The clue of the coins

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Magpie

Actually, although coining involving store purchases did happen, they were fraught with risk (probably why so many cases ended up in court). However passing polished farthings in a pub or theatre or dogtrack or some other crowded place with a lot of bustling and jostling would have been far more effective.

Yes, I agree.

[Mr Lucky]

Worth noting that C1 and C2 are the ONLY Canonical murders that provide us with witness testimony that the victims were actively soliciting when they met their killer.

We have no evidence for Nichols 'actively soliciting' at all, she was last seen by Emily Holland at 2.30 and found dead at 3.40-45ish.

No one has a clue what she was doing.

Stride - that's a different matter altogether.

[Mr Lucky]

The actual cases involving store purchases are recorded at the Old Bailey, this is why I am saying the deception is based on fact.

The suggestion these coins were given to an Unfortunate (a sum exceeding 20x her usual fee?), is not based on fact, it is press speculation.
I can't prove that some portion of the moon is not made of cheese either, but that does not mean we should consider it likely.
The point being, we should not accept suggestions made by the press and then expect others to prove these suggestions wrong.

The prostitute cannot bring a case against someone for pulling this scam - Therefore there are no records at the Old Bailey. To claim, as you are, that we can conclude no one pulled this scam against a prostitute because there are no records at the old Bailey is a wrong conclusion.

Bringing in more faulty analogies isn't helping either.

The point about it's appearance in the press is that if the contemporary readers of Lloyds accepted this as being feasible, why can't you ?

No, he is relying on police reports.
This is an Inquest not a casual chat in the local pub.

Yes, it's the Mckenzie inquest, that's why his off the cuff remarks about the Chapman crime scene are of no importance, it is hearsay evidence as he wasn't at the Chapman murder scene anyway.

You want me to believe an Inspector was refused access to police paperwork prior to appearing at the Inquest, on what grounds do you think this?

I'm not trying to make you believe anything. You can believe whatever you want.

[Magpie]

Actually, although coining involving store purchases did happen, they were fraught with risk (probably why so many cases ended up in court). However passing polished farthings in a pub or theatre or dogtrack or some other crowded place with a lot of bustling and jostling would have been far more effective.

This would seem to be a pretty decent sideline fork prozzies to diversify their portfolio from strictly venereal services...

[Michael W Richards]

How the coins arrived on the ground near Annie, and the piece of envelope, and the comb, could easily have been a result of the tearing of her skirts inner pocket by the attacker.

The fact that coins were indeed found only serves to remind us that there is zero evidence in any Canonical murder that the murder was initiated or ended with robbery. These were some of the poorest women among the poor. Unless the victim was seen taking money from a client just before they were killed, there would be little chance of them having any money on them, and as we know, 2 of the five women admitted to being without enough money to secure a bed for the night and to having to "work" the streets to get some. That's just 4d for a bed.

Worth noting that C1 and C2 are the ONLY Canonical murders that provide us with witness testimony that the victims were actively soliciting when they met their killer. There is no such evidence for the rest. Of course that fact hasnt stopped a myriad of armchair sleuths from suggesting that they ALL were soliciting on the streets at the time they met their murder. In the last murder, its simply a fact that she was at home in her own bed when she was attacked.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

? The prostitute is not protected by the law, so it doesn't make it to trial so there is no record - that's the point I'm making - so you can't prove me wrong by claiming there is no record

The actual cases involving store purchases are recorded at the Old Bailey, this is why I am saying the deception is based on fact.

The suggestion these coins were given to an Unfortunate (a sum exceeding 20x her usual fee?), is not based on fact, it is press speculation.
I can't prove that some portion of the moon is not made of cheese either, but that does not mean we should consider it likely.
The point being, we should not accept suggestions made by the press and then expect others to prove these suggestions wrong.

That's the whole point, he is relying on newspaper reports...

No, he is relying on police reports.
This is an Inquest not a casual chat in the local pub.

Reid had nothing to do with Chapman's murder as he was on leave.

Being on leave has nothing to do with it.
You want me to believe an Inspector was refused access to police paperwork prior to appearing at the Inquest, on what grounds do you think this?

[Mr Lucky]

I'm not sure what your objection is, the cases are available for all to read on the Old Bailey web site.

? The prostitute is not protected by the law, so it doesn't make it to trial so there is no record - that's the point I'm making - so you can't prove me wrong by claiming there is no record

If you notice, this report combines fact with speculation.
The man apparently did exist, but what is the connection between his activity and the farthings found with Chapman?
That is where the speculation comes in.

Yes, but the 'speculation' part is that there were polished farthings found on Chapman

Then we have:
"In another instance of this kind - the Hanbury-street murder - two similar farthings were found."
Insp. Reid, Inquest testimony on the body of Alice McKenzie.

An Inspector giving evidence at an Inquest is not relying on newspaper speculations, he deals with evidence directly from police sources.

That's the whole point, he is relying on newspaper reports - he must be because that is the source for this information not the police reports, and this actually makes sense as Reid had nothing to do with Chapman's murder as he was on leave. - he would have been reading about it in the paper the same as every one else.

This is the whole point, his understanding of the Chapman crime scene is that of the general publics. The fact he think there were farthing found there is proof of this, its not proof that the farthing were actually there at the chapman murder.

[Wickerman]

The problem with this approach is the shop keeper is a legitimate business, if he is cheated in this way he can complain to the police, ......

I'm not sure what your objection is, the cases are available for all to read on the Old Bailey web site.

Clearly, the readers of Lloyds were expected to accept this so why shouldn't we - "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." - Lloyds 9th Sept 1888

However, the Chapman polished farthing story appears to have its real origins in this story

"the man who gave the woman Emily Walton two brass medals, or bright farthings, as half sovereigns when in a yard of one of the houses in Hanbury street at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, and who then began to ill use the woman. The police attach importance to finding the man, but it is not true that two farthings were found in the dress pocket of the murdered woman, which would have been an important corroboration of Walton's story." - Daily News 11 Sept 1888

If you notice, this report combines fact with speculation.
The man apparently did exist, but what is the connection between his activity and the farthings found with Chapman?
That is where the speculation comes in.

Then we have:
"In another instance of this kind - the Hanbury-street murder - two similar farthings were found."
Insp. Reid, Inquest testimony on the body of Alice McKenzie.

An Inspector giving evidence at an Inquest is not relying on newspaper speculations, he deals with evidence directly from police sources.

[Mr Lucky]

The fact farthings were used in a scam was detailed by Magpie years ago.
Cases exist where this is a known fact, however, the cases involved the purchase of goods, not passing them off to an Unfortunate.
This is where fact has been mixed with fiction.
Half a sovereign was ten shillings, who in their right mind is going to offer that much to one of these women?

The problem with this approach is the shop keeper is a legitimate business, if he is cheated in this way he can complain to the police, magistrates or even write letters to the press, etc - which all leave a trail of evidence. The unfortunate had no recourse to any of this, therefore - no trace remains, but doesn't this mean it never happened ?

Polished farthings were passed off as half sovereigns in corner shops and for goods being purchased but never, as far as we know, offered to Unfortunates as a fee for services.

Clearly, the readers of Lloyds were expected to accept this so why shouldn't we - "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." - Lloyds 9th Sept 1888

However, the Chapman polished farthing story appears to have its real origins in this story

"the man who gave the woman Emily Walton two brass medals, or bright farthings, as half sovereigns when in a yard of one of the houses in Hanbury street at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, and who then began to ill use the woman. The police attach importance to finding the man, but it is not true that two farthings were found in the dress pocket of the murdered woman, which would have been an important corroboration of Walton's story." - Daily News 11 Sept 1888

[Wickerman]

IF, they were polished - yes.
Our only source on that aspect is the press and there they tell us they were polished. So if true, then yes Chapman was more likely passing them off herself rather than being in receipt of them for her services.

[RockySullivan]

If there were polished farthings...it's more likely chapman used them and someone came after her as a revenge rather than a john trying to pay her with him

[Wickerman]

The fact farthings were used in a scam was detailed by Magpie years ago.
Cases exist where this is a known fact, however, the cases involved the purchase of goods, not passing them off to an Unfortunate.
This is where fact has been mixed with fiction.
Half a sovereign was ten shillings, who in their right mind is going to offer that much to one of these women?

Polished farthings were passed off as half sovereigns in corner shops and for goods being purchased but never, as far as we know, offered to Unfortunates as a fee for services.

All we are talking about here is two farthings found in Chapman's pockets, and one farthing found under the body of McKenzie.

[RockySullivan]

The more I learn the less I know. Anyway it's hard to imagine someone with OCD getting their jollies smearing around feces

[Mr Lucky]

It's down to how the words at the inquest are interpreted.

[RockySullivan]

Wait so the coins weren't at the crime scene? Were her other belongings arranged neatly like the comb and envelope