|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 1:19 pm: |       |
The so-called “Diary of Jack the Ripper”, purportedly written by James Maybrick contains the following curious sort of rhyme:
“One ring, two rings,
A farthing, one and two,
Along with M ha ha
Will catch clever Jim
its true.
No pill, left but two
So what's that all about then? It's actually quite simple but clever. Solution/interpretation to be posted soon. Obviously the author is excluded from having a go, dead or alive! (they are actually dead).
(Clue: the author liked 'funny little games')
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 594
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
This is obviously in reference to the items found by Annie Chapman's body.
It is quite clever and it does make you think that the author of the diary either wrote it in the 1980's after all the facts of the case became public knowledge or much earlier which must mean that he had inside knowledge, e.g. a policeman.
Sarah |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
There is nothing too clever in the 'apparent' lines of the prose when taken at face value. To solve this puzzle you have to look a little deeper. Look thru' the trees, and you will see the wood. I'll be back at the PC on 10th Feb and will propose a possible solution. The pills, farthings and rings meant something to this author - whether he placed them there or not, who knows? |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
All this was around the remains of Annie Chapman but the clues have been talked about so often it's no big shocker the person who wrote this text used these well known facts.
“One ring, two rings, (Well known fact about the rings taken)
A farthing, one and two, (Also a well known fact)
Along with M ha ha (Yet another known fact)
Will catch clever Jim (A play of words from the JTR letters)
its true.
No pill, left but two (Also a well known fact)
The text I believe is a hoax but I still think James Maybrick is still a pretty good JTR suspect. However, anyone who knows anything about the clues could have jotted this down. Heck if I found some old paper from that era I could write all sorts of clues to point to Oscar Wilde or whoever. * And no Oscar Wilde is NOT a suspect! *}}
This text shines no real light on the JTR crimes of 1888. I know I'm not alone in saying this text is just a hoax once you read it a few times you can find all sorts of clues that it is a hoax. I believe it was writen by a bored American with nothing better to do. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 3:18 am: | |
As discussed on the "Maybrick as the Ripper board", neither the farthings nor the rings were found at the scene of the crime, though they are reported as having been in a number of secondary sources. Another strong indication that the diary is a hoax.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
Hi Chris.
I know I said I wouldn't get myself into this one, but I can't help myself.
I think I genuinely may have missed something here.
The diarist appears to me to be saying that it was he who left the coins at Chapman's crime scene, or maybe had just given them to her as her fee prior to the murder. He makes a comment about the fact that she wasn't worth it. The other items found would appear to have been her own possessions.
The press mentioned the coins the same day, but later the story became elaborated.
If we are to believe that the Farthings were a press canard, then we also have to disbelieve Inspector Reid's testimony at the McKenzie inquest.
I know he isn't the most reliable of sources, and seemed to be inflated by his own self importance, but has it been definitely ascertained that he was making it up? It is likely I know that he didn't visit Chapman's crime scene himself on the day, but it must have come from somewhere surely?
For what it's worth, the A-Z says of the items found at the scene, "....and almost certainly two farthings, which may have been brightly polished."
The other thing that occured to me was that the items found, including the farthings were said to appear to have been deliberately "arranged". If the farthings weren't there I think it would be impossible to make just two combs look "arranged".
If it has been definitely proven that the coins weren't there then I think it would have dealt the diary a fatal blow by now.
Just a thought
Paul
|
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Tiddley
I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but are you saying that the rhyme itself contains clues to the actual authors identity, and I don't mean James Maybrick.
I have often wondered that if this diary is a hoax, whether or not the author would have been able to resist leaving little clues in it.
I am open minded about the diary but I can't help but think the "funny little rhymes" seem to be just included as a way of adding seemingly known facts about the murders into the text.
One line in a rhyme in the diary that just doesn't ring true for me is "But I could still smell her sweet scented breath"
obviously refering to Elizabeth strides murder, but why did the author mention her breath? ..because cashous were found in her left hand ( breath sweetners ) and it was a much more subtle way of hinting about this fact than just listing it.. but it's just TOO subtle, did the author ever mention the other victims' breath, most of his victims had been drinking before their murder and although their breath probably stank of alcohol it's never mentioned in the diary! Liz's breath is only mentioned because it points to something at the scene.
and why are there no 'rhymes' for the murders in Manchester or Mary Ann Nichols murder? is it because the Manchester murders were added just for effect and there was nothing to reference them against, and at the Mary Ann Nichols murder there was nothing reportedly found at the scene, therefore nothing was mentioned in the diary, but surely the ripper would have noted some other facts about Mary in his diary to make a rhyme up about!
These are just a couple of the niggles I have, but I am open minded about the diary....I think!
Debra |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 6:19 pm: | |
Thanks to those replying on this post.
The following is only a proposed interpretation to the intriguing doggerel of “One ring, two rings...”.
I am a little reluctant to post this interpretation as it could, on the one hand give a solution to the great pretenders who may allude to having created the ‘hoax’ that is the diary, though this is unlikely as the diary I believe is genuine. I would hope that this will, at least, instil in some, the idea of looking at things a bit more closely instead of taking things at face value, there are plenty more ‘clues’ out there.
Remember that there is a lot of information out there from 1888, much of it distorted, much of it misinformation. This is unavoidable after a time of over 115 years. An earlier poster stated that he believed the diary to be a hoax for ‘secondary’ reasons. I believe the diary has provenance for secondary reasons. The beauty of the diary is that it is undeniably there and its contents cannot be altered in time. In any event I believe that the diarist knows best.
Immediately after the doggerel, the diarist states “...Am I not indeed a clever fellow it makes me laugh they will never understand why I did so..”.
Why should some apparently poor nonsensical piece of writing cause the writer to believe he is a clever fellow? Why will we never understand why he did so?
He was indeed a clever fellow though maybe now we can understand why he did so.
The doggerel is in fact a trail from the murders to the killers house! We have to decide where the rings, pills and farthings came into the picture. Taken at face value, the poem appears to be referring to the aforementioned items which were well publicised in the newspapers of the day.
However, considered metaphorically, the verse can equally be considered as containing a series of cryptic clues, the solutions to which reveal a trail leading from the scene of crime to the perpetrator’s home address.
The suggested interpretations are as follows:-
“One ring, two rings,……” A reference to the two letters “O” in the names and London.
“A farthing, one and two..” A reference to the quote “It is a far far better thing I do than I have ever done” from “A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens (1859).
N.B. The sentence contains the first syllable of “farthing” twice consecutively quickly followed by the word “thing” once. i.e “far far” (two) and “thing” (one). The book title A Tale of Two Cities reinforces the solution to the first cryptic statement.
“Along with M ha ha…” Manchester, where the train connection was made between Liverpool and London. The idea of “making connections” alludes to the associative idea of “trains of thought” – thus ha ha. A considered alternative would of course be Micheal (“the clever brother”). Could he catch clever Jim?
The final line leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the prose. Initially it was thought “how there could be two pills left if there were no pills left?”. You only have to see the vital comma that effectively makes the line into two separate clues.
“No pill,….” A cryptic clue which demands an alternative name for a pill --- such as “Tablet” –an anagram of “”.
“Left but two” Refer to the initial letters of each word (those to the “left”) except in the case of the word “two”, where instead,} refer to the second letter as implied by the meaning of the word “two”.
The result is L. B. W. – “leg before wicket”, a default in the game of cricket which occurs on the “crease” and results in the batsman being declared “out”.
And so we have a possible trail:
LONDON – MANCHESTER – LIVERPOOL – BATTLECREASE (Clever Jim!)
And this is only one of his ‘funny little games’!
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
I'll submit again as missed out 'Liverpool' at start of interpretation and managed to turn half of it red? Thanks to those replying on this post.
The following is only a proposed interpretation to the intriguing doggerel of “One ring, two rings...”.
I am reluctant to post this interpretation as it could, on the one hand give a solution to the great pretenders who may allude to having created the ‘hoax’ that is the diary, though this is unlikely as the diary I believe is genuine. I would hope that this will instil in some the idea of looking at things a bit more closely instead of taking things at face value, there are plenty more ‘clues’ out there.
Remember that there is a lot of information out there from 1888, much of it distorted, much of it misinformation. This is unavoidable after a time of over 115 years. An earlier poster stated that he believed the diary to be a hoax for ‘secondary’ reasons. I believe the diary to have provenance for secondary reasons. The beauty of the diary is that it is undeniably there and its contents cannot be altered in time. In any event I believe that the diarist Maybrick knows best.
Immediately after the doggerel, the diarist states “...Am I not indeed a clever fellow it makes me laugh they will never understand why I did so..”.
Why should some apparently poor nonsensical piece of writing cause the writer to believe he is a clever fellow? Why will we never understand why he did so?
He was indeed a clever fellow though maybe now we can understand why he did so.
The doggerel is in fact a trail from the murders to the killers house! We have to decide where the rings, pills and farthings came into the picture. Taken at face value, the poem appears to be referring to the aforementioned items which were well publicised in the newspapers of the day.
However, considered metaphorically, the verse can equally be considered as containing a series of cryptic clues, the solutions to which reveal a trail leading from the scene of crime to the perpetrator’s home address.
The suggested interpretations are as follows:-
“One ring, two rings,……” A reference to the two letters “O” in the names Liverpool and London.
“A farthing, one and two..” A reference to the quote “It is a far far better thing I do than I have ever done” from “A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens (1859).
N.B. The sentence contains the first syllable of “farthing” twice consecutively quickly followed by the word “thing” once. i.e “far far” (two) and “thing” (one). The book title A Tale of Two Cities reinforces the solution to the first cryptic statement.
“Along with M ha ha…” Manchester, where the train connection was made between Liverpool and London. The idea of “making connections” alludes to the associative idea of “trains of thought” – thus ha ha. A considered alternative would of course be Micheal (“the clever brother”). Could he catch clever Jim?
The final line leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the prose. Initially it was thought “how there could be two pills left if there were no pills left?”. You only have to see the vital comma that effectively makes the line into two separate clues.
“No pill,….” A cryptic clue which demands an alternative name for a pill --- such as “Tablet” – an anagram of “Battle”.
“Left but two” Refer to the initial letters of each word (those to the “left”) except in the case of the word “two”, where instead, refer to the second letter as implied by the meaning of the word “two”.
The result is L. B. W. – “leg before wicket”, a default in the game of cricket which occurs on the “crease” and results in the batsman being declared “out”.
And so we have a possible trail:
LONDON – MANCHESTER – LIVERPOOL – BATTLECREASE (Clever Jim!)
And this is only one of his ‘funny little games’!
|
Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Hi Tiddley Boyar,
With respect,even if the author of the diary did in fact encrypt this information into the rhyme,it proves absolutely nothing.Least off all his or her identity.
With a little time and the benefit of some crossword solving skills,one could "Decode" all sorts of "Hidden" messages.
For instance I could be working on the theory that lyricist W.S Gilbert played a part in the murders.
I could tell you that it is quite obvious that the Operetta "H.M.S. Pinafore" was a coded message alluding to the murder of Catherine Eddowes.
Yes the "H.M.S" stands for HOMICIDE.MITRE.SQUARE.
As for the pinafore...well do I really have to explain?
Edgar |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 11:52 pm: | |
G'day,
At Chapman's inquest it was found that Dr. George Bagster Phillips found in the yard: 'a small piece of coarse muslin and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman near the paling; and they apparently had been placed there in order or arranged there.' ('Ultimate Companion').
I feel that the diarist was referring to Annies two missing rings as a 'clue' that the stupid fools would never solve. (missing rings / broken marriage). But this does not prove that the diarist was the Ripper, just that he made a clever association.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
G'day,
The paper case containing the comb was the piece of envelope that Annie picked up from the lodging house floor to carry her pills in. If the pills were gone, how did the diarist know what the envelope was used for? She could have carried it just to keep her comb in.
LEANNE |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
From the Daily Telegraph report of Inspector Chandler's inquest testimony:
After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills.
So the comb case was separate from the envelope. Also, the pills were still in the portion of envelope, so to believe in the diary's authenticity, we should have to believe that Maybrick was neat enough to leave the pills inside after examining them.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
Edgar
Very good! What might he have done with Ruddigore I wonder?
Leanne
You are right I’m sure. The diarist makes it clear he removed the rings as they reminded him of Florrie.
To get back to the purpose of this thread for a minute if I may, which was to explore if the diarist made a mistake in his funny little rhyme.
THE RINGS
Can someone tell me why this rhyme gets it wrong? The rings don’t seem to be a problem, as the diarist agrees with the historic record 100%. He tells us he took them himself, so they wouldn’t have been found at the scene would they? Police reports confirm that the rings had been wrenched off leaving a mark.
THE COINS
There is an inference here that the farthings were a fantasy dreamed up by the press, and that the diarist using this has got it wrong. If he has, then surely the diary has it’s “smoking gun” at last. But is it as simple as that? Did not Inspector Reid say at the McKenzie inquest that coins had been found, SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND AT THE CHAPMAN MURDER SCENE?
So there is a recorded source for the coins other than the press. Isn’t there?
I’m perplexed!
Have I missed something vital here?
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Paul Stephen
I can't see where the diarist says that he took the rings away from the crime scene. Can you quote what you're referring to?
On the farthings, see my original message in the other thread concerning the testimony at Chapman's own inquest, and the fact that Reid was on leave at the time of Chapman's murder.
The point is that the items mentioned in the diary are precisely the same ones that secondary sources wrongly say were found at the crime scene.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
On the farthings, maybe it's worth collecting some of the evidence relating to them. Most is from the excellent collection of transcripts on this site:
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.
[Daily Telegraph 10 September 1888, reporting on the Chapman murder, quoted by Sugden]
Last night a correspondent furnished us with another strange story of an incident occurring early on Thursday morning, near to the scene of the four murders. He states that early in the morning a woman was sitting sleeping on some steps in one of the houses in Dorset-street, when she was awoke by a man who asked her whether she had any bed to go to, or any money to pay for a lodging. She replied that she had not, upon which he said he had money, and then gave her what
she thought was two half-sovereigns. She went with him down a passage, and when there he seized her by the throat and tried to strangle her. A scuffle ensued between them, in which she screamed and got away. The next morning she found that what he gave her was two farthings machined round the edge like gold coins. She described him as being a man with a dark moustache, and dressed in a rough frieze blue overcoat.
[Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday September 30, 1888]
After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced. The pipe was broken and there was blood on it, and in the bowl was some unburnt tobacco. I also found a bronze farthing underneath the clothes of the deceased. There was also blood on the farthing. ... In another instance of this kind - the Hanbury-street murder - two similar farthings were found.
[The Times, Friday, July 19th, 1889, eid's testimony at Mackenzie's inquest (Sugden cites the Daily Telegraph, same date)]
After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student ; he had been in a lunatic asylum ; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was ; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt.
[Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner (1910)]
Chris Phillips
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 8:08 pm: | |
In addition to the extracts posted by Chris, the Daily Telegraph, 10 Sept. 1888, page 3 also included:
With regard to the bright farthings found on the deceased, a woman has stated that a man accosted her on Saturday morning and gave her two "half-sovereigns," but that, when he became violent, she screamed and he ran off. She discovered afterwards that the "half-sovereigns" were two brass medals. It is said that this woman did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury-street, possibly No. 29, at 2.30 a.m.
And on page 4:
The hapless prostitute butchered on Saturday morning in the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, had in her pocket two bright farthings only - possibly passed off upon her as half-sovereigns - and it is still only a suspicion that her rings of base metal had been wrenched from the fingers.
The Star, 10 Sept. 1888, page 3 also reported:
From the third finger of the left hand rings, it was seen, had been wrenched off, and the hands and arms were much bruised. Deceased wore lace-up boots and striped stockings, two cotton petticoats, and was otherwise respectably, though poorly dressed. In the pockets there were a handkerchief, two small combs, and an envelope with the seal of the Sussex Regiment. 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.
BRIGHT FARTHINGS AND BRASS MEDALS.
With regard to the bright farthings, a woman has stated that a man accosted her on Saturday morning and gave her two “half-sovereigns,” but that, when he became violent, she screamed and he ran off. She discovered afterwards that the “half-sovereigns” were two brass medals. It is said that this woman did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury-street, possibly No. 29, at half-past two a.m. This woman, Emily Walter, a lodger in one of the common lodging-houses of Spitalfields, was asked to describe the man, but her description of him was not considered clear. Still the police determined to follow up the matter, more particularly because the woman states that the man seemed ready to kill her. The woman’s description did not answer the description of the man “Leather Apron,” for whom they have been searching in connection with the murder of Mary Ann Nicholls.
Interestingly – as the paper is sometimes credited with a central role in the development of the rings/farthings myth – the Pall Mall Gazette, 8 Sept. 1888, (Fourth edition) only reported:
The third finger of the left hand bore signs of rings having been wrenched off it, and the hands and arms were considerably bruised. Deceased wore laced-up boots and striped stockings. She wore two cotton petticoats, and was otherwise respectably, though poorly, dressed. Nothing was found in her pockets but a handkerchief and two small combs, besides an envelope bearing the seal of the Sussex regiment.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Alex Chisholm
Thanks for those very interesting extracts.
From what you posted, it looks as though the report attributed by Sugden to the Daily Telegraph actually comes from the Star.
On the Pall Mall Gazette, Sugden does mention a report that appeared the day after the murder, by Oswald Allen of that paper. But in a note, he adds:
Allen's report is known only from Stewart, Jack the Ripper, p. 55. The 8 September 1888 issue of PMG consulted by the present writer did not carry the item but it is possible that it was given in a later edition.
That doesn't sound to me as though Sugden had seen the item you quoted from the 4th edition, so perhaps Stewart quoted this inaccurately.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:52 am: | |
It's interesting that none of these sources says that the farthings were found on the ground - the version that passed into later mythology (but is clearly contradicted by the testimony at the inquest).
On the contrary, the Daily Telegraph and Smith's memoirs say that they were found in her pocket. This is also directly contradicted by Chandler's evidence at the inquest:
I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long black one, which came down to the knees - had bloodstains round the neck, both upon the inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. The jacket was hooked at the top, and buttoned down the front. By the appearance of the garment there did not seem to have been any struggle. A large pocket was worn under the skirt (attached by strings), which I produce. It was torn down the front and also at the side, and it was empty. Deceased wore a black skirt. There was a little blood on the outside. The two petticoats were stained very little; the two bodices were stained with blood round the neck, but they had not been damaged. There was no cut in the clothing at all. The boots were on the feet of deceased. They were old. No part of the clothing was torn. The stockings were not bloodstained.
It's also interesting that the stories about the man passing off farthings as half sovereigns appear as early as the 10th, and refer to the morning of the murder itself. It's easy to imagine how this "scare story" could have been improved by the claim that such farthings had actually been found on the murdered woman.
But it's certainly inconsistent with the evidence at the inquest. It's also clear the story of the farthings was widely known before the inquest, so the suggestion that witnesses were induced to give false testimony to keep it secret is not credible.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Hi Chris P
Thanks for putting your case concerning the rings and the farthings. I have to say I’m still a little perplexed, so perhaps if I explain myself……
The Rings
I never said that the diarist took them from the crime scene, although I do think it’s the most likely possibility.
The diarist says:
“One ring, two rings
Bitch, it took me a while before I could wrench them off. Should have stuffed them down the whore’s throat. I wish to god I could have taken the head. Hated her for wearing them, reminds me too much of the whore. Next time I will select a whore who has none.”
Inspector Abberline’s report says that Annie was wearing two brass rings when she left Crossingham’s, but they were not later found on the body. He comments that there were abrasions on her finger where a ring had aparrently been forcibly removed.
Now what is the problem with that? The most obvious explanation must be that the murderer removed them, although it can’t be positively proven of course. The killer may have taken them away, (the most likely explanation), thrown them down a drain, tossed them over the fence, or any other number of possibilities. It makes no difference. All that we know is that they had been removed, and the diarist claims that he was the one who removed them.
No mistakes by the diarist there!
The Coins
This matter is of great importance to me as a diary sceptic who is looking for something to sway him one way or the other, so I want to be absolutely sure what the perceived problem with the diary is at this point.
The farthings are reported as being present next to Annie’s body by the press on the same day as the murder. They are not mentioned by Bagster Phillips, but Inspector Reid mentions, at McKenzie’s inquest much later on, that the farthing found under her body was similar to those found at Hanbury Street.
I don’t see that Reid being on leave at the time of Annie’s murder would necessarily exclude him from having detailed knowledge of that particular incident. He would have had as much access to the case files as anyone else surely?
Later the press seem to confuse the issue by mixing the story of the farthings at Chapman’s crime scene with the polished farthing story and the whole thing becomes somewhat embellished.
I can’t quite see how the farthing story could have originated if there wasn’t some sort of truth to it, and the papers did report it on the very day of the murder, so there wasn’t a lot of time for rumour to spread and become embroidered as so often happened.
Well that’s how I see it anyway. If I’m wrong, and it can be proven that there were no coins at Annie Chapman’s murder scene, then we have our conclusive piece of evidence to show that the diary is a hoax, and I can go off and apply my mind to something useful instead……..
Regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Paul,
There is probably no way at this point that we can prove that the coins didn't exist. But both people who testified at the inquest regarding the objects on and around her body were in agreement.
Joseph Chandler - "After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills."
George Baxter Phillips - "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."
So it's one of those things that we'll never know for certain, but I think on the whole it's likely that the farthings were a myth.
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
I never said that the diarist took them from the crime scene, although I do think it’s the most likely possibility.
You said, He tells us he took them himself, so they wouldn’t have been found at the scene would they?, and I can't understand what that means if it doesn't imply he took them from the scene.
As I said in my initial message, I wouldn't want to press the point about the rings, though the diary does seem to describe them as a "clue", and thus to imply they were at the crime scene.
The farthings are reported as being present next to Annie’s body by the press on the same day as the murder.
As I've just pointed out, the newspaper reports don't say they were next to her body. Where they are specific, they say they were in her pocket.
They are not mentioned by Bagster Phillips, but Inspector Reid mentions, at McKenzie’s inquest much later on, that the farthing found under her body was similar to those found at Hanbury Street.
It's not so much that they "are not mentioned", as that the evidence of both Chandler and Phillips (which I've quoted in the other thread) would be at the least misleading if the farthings had been found in the yard (which no contemporary source says they were anyway). And Chandler's evidence would be definitely false if they were found in her pocket, as he says it was empty.
Some plausible reason has to be suggested for false evidence being given, if you want to believe in the farthings.
Later the press seem to confuse the issue by mixing the story of the farthings at Chapman’s crime scene with the polished farthing story and the whole thing becomes somewhat embellished.
No. This connection is made in the very first newspaper reports about the farthings.
I can’t quite see how the farthing story could have originated if there wasn’t some sort of truth to it, and the papers did report it on the very day of the murder, so there wasn’t a lot of time for rumour to spread and become embroidered as so often happened.
Actually they reported it two days later.
Really, you have only to compare the reports with each other, and with the inquest testimony, to see how inaccurate they were. By your argument, you would have to believe that the rings were found at the scene (allegedly reported the same day) and a hundred and one other myths that have been put into print about the murders.
I can't help wondering whether anyone would be doubting the inquest evidence if it wasn't for the appearance of the farthings in the diary...
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Dear John H and Chris P
Thanks a lot for the very informative posts and newspaper articles concerning the rings and farthings.
Chris P
Please don’t think I’m arguing. I’m not. More like thinking out aloud, whilst trying to understand how some of this fits with the diary, or not as the case may be! I think I’m asking intelligent questions, and ones that others should be asking too, rather than just accepting the generally accepted facts of the case.
I still can’t see where the diary makes even the slightest slip up with the rings, but it’s probably a minor point which won’t move the discussion either way in any case, so I’m happy to accept that the rings are OK for now.
I have used the A – Z as a sort of bible in the past and maybe that is a dangerous thing to do, as it seems even the most revered experts do get it wrong sometimes.
This is a case in point where the experts disagree.
The A –Z explicitly says that the farthings were reported in the papers that same day. It doesn’t say where, which is unfortunate, but that’s what it says. I wouldn’t know where to start looking to check it out. Messrs Fido, Begg and Skinner also seem to accept the presence of the farthings as a near certainty too.
Following from your posts I have re-read Sugden, and I must confess he does make a powerful argument for the farthings being a canard, and I presume this is where you are coming from.
I still don’t see how they could have been dreamt up out of thin air, but anything’s possible I suppose as I’m rapidly finding out!
Anyway, thanks again for bothering to reply to my questions.
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Paul Stephen
Thanks for your further thoughts.
I don't know why the A-Z gives more credence to the farthings than Sugden. Maybe they were also mentioned by the newspapers on the same day; but is it possible the A-Z authors could have been referring to the alleged report of the rings the same day?
As for the rings themselves, originally I wasn't inclined to press that as a difficulty for the diary, as the diarist doesn't clearly state that they were left at the scene of the crime.
But looking again at the diary, it is striking how the diarist couples the repeated references to "leaving a clue", with lists of rings, farthings, pills and envelope. These are the items that the secondary sources describe as being present in the yard, and in some versions they are said to have been carefully arranged.
To my mind, it seems pretty clear that the diary is saying that the "clue" left refers to all these items (as, indeed, "Tiddley boyar" assumes earlier in this thread).
In that case, the rings are definitely a difficulty, as the inquest testimony makes it clear they were not in the yard, and there is so much discussion about Chapman's rings that they would surely have been mentioned if they had been found.
Chris Phillips
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:22 am: | |
G'day Chris,
'as the diarist doesn't clearly state that they were left at the scene of the crime.'
Could this indicate a forger who was 'playing it safe', by not being clear about what he was referring to as a clue?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 710
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 5:23 am: | |
Leanne,
That's a good point. You think he might have actually said what his clues were throughout the diary. It almost seems that it was written to entertain an audience and keep them guessing but if Maybrick really had written this diary then I shouldn't have thought he was planning on showing it to anyone and so would have written the details in a clearer way.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
There is nothing within the text of the 'Diary' that could have been known to Jack the Ripper only, and is clear to a reader of the Diary.
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on February 23, 2004) |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 6:32 am: | |
G’Day Leanne and Sarah
The author of the diary makes it perfectly clear at the end that he did intend it to be seen after his death, but I do agree that throughout, the diarist is only recording personal thoughts, probably not intended for an audience until the very last. If it was originally intended for an audience, then he would surely have written it differently.
I therefore don’t understand why he should have needed to explain his little clues any more than he did. Why should he need to explain it to himself? It was obviously perfectly clear to the author of the diary what he meant, if not to us!
As for Chris’ comment that “the diarist doesn't clearly state that they were left at the scene of the crime” when referring to the rings, the diarist doesn’t state they were left anywhere, full stop. The clear implication here is that he probably took them away. There was a Police search for them and no evidence exists that they were ever found.
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Hi Paul, All,
Christmas save the whores mole bonnett [sic]
What’s all that about then? Anyone? We wouldn’t know if this crossed out line in the diary is another strange little invention that serves no purpose whatsoever, or whether it could be based on some factual information that has a definite significance for the diarist.
How did a modern forger know to use the term ‘mole bonnet’, for instance? And if they took the detail straight out of a book on Victorian hats, why the spelling mistake?
It’s not weasily explained, and I’m stoatally confused by some of the diarist’s choices of words. It’s just not fur. 
Love,
Caz
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Hi Caz
That one’s a puzzler for sure.
What about the bonnet that Maria Harvey says she left at Miller’s Court? She describes it as a Crepe bonnet. Could they be one and the same? I don’t know a lot about Victorian head wear myself, but if it was fur lined could Maybrick have reasonably described it as a Mole bonnet? Sugden seems to think it may or may not have been burned in the fire.
If JTR did take Kelly’s heart with him, he’d need something to carry it in. I doubt he would want it in his coat pocket or just carry it in his hands. A tad suspicious. A female bonnet would be just the right size, and could be tied together with the strings to make a very neat package.
Is James back at Battlecrease with his trophy, just before Christmas, and trying to decide whether to “save” it or not, as doubts about his deeds start to creep in?
Well why not?
Regards
Paul
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 750
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:57 am: | |
Hi,
sorry to reactivate a maybrick thread but i was just wondering about these farthings and rings. I was wondering about whether or not they existed, I read somewhere that they almost certainly did but know i can't find that reference again!
Help!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Gary Barlow
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Yes, they existed.
Read Paul Feldman's book for proof.
'Nuff Said. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Gary,
when I was younger I used to love your work but the phrase read paul Feldmans book for proof, is not one often heard in ripperology!(no disrespect to Feldy!)
I think I've come to the conclusion they did exist but in that case what's the problem?
Jenni
ps- could it be magic....?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 92
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Well Jenni , it only takes a minute to check... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Simon,
are you sure so sure?
never pretend Simon, I think i picked that up somewhere.
You say it only takes a minute to check, what you going to promise me this time?
well the taxi cab is waiting
whatever i said whatever i did i didn't mean it
Jennifer
ps you gotta be sure enough to wlak on through the night there's a new day on the other side, cos i got hope in my soul -
keep on i keep on walkin' yeah yeah yeah yeah..........
(Message edited by jdpegg on August 26, 2004)
(Message edited by jdpegg on August 26, 2004)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
A million love songs later, and we may still be talking about rings and farthings - if we can't flush out the forgers.
Meanwhile, all I do each night is pray - that my daughter won't be disappointed with her GCSE results.
No need to pray tonight, she just called me but was almost too excited to speak. One A (for Drama) and nine A*s! And for Religious Studies she got one of the top five marks in the country (some 12,000 papers, I think she said).
Love,
Proud Mama Caz  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Wow Caz,
speaking as an x GCSE student (its been a while four years!) I'm pretty well impressed! Congrats in order there I guess she is a happy camper!
Incidentally a great philosopher once said
'If we all stand up for what we believe and maybe live within our possibilities the world would be wild for the dream.........'
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 95
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Excellent results , well done Little Caz ! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
I just thought,
Caz, your daughter should take that and party!
and now back to farthings!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Someone up above actually writes the sentence:
"Read Paul Feldman's book for proof."
This may be the single most ludicrous sentence I have ever seen written on these boards.
It doesn't matter what question it might be addressing, either.
This is the first time all week I have laughed out loud.
Many thanks, mystery dude.
Diary World can now, officially, get no loonier.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
John,
NOT mystery dude GARY BARLOW!!!
I hope its THE GARY BARLOW!!!
From the group Take That, I really do!
Jennifer
'Standing back I can't believe how you've led me on
And judging by the things you say
There's gotta be something wrong '
'you criticize my every move
Look, can't you see I've got nothing to prove'
'And so much is new but something in my life
Remains the same cause
Everything changes but you'
'Cause we're living in a world of fools'
well bored of copying and pasting form that site now!
Anyway two farthings?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
http://www.take-that.co.uk
what next Tony Mortimer asking us to read Patrica Cornwell
or perhaps little Stephen Gately asking us to find the answers in Knight?
Anyway Farthings were they there please?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Hi, Jen et al.
Following is Melvin Harris's cogent analysis in THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH of the reference to the farthings in the Diary at the Chapman murder scene and Paul Feldman's attempt to show that the allusion to the farthings is supported in a police document. Here Harris refers to the books by Feldman (Feld) and Underwood (Und) but those writers' claim that the farthings existed is not supported by any extant official document. Some modern authorities on the case have contended that the farthings story arose because of confusion of the Chapman murder scene with that of Alice "Clay Pipe" McKenzie, although contemporary newspaper reports do mention the farthings, and the editors of A to Z (1991 paperback 1st ed., p. 75) seem to believe the coins existed.
Harris writes:
The Diary lists Annie Chapman's property as: two rings, two farthings and two pills. Feld p41 says this: "Although never previously published, a police report signed by Inspector Abberline...confirms: 'The deceased was in the habit of wearing two brass rings... the finger bore marks of their having been removed by force.' The diarist later continued:... 'one ring,two rings, bitch,it took me a while before I could wrench them off'."
All this impresses Feldman; but all the fakers had to do was to read Und p9 which lists: "...two brass rings (presumably wrenched from the victims fingers) .. .a couple of farthings.. .two medicinal pills..." So, no unpublished police report was needed!
Now, Feldman has to believe in the two farthings, or accept the Diary as a fake. He admits so himself on p42. But those coins never existed; and that is proven by facts excluded by Feldman. Yet Feld p40, sinks to a low level when he invokes fake testimony in order to keep his illusions afloat. He writes (Feld p40):
"Dr Bagster Phillips arrived and, after examining the body, discovered that Chapman's pocket had been cut open and its contents were lying in a neat pile: two combs, a piece of coarse muslin and two farthings. The neatness of them strongly suggested that they were put there with deliberate intent. Indeed, Dr Bagster Phillips stated at the inquest - according to the Daily Telegraph of 14 September 1888 - that they 'had apparently been placed there in order, that is to say arranged there.'
Note well, that the only direct quote from Phillips, in that passage, is spliced in so cunningly, that it seems to offer confirmation of the existence of the two farthings.
Sorry, but Dr Phillips did not discover any farthings, neither did he refer to them in his statements to the inquest. If he had done so, then Feldman would have gleefully quoted his actual words. No one with truth on his side needs to distort recorded history. We are entitled to ask: Just what are you up to Mr Feldman?
[Thus endeth the sermon by the late Mr Harris]
(Message edited by chrisg on August 26, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 840
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
Thanks Chris,
That answered that!
Jennifer
'If we all stand up for what we believe and maybe live within our possibilities the world would be wild for the dream [...] don't turn away,
listen to what I got to say.'
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
Hi, Jen
If we look in the Casebook's press section we can read Dr. George Bagster Phillips's word for word testimony from the Daily Telegraph of 14 September 1888 where Feldman claims to have found Philips's reference to the farthings. In fact the medical man testified:
"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."
No mention of the farthings!
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Ah, thanks for the correction, Jen.
I think we now have a new addition to our popular line of Diary World t-shirts.
This one has our mascot Figment on the front.
And on the back it says, in delightful purple letters:
"Read Paul Feldman's book for proof."
That just about says it all.
In the spirit of lunacy that surrounds us,
--John |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 97
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Devils Advocate mode : 
Philips says ' I also discovered various other articles that I handed to the police '.
Could that include the farthings ? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
John,
glad to assit and interested to learn that THE GARY BARLOw is potentialy a Maybrickite (if it is him!)
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Hi Simon,
'Could that include the farthings ?'
Don't be silly, of course not - that would put a dent in the claim that there couldn't have been any, and that would never do, would it? 
Funny, I thought Gary Barlow was being sarcastic about finding proof in Feldy's book.
But then, that would put a dent in all the delight being taken in calling Take That's song-writer a loony.
And that would never do either, would it?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
PS 'you criticize my every move
Look, can't you see I've got nothing to prove' - I like it. But no, I really don't think they can see it.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Caz,
THE GARY BARLOW or not he sure knows where to find the answers. Yes its amazing what can be learnt from the lyrics of take that songs!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
