as I see them are:

The press knew about them, but the police didn't (highly improbable)

The press invented them (quite likely, but by no means certain)

They existed, but the information was (as you suggest may have been the case) withheld at the inquest. The press found out from an unofficial source.
This last scenario raises your question of why the information would be held back in internal police correspondence. Those who needed to know could be informed orally; those who didn't could be kept out of the loop. If it's not on paper it can't be seen by prying eyes.

This leaves the question of why this particular piece of information would be kept back. What if the items alluded were not, in fact "polished", but "Polish"
coins? If it was thought that the killer had unwittingly dropped Polish coins, it would be eminently sensible to withhold the fact, not only because of the likelihood that Poles would be attacked in the street, but also because it would be sensible not to alert the murderer to his error, while discreet enquiries were made. We have (from memory so I apologise if I am in error here) MacNaghten, Anderson & Swanson all making subsequent reference to a suspected "Polish Jew" & both Kosminski & Chapman / Klosowski come under that heading. If the press got hold of the wrong end of the stick and published "polished" instead of "Polish" there could be no correction of the error without revealing its nature, which would be self-defeating. Pure speculation on my part, I know, and I don't say this is how it was, merely that it is how it may have been.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bridewell,

Just for the record, I was not suggesting the coins were there and withheld at the inquest. I stated that it's a demonstrable fact that evidence was withheld at the various WM inquests, so one might argue that. But unless someone can produce an argument for why mention of the coins are missing from all the surviving files, we should conclude there were no coins found with Chapman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

...I don't think of course that if there were any farthings there was any definite proof they came from her killer, but the fact that she went out looking for her doss money and had the two polished farthings in her pocket might imply he gave them to her, maybe to buy time with her in that backyard.

So, if her killer gave her two farthings, what did he think that would buy, ...a kiss for two farthings?



(Psst, and the author was Jewish)