A Farthing For Your Thoughts

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Reporting the murder of Annie Chapman, the Star [among other newspapers] reported 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."

The jury is still out on whether the story was true or not, but at a time when a half gold sovereign equalled 10 shillings [the equivalent of 30 night's lodgings or a similar number of glasses of gin], why would anyone in search of a knee trembler try to pass off such a high denomination coin on a local dollymop when sixpence or, at most, a shilling would have done the trick? And don't let's forget that according to the story Chapman had more than one such coin on or about her person, which makes her something of dumb sucker.

No official report included the finding of polished farthings, which appears to render the story as a legend. If this is indeed the case, let us consider another aspect of the back yard at 29 Hanbury Street.

Contained in the Scotland Yard files on the Annie Chapman murder are the following notes, reports and testimony from—

Inspector Joseph Chandler, [J Division] 8th September 1888
John West, Acting Superintendent [H Division] 8th September 1888.
Frederick George Abberline, Inspector [Scotland Yard] 12th September 1888
John Styles, Detective Inspector [J Division] 12th September 1888
George Bagster Philips, Divisional Surgeon [H Division] 13th September 1888 [inquest]
William Thick, Sergeant [H Division] 17th September 1888
Joseph Helson, Inspector [J Division] 19th September 1888
Donald Swanson, Chief Inspector [Scotland Yard] 19th October 1888

Seven Metropolitan Police officers and one Divisional Surgeon, all reporting on the Chapman murder, yet not one of them mentioned the discovery of a leather apron found under a tap in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. And given the Leather Apron publicity generated over the previous week this surely must have been a clue as big as the Ritz.

If the farthings were fictitious, was also the leather apron?

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Dear Simon:

Amigo, before I respond to this thread, thanks for reminding me that I saw an article that mentioned three rings before. I need to go find that.

I'll be back....and thanks very much for starting the thread.

Simon, I meant rings,not coins. Sorry.

[How Brown]

Simon:

On the second day of the Chapman Inquest, Amelia Richardson was the person who mentioned the apron and that her son ( John ) used it for his work. She claimed to have washed it on Thursday ( Sept. 6th ).

The police were aware of the apron. It was then confiscated, but I do not know whether they gave it back to her without me checking the literature a little further.

May I ask whether you consider Mrs. Richardson's testimony as also being dubious, since she acknowledged the apron and the ownership ( A Richardson owned it ) at the Inquest ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

I am merely questioning why the apron wasn't mentioned in the press until the second day of the inquest [12th September], and also why it wasn't mentioned at all in any official reports, especially that of Chief Inspector Donald Swanson [Warren's eyes and ears] a month and a half later on 19th October 1888.

The farthings have been dismissed partly because they didn't appear in any police reports. Applying the same criteria, why shouldn't we dismiss the presence of the leather apron?

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Dear Simon:

In reference to the apron, would it not be likely that since ownership had been ( apparently ) satisfactorily explained at the Chapman Inquest, that there was no need...or rather...no mystery to it after Mrs. Richardson vouched for it ? To me, at least, its rather clear that there was a leather apron and all issues or concerns were resolved. It was owned by a Richardson.

I don't understand why the absence of documentation in any police files regarding coins or farthings somehow makes the presence of the apron questionable even if it, the apron, was not mentioned ( as explained or at least I tried to explain my view) in the files of attending officers and Inspectors.

Anyone else ?