The clue of the coins

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi donpayasos

Personally, I have never come across any press statements that money was found on or near Nichols.

If you have managed to find a press article that did mention this, particularly pre- Chapman murder, then that would be a very significant find, as far as an attempt to understand the contemporary narrative goes.

For those who don't know, Mr. Lucky has studied more Nichols press reports than most of us. If he hasn't seen it, it ain't there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

Sorry, not to hand.

the Ripperologist issue is #78 for anyone interested

[MayBea]

Magpie,

Do you have anything written prior to the Diary book?

This is from Mindhunter published in 1995, so likely written before, with the research coming from John Douglas' work on his 1988 report and appearance on TV.

Two farthing coins were also near the body, though this detail was kept secret by the police to help qualify suspects.

- See more at: http://books.simonandschuster.com/Ca....HvhtmZoi.dpuf

[Magpie]

There's an article in Ripperologist a couple of years back called "A Tale of Two Farthings" that might shed some light.

[Wickerman]

Hello Don. Thanks.

Yes, those stories are not true. I think the rumour had them as two farthings?

Stewart Evans debunked that nonsense in "The Ultimate."

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Do you have a page number for that?

I would also be interested in how Insp. Reid's recollections are explained away.

[MayBea]

1) The whole point of this is that the reference to coins appeared BEFORE the Chapman murder, so could not have been influenced by reports of coins at that crime scene (which I now understand were false).

It does seem that you must have been thinking of the 'rings' from the Times of September 4.

Regarding the "legendary" coins of the Chapman scene though, I still see no reason to believe that two farthings were definitely not arranged near Chapman's body.

The Evening Standard reported a list of her possessions, the same day but prior to the Chapman inquest, which included "a handkerchief, two small combs, two polished farthings, and an envelope stamped "the Sussex Regiment."

Did they get everything right except for the coins?

[Mr Lucky]

Might not have been coins, might have been rings or other belongings.

Nichols possessions

general reports - comb and a broken mirror
some other reports (Neil's testimony) - pocket handkerchief
Echo - soap

There were also some early reports that had claimed that she had been robbed of her rings, these were latter denied.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Donpayasos

I feel you may need a bit of a better explanation, basically the Times is the paper that has been used most as a press source for these murders, I would even say that some accounts only seem to use the Times as a source - so of all of the papers connected to the murders this would be the one most often studied.

So your claims about the coins at the Nichols murder, a very startling claim in ripper terms, is something that is so shocking that someone would have likely noted this before (or so we all think)

This leads me to ask
Are you sure that it was the Times?
Are you sure that it was between the Nichols/Chapman murders?

[Donpayasos]

Donp., could it be that:
1. you're thinking of the reported incident, on Hanbury St. the same morning as the Chapman murder, involving a rough client and two shiny coins made to look like sovereigns? (There was another similar report for the Thursday night prior to the double event.)
or
2. you're mistaking Nichols and nickels?!
or
3. you're thinking of the Times article about the MacKenzie Inquest where Inspector Reid 'recollects' two coins at the Chapman scene?

1) The whole point of this is that the reference to coins appeared BEFORE the Chapman murder, so could not have been influenced by reports of coins at that crime scene (which I now understand were false).

2) Haha

3) Again, this was aNichols murder, appearing before the Chapman murder.

Might not have been coins, might have been rings or other belongings.

I don't see it in the Times pieces collected here, but I would rather be looking at scans of the original papers rather than edited bits. It's possible someone missed something.

[MayBea]

Donp., could it be that:
1. you're thinking of the reported incident, on Hanbury St. the same morning as the Chapman murder, involving a rough client and two shiny coins made to look like sovereigns? (There was another similar report for the Thursday night prior to the double event.)
or
2. you're mistaking Nichols and nickels?!
or
3. you're thinking of the Times article about the MacKenzie Inquest where Inspector Reid 'recollects' two coins at the Chapman scene?

[lynn cates]

ultimately debunked

Hello Don. Thanks.

Yes, those stories are not true. I think the rumour had them as two farthings?

Stewart Evans debunked that nonsense in "The Ultimate."

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

I'd still like someone to check The Times.

Here you go. Let us know if you find it.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/

[Donpayasos]

That's interesting -- are you saying that the stories about coins being found beside Annie Chapman were untrue? If so, an oft-reported canard (I find it in my old JTR A-Z stated as "almost certainly") At any rate, a small heap of the contents of her pockets, yes?

I suppose it's possible that items lying BESIDE the body wouldn't be listed as being found on the victims, but you'd expect them to be recorded alright.

I'd still like someone to check The Times.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Don. Welcome to the boards.

All the evidential reports agree that no money was found on the victims.

Cheers.
LC

[Donpayasos]

That's what *I* thought. Now we just need someone to check the online Times database - -preferably someone who has already paid for access!

It shouldn't take too long tocheck Ripper-related articles between the times of the 1st and 2nd murders. I wish I'd kept a proper note of the exact date of the article.