The clue of the coins

[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?

[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

[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...

[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.

[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]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

But I never said that Mr Lucky.
I never said that "no-one pulled this scam against a prostitute because there are no court records".

I said that as far as we know they were never, "offered to Unfortunates as a fee for services".
So, if you can show me where we read that this did in fact happen, then I'll stand corrected.
It could be something as simple as a newspaper story where a prostitute is quoted as making such a complaint, it doesn't need to be the Old Bailey court records.

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 ?

It was a suggestion by the press, that this may have been the cause of the farthing being in her possession.
It was only a suggestion, it wasn't a statement of fact.

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.

Reid was making a comparison with a previous case, not handing out off the cuff remarks.
He was the head of 'H' Div CID, and as such you prefer to believe he chose to refer to newspaper stories because he wasn't be aware of the facts of the case?
C'mon Mr Lucky lets keep this rationale.

[Mr Lucky]

But I never said that Mr Lucky.

Yes you did - it’s all there in post 40 and 44

I never said that "no-one pulled this scam against a prostitute because there are no court records".

No you said it never happen at all - “Cases exist where this is a known fact, however, the cases involved the purchase of goods, not passing them off to an Unfortunate.

So I pointed out that unlike shopkeeper they had no recourse to complaint, at that point you came up with this;- "I'm not sure what your objection is, the cases are available for all to read on the Old Bailey web site" - I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to make, it's not very clear at all.

I said that as far as we know they were never, "offered to Unfortunates as a fee for services".
So, if you can show me where we read that this did in fact happen, then I'll stand corrected.
It could be something as simple as a newspaper story where a prostitute is quoted as making such a complaint, it doesn't need to be the Old Bailey court records.

I’ve already quoted one - Lloyds 9 Sept 1888 - on Hanbury street on the night Chapman was murdered.

Reid was making a comparison with a previous case, not handing out off the cuff remarks.
He was the head of 'H' Div CID, and as such you prefer to believe he chose to refer to newspaper stories because he wasn't be aware of the facts of the case?
C'mon Mr Lucky lets keep this rationale.

Rational? You need to demonstrate that this suggestion can be even considered to be plausible by showing us at least one police report that claims there were farthings at the Chapman murder scene - because I have never seen one.

Reid had nothing to do with the Chapman murder, he hasn’t been asked to attend the Mackenzie inquest to answer questions about Chapman, so there is no reason for him to study the Chapman case at all. If the Inquest wanted to know something about the Chapman murder, then they would simply call someone who was actually there at the time.

[Wickerman]

Yes you did - it’s all there in post 40 and 44

Are we going around in circles here?, I said "never, as far as we know", so please inform me of what we "know" that contests what I said.

I’ve already quoted one - Lloyds 9 Sept 1888 - on Hanbury street on the night Chapman was murdered.

Where? - who complained about being given those polished farthings?
Is there a quote from the victim, do we have a name?

Reid had nothing to do with the Chapman murder, he hasn’t been asked to attend the Mackenzie inquest to answer questions about Chapman, so there is no reason for him to study the Chapman case at all.

You have GOT to be kidding!!
Reid was the head of the H Div CID, his own Inspector, Joseph Chandler, took up the case in Reid's absence.

Reid was the head of the department, what does a department head ALWAYS do when he returns from an absence?
I'll give you a hint - "I want all the files on my desk by 8 a.m."

What does Anderson tell us he did immediately on his return from Europe?

" I spent the day of my return to town, and half the following night, in reinvestigating the whole case..."

Insp. Reid, as head of H Div local CID, will do precisely the same thing.
As head he IS expected to know all about this case REGARDLESS of the fact he was on vacation at the time of the murder.
He does not go out and buy the morning paper to acquaint himself with the murder investigation, he consults the case files - its his job!

We are not talking about someone who missed a football match.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

Where? - who complained about being given those polished farthings?
Is there a quote from the victim, do we have a name?
.

Emily Walton (Walter), two brass medals, or bright farthings, as half sovereigns

[MayBea]

...He does not go out and buy the morning paper to acquaint himself with the murder investigation, he consults the case files - its his job!

We are not talking about someone who missed a football match.

Righto, Wicker! Even a guy who misses a football game will discuss what the papers had to say with the guys. How come no one in the force told him the papers were wrong about the coins? Because they weren't wrong?

Dr. Phillips testified that he found several objects arranged at the scene, including the combs, one or both in a case, and the muslin, and handed them to the police. I doubt they had evidence bags in those days.

I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police.

What were the other items? The letter? And the pills inside?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Emily Walton (Walter), two brass medals, or bright farthings, as half sovereigns

Thankyou Jon, yes I did read that version.
If you notice that on the 11th both the Echo & Daily News included "farthings" in their versions of the story. Yet the day before, on the 10th, the original version only said "medals".

So it might be acceptable to ask if the Daily News added "farthings" to make the story appear more applicable?
Which was then copied by the Echo, but the original version was published by the Evening Standard on the 10th, and reads:

"...The police attach importance to the statement of the woman who had the medals given her as half sovereigns."

No mention of farthings.

[Wickerman]

Righto, Wicker! Even a guy who misses a football game will discuss what the papers had to say with the guys. How come no one in the force told him the papers were wrong about the coins? Because they weren't wrong?

We have a quoted exchange between the Foreman of the Jury & Insp. Reid, at the McKenzie Inquest, in The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, p 78.

Foreman: In previous cases was any similar coin found as that which you picked up in this instance?

Reid: In the Hanbury Street case two farthings were found.

Foreman: Is it possible that the coin was passed off in the dark for a half sovereign?

Reid: I should think for a sixpence...

Baxter: Was there only one case in which a farthing was found?

Reid: The Hanbury Street case is the only one I remember.

The fact Reid calls on his memory suggests to me that he is recollecting a fact, not something he read in a newspaper.
The police were well aware how inaccurate the press often were. Reid is not about to answer the Coroner's question by referring to something he read in the press.

[Mr Lucky]

Are we going around in circles here?, I said "never, as far as we know", so please inform me of what we "know" that contests what I said.

Yes we are and we probably will continue to go round in circles, while you continue to try to conveniently forget what you have said. As I pointed out in my last response it's all there, post 40 onwards, but perhaps its worth repeating it here it is again:-

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.

You have claimed it is fiction - it's there in your post - "fiction", passing fake coins on to a prostitute is a fiction.

You have GOT to be kidding!!
Reid was the head of the H Div CID, his own Inspector, Joseph Chandler, took up the case in Reid's absence.

Reid was the head of the department, what does a department head ALWAYS do when he returns from an absence?
I'll give you a hint - "I want all the files on my desk by 8 a.m."

What does Anderson tell us he did immediately on his return from Europe?

" I spent the day of my return to town, and half the following night, in reinvestigating the whole case..."

Insp. Reid, as head of H Div local CID, will do precisely the same thing.
As head he IS expected to know all about this case REGARDLESS of the fact he was on vacation at the time of the murder.
He does not go out and buy the morning paper to acquaint himself with the murder investigation, he consults the case files - its his job!

This isn't relevant, and you now have Reid reading these reports months before the McKenzie inquest, rather than immediately just before the inquest started you're actually weakening your argument by being realistic, which should tell you something. Additionally, for your explanation to be even considered plausible you need to show us a police report that mentioned the farthings, or someone actually at the crime scene (so don't bring up Reid again) that said they were there. Citing Anderson as model of accuracy is hilarious, btw.

We have a quoted exchange between the Foreman of the Jury & Insp. Reid, at the McKenzie Inquest, in The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, p 78.

Foreman: In previous cases was any similar coin found as that which you picked up in this instance?

Reid: In the Hanbury Street case two farthings were found.

Foreman: Is it possible that the coin was passed off in the dark for a half sovereign?

Reid: I should think for a sixpence...

Baxter: Was there only one case in which a farthing was found?

Reid: The Hanbury Street case is the only one I remember.

The fact Reid calls on his memory suggests to me that he is recollecting a fact, not something he read in a newspaper.
The police were well aware how inaccurate the press often were. Reid is not about to answer the Coroner's question by referring to something he read in the press.

Dear God, What are you babbling about here ? "the fact he calls on his memory" - I mean what's the alternative to him using his memory? an external hard drive?

In short, this is a ripperologist versus reality situation, and it's the usual problem, you have created a hypothetical 'rule' to justify your view of the situation - "The police were well aware how inaccurate the press often were. Reid is not about to answer the Coroner's question by referring to something he read in the press." - total nonsense that you have just imagined into existence - yet we know the information about the farthing is only found in the press , immediately proving your new 'rule' is totally wrong, yet you're apparently unwilling to accept this, and now claim that there were farthings at the Chapman murder scene.

So if this belief is accurate, why don't you produce one of these police reports that mentions the farthings that Reid saw, or some one who was actually there, at the crime at the time, that mentions them.

[MayBea]

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?

Why would Reid mention "six pence" instead of a "sovereign"?