Annie's rings

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

Have to agree with Gareth there, I think you summed things up very well there Mark.

Hi again Lovejoy,

There isn't really anything to add to Mark's post as that's probably the most sense you'll ever hear on this board.

I've been heavily into studying Jack for 45 years now and I'm still none the wiser. You learn a lot of facts and see a lot of theories over the years, but none of them really get us any closer to finding out who Jack was, they just tell us more about the era, the people involved and give us ideas to discuss.

In all probability it is impossible to actually prove anyone to be Jack the Ripper at this late date, because whatever 'evidence' people come us with, it will almost certainly be impossible to show that it is concrete proof.

And just on the subject of the rings to bring this back on track. Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, or at least given from a certain point of view and all we can do is to try to fit the different versions together to make sense of it. The case of the rings is a good example of this, because Eliza gives one version and Stanley a slight variation. No-one can say which is correct, but one researcher may consider Eliza to be more reliable and another Stanley to be closer. That's why it's so impossible to be certain of anything in this case. I doubt if any two witnesses give the same story anywhere.

Even if two or three brass rings were found amongst any suspects possessions, it would be totally impossible to prove that they belonged to Anne. Even if they had 'These rings belong to Annie Chapman' engraved inside them (unlikely ) it couldn't be proved that they were not faked.

But welcome to the boards anyway, and have fun getting as confused as the rest of us. Lol.

Hugs


Jane

xxxx

[Shelley]

Yes, there is a difference with witnesses who said two rings, than another said three rings, and they appear to have disappeared when Chapman's body was found. However if the rings were taken as valueable items, they wouldn't be classed as a ' trophy '. If the rings couldn't be found by pawnbrokers etc from some enquiries, this doesn't mean they couldn't have slipped by, in the event of these types of rings Annie wore were commonplace. However, if this could be traced with certainty that the rings had gone missing and were not at all found through pawnbrokers etc, this would be possibly a trophy taking, but this is different in nature to trophy taking of body parts. Jane is right, that even though if it was found that these rings were with a suspect, it wouldn't neccessarily mean that this indeed would have been JTR, as rings get passed around from one to another & can be privatley sold from one hand to another.It is more likely that a body part belonging to a victim that would point to maybe the right suspect.

[Archaic]

Hi, guys. As an Antique Dealer, I have to say that brass rings from the mid-1800's-early 1900's are exceedingly common; they turn up regularly in dusty old jewelry boxes, Estate Liquidations, etc.

Because they are of low value, often badly dented & tarnished, and almost always too small for modern fingers to wear except as "pinkie" rings, they are frequently tossed in the trash or scrapped. Go to any Flea Mkt and I bet you can pick one up for $3 -$5. For a few bucks more you can find an engraved 10K Gold Wedding Band! A cheap 19th C. brass ring is unlikely to have been engraved, and even if it was, "AC" probably wouldn't mean much to whoever picked it up.

I happen to like battered old things, especially when I know their origins, but most people are more "practical" and out they go! Despite being a dealer, I suffer agonies at Estate Sales, when people who actually KNOW it was their Great-Grandmother's ring or cameo pin let it go for a couple of bucks.
I often try to talk them out of it... occasionally they listen. (Sigh.)

[lovejoy]

antique dealer

hi thanks for your input , it was factual information and helpfull , the rings i agree are not concrete evidence but are defitinitely another small piece , and when loads of small pieces appear together, you get even without dna etc, a big pointer , i take for instance the case of peter sutcliffe , the yorkshire ripper,imagine he wasnt ever convicted and just stopped before last attack when caught , the scenario would be similar now to jtr with tyr .And when you **** through what was know to police upto the point of his arrest , the pointers were there , also people would still say it wasnt him also, based on alibis his wife gave him. so we should bear it in mind when trying to solve this jtr case just a point lol.too many people on here try to think too logically and because they arent serial killers cannot try to think like one . although they try to be clever , they arent logical always , another point which is true, the rings were stolen ,probable as gold ,but remember he had to be quick so he made a mistake pure and simple , no why did he take them when they are worthless, or trophies etc he stole from victims thats a fact, and also my opinion thank you martin

[Brenda]

I've often wondered about Catherine Eddowes' infamous "tin matchbox empty" and whether she had something in there that the Ripper might have taken.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Like I said in another thread, if you read the inquest, there are no mentions of the rings, missing or present, before the body is at the "morgue". And it's a workhouse facility, not a real morgue, and when the doctor arrived to practice the autopsy, the body had already been stripped and washed. A police officer was there, but by the way he answers the question, you can tell he wasn't really paying attention to the body attending Chapman's corpse.


I think it's quite possible that the rings went missing after the body was found, and Chapman's murderer has nothing to do with it. That's my angle so far.

[Amanda]

No offence...

hi thanks for your input , it was factual information and helpfull , the rings i agree are not concrete evidence but are defitinitely another small piece , and when loads of small pieces appear together, you get even without dna etc, a big pointer , i take for instance the case of peter sutcliffe , the yorkshire ripper,imagine he wasnt ever convicted and just stopped before last attack when caught , the scenario would be similar now to jtr with tyr .And when you **** through what was know to police upto the point of his arrest , the pointers were there , also people would still say it wasnt him also, based on alibis his wife gave him. so we should bear it in mind when trying to solve this jtr case just a point lol.too many people on here try to think too logically and because they arent serial killers cannot try to think like one . although they try to be clever , they arent logical always , another point which is true, the rings were stolen ,probable as gold ,but remember he had to be quick so he made a mistake pure and simple , no why did he take them when they are worthless, or trophies etc he stole from victims thats a fact, and also my opinion thank you martin

Hi Lovejoy,
No offence intended here but I'm having difficulty reading your posts. I'm going to risk sounding like an ancient schoolteacher now but....

Could you pop in some capital letters in the appropriate places please & perhaps leave a one line space between each idea?
Would be so much easier to follow.... Interesting topic though..

Amanda

[GUT]

Hi Lovejoy,
No offence intended here but I'm having difficulty reading your posts. I'm going to risk sounding like an ancient schoolteacher now but....

Could you pop in some capital letters in the appropriate places please & perhaps leave a one line space between each idea?
Would be so much easier to follow.... Interesting topic though..

Amanda

G'day Amanda

Lovejoy last posted nearly 5 years ago.

[GUT]

In fact until today the last post on this thread was 5 years ago.

[Amanda]

Sorry,

In fact until today the last post on this thread was 5 years ago.

Hi GUT,

Thanks for pointing that out! Feel a bit of a plonker now...

Amanda

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Thanks for pointing that out! Feel a bit of a plonker now...

Amanda

Well don't.

[Michael W Richards]

Hopefully we one day can end contributions that submit Peter Sutcliffes crimes as our model to use when analysing the so-called Ripper murders, or any known, identified, convicted and jailed serial killers.

When if ever its established that ANY Canonical murder was connected to a single killer, then they may be of some use. For the moment its just speculative comparison page filler information.

Cheers

[Batman]

On Nichols was found a comb, broken mirror, and a handkerchief. Was this found beside Nichols or on her?

Chapman seems to be the only one with items laid beside her body that aren't organs. If this is the case, then it seems Chapman's body was looted after she was discovered dead.

[RockySullivan]

On Nichols was found a comb, broken mirror, and a handkerchief. Was this found beside Nichols or on her?

Chapman seems to be the only one with items laid beside her body that aren't organs. If this is the case, then it seems Chapman's body was looted after she was discovered dead.

Another indication that the ripped was thief or a mugger. Whoever broke into the new Scotland Yard was probably a burgurlar. The ripper attacks look like muggings

[lynn cates]

ring of truth

Hello Batman. On her.

"then it seems Chapman's body was looted after she was discovered dead."

Not necessarily. Why could not her assailant have taken them? They were worthless, true; but, why assume a sane man did the deed?

Cheers.
LC