The clue of the coins

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up.


Excellent topic of discussion on this thread




RD

[Wickerman]

Smith also came up with the story some time later that polished farthings were found in the yard near Annie, and, to put it bluntly, he was hardly a model of credibility!

The reliability of a subject cannot be judged by listing those who repeated it.

All that matters here is that the head of the local CID mentioned them in reply to a serious question by the Coroner.

A couple of days after McKenzie was murdered the Daily Telegraph mentioned the farthing found by her body.
In one report they suggest the subject of the farthing may have been 'hushed-up'.

"....underneath the body was found a bloodstained farthing. To this discovery only a vague reference was made in yesterday's issue, as it was considered undesirable to give publicity at that time to the circumstance. The assumption is that this farthing was given to the deceased by her murderer in the same way as similar coins were passed upon the Hanbury-street victim as half-sovereigns, it was believed, for in that instance they had been brightly polished."
Daily Telegraph, July 19 1889.

The reason the Hanbury St. farthings were not mentioned at the inquest may have been due to the same reason. Purposely withheld by police.

It's just strange that the story of the coins is found in newspaper reports but not in any official police reports that we know of.

No police reports have survived.

[Rosella]

Smith also came up with the story some time later that polished farthings were found in the yard near Annie, and, to put it bluntly, he was hardly a model of credibility! It's just strange that the story of the coins is found in newspaper reports but not in any official police reports that we know of.

[Wickerman]

Reid was on leave at the time of the Chapman murder and perhaps the tales of scams with polished farthings got muddled up with newspaper reports in his memory by the time he stated at another murder inquiry in 1889 that coins had been found near Annie Chapman.

So Det. Insp. Reid was muddled between Whitechapel murder files and newspaper speculations?
If such were true, it's time he quit...

[Rosella]

Annie Chapman wore two or more brass rings on the ring finger of her left hand. When her body was found these rings were missing, maybe taken by her killer. The Pall Mall Gazette printed an assertion on the day of her murder that her rings were laid at her feet.

The following Monday the Daily Telegraph (probably wanting to go one better) carried a report that '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.'

IF there were any coins lying about in the yard, and I don't think there were, then they very likely came from Annie's inner pocket. However, if her killer took brass rings from her fingers surely he'd scoop up the contents of her pocket too.

Reid was on leave at the time of the Chapman murder and perhaps the tales of scams with polished farthings got muddled up with newspaper reports in his memory by the time he stated at another murder inquiry in 1889 that coins had been found near Annie Chapman.

[Wickerman]

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?

I think it is fair to say that most people expect a police report to be exhaustive, and list everything.

The problem with this is, no such police report has survived. What we have is a report by Abberline on the murder where nothing found by the body was itemized. Likewise, a report by Insp. Chandler with the same problem, nothing is itemized.
There is one report, f. 146, where specifics are to be listed, and all we read concerning items found is:
"On person portion of an envelope stamped “Sussex Regiment” dated 23rd Augst. 1888"

The fact the envelope was not found "on her person" but in the yard only serves to illustrate that even notes made by police cannot be relied on entirely.

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

I would say 'experience', apparently Reid also thinks the idea a sovereign would be given to an Unfortunate for her 'fee' is also ridiculous.

It is strange that both Dr. Phillips and Insp. Chandler claim to have found the same items;
Chandler - a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case.
Phillips - a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case
But Phillips adds, "I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police."
(as you noted)

The existence of these farthings at the Chapman murder has been a contentious issue for a long time - there is no clear and certain 'proof' either way.
The difficulties appear to be threefold.
- If they did exist it is difficult to explain why they are not mentioned at the inquest.
- If they didn't exist, it is also difficult to explain why the rumor began in the first place.
- Also, if they didn't exist it is more difficult to explain why Det. Insp. Reid recalls them actually existing.

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.