Annie's rings

[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.

[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

[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.)

[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.

[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

[Sam Flynn]

Very well - and politely - put, Mark. Excellent post.

[m_w_r]

hi mwr thanks for your input...

Lovejoy -

Fair enough. Here's my perspective.

Anyone who arrives here wishing to "solve the case" normally comes with an agenda. But perhaps you are different. I think, going by what you say so far, that you would agree that suspect-level work ought to begin with the evidence and end with the identity of the suspect. In this field, the most disreputable suspect theorists work the other way around, starting with the suspect and trying to make the evidence fit their man (woman, ape, etc). So an evidence-first approach is to be preferred, from the point of view of historical objectivity, and I understand that this is what you are advocating.

On the other hand, you perhaps ought to have picked up on your journey around the site that there is an extensive historiography of JtR, not all of it created by charlatans or the irresponsible. Much of the work done here, and in books and journals, is done by people with talent, expertise and, in many cases, decades of experience. You are not, therefore, at the start of an investigative process, and many good minds who have preceded you have been unable to "solve the case", even if they have started with the evidence. I wish you luck, but I have to say that I think your chances are limited. You may well also encounter people here who enjoy finding out about the social and historical milieu - the facets of the case which you seem to consider tangential, and which, truthfully, probably cannot end in a solution - but I would be prepared to bet that, in time, you will begin to enjoy these aspects of JtR studies too. Thought about another way, one could argue that any widely-recognised "solution" would not be the end of the case anyway, since, if we come to a point where we are able to answer the question, "Who was Jack the Ripper?", then the obvious corollary is, "Why was Jack the Ripper?"

Regards,

Mark

[lovejoy]

Hi,

I just saw Marks post, so sorry if this duplicates anything he put.

Unfortunately Lovejoy as 'clues' the rings are non-starters. They certainly seem to have disappeared from the crime scene, but that is really all we can say and that isn't much.

It's not even quite certain how many rings Annie wore, as Eliza Cooper seems to have thought there were three and Edward Stanley only remembered two. What we can say is that Annie almost certainly didn't pawn them because they were very cheap brass rings, not worth anything really, and the police interviewed all of the pawnbrokers and came up blank.

It is possible than Annie's killer thought that they were gold, and taken them, but Stanley actually said that they were brass 'by the look of them' which makes it a bit less likely.

A Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department report made on the 19th Sept 1888 (52983)16 is worth looking at:

The deceased was in the habit of wearing two brass rings (a wedding ring and a keeper) these were missing when the body was found and the finger bore marks of their having been removed by force. Special enquiries have been made at all places where they may have been offered for pledge or for sale by a person believing them to be gold, but nothing has resulted therefrom.

So it would seem that the police thought they could have been taken because they were mistaken for gold. The fact that they were worn as a wedding ring and keeper ring on the ring finger might well have added to the illusion that they were gold, but that really doesn't get us very far.

As Mark just pointed out, tales of rings amongst the possessions of suspects have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Really though, the police didn't get anywhere with their enquiries, so as 'clues' are pretty useless, just an interesting aside.

All the best

Jane

xxxx

hi jane thanks for your help if you read my reply too mwr you will understand the importance of the rings but them being plain doesnt help is there anything you can think of along my line of thought is there any descriptionsof what was found at druitts residence after suicide or kosminskis or burys or chapmans after there arrests and kos is incarcerations anything like clothing etc how can i find out these things can anybody join me add to this i dont know everything i have a good will i feel im on a good line here

[lovejoy]

Right, well, according to Eliza Cooper at Chapman's inquest, the murdered woman wore three brass rings on her middle finger of her left hand, although they do not seem to have had any notable or distinguishing features, and, despite police enquiries at local pawnshops, were never seen again, unless you take a certain perspective on Tumblety, which relies more on speculation than it does on hard "evidents", as you put it. So they're probably not the clinching clue you think they might be. In the meantime, a quick glance through your posts so far indicates that you intend to take a fresh approach to the case; but it took someone else to help you identify which victim the rings were taken from, you got deeply confused about the nature, purpose and procedures of the UK census, you have described the work done here as "insignificant", instead perceiving an emphasis on trivia, which would seem to me to be disparaging to an array of expert researchers whose contributions make this site what it is, and you have failed to locate either the shift key or the full stop key on your keyboard. So am I with you? ... um, no. Sorry old chap.

Regards,

Mark

hi mwr thanks for your input my opinion is based on my looking through site im not only one to base that view there are off course not everyone being tarred with same brush my grammer or errors as you judge do not dispute my approach or intentions to find this killer without dna which im assuming from what ive read to be impossible im hoping this is not true notice i said not wrong as im quoting from what ive read soo far and as you are soo experienced you should know there are numerous errors for me to quote as you yourself say three rings and jane coram quotes a second source two do i try to make you riddled with errors and a buffoon no the point with rings is if they were very rare then in deed they could nail a killer in possession as you must agree with the benefit of numerous other facts not used soully in the case you try to make of tumblety its like if you knew the type of gun that killed someone and you found it on a suspect along with descriptions etc then bingo its the next best clues to dna thats my point are there any other leads this way that you know of you got on your high horse i hope you will rethink and join me my passion is for truth my friend not to make enemies

[lovejoy]

hi mwr

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I just saw Marks post, so sorry if this duplicates anything he put.

Unfortunately Lovejoy as 'clues' the rings are non-starters. They certainly seem to have disappeared from the crime scene, but that is really all we can say and that isn't much.

It's not even quite certain how many rings Annie wore, as Eliza Cooper seems to have thought there were three and Edward Stanley only remembered two. What we can say is that Annie almost certainly didn't pawn them because they were very cheap brass rings, not worth anything really, and the police interviewed all of the pawnbrokers and came up blank.

It is possible than Annie's killer thought that they were gold, and taken them, but Stanley actually said that they were brass 'by the look of them' which makes it a bit less likely.

A Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department report made on the 19th Sept 1888 (52983)16 is worth looking at:

The deceased was in the habit of wearing two brass rings (a wedding ring and a keeper) these were missing when the body was found and the finger bore marks of their having been removed by force. Special enquiries have been made at all places where they may have been offered for pledge or for sale by a person believing them to be gold, but nothing has resulted therefrom.

So it would seem that the police thought they could have been taken because they were mistaken for gold. The fact that they were worn as a wedding ring and keeper ring on the ring finger might well have added to the illusion that they were gold, but that really doesn't get us very far.

As Mark just pointed out, tales of rings amongst the possessions of suspects have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Really though, the police didn't get anywhere with their enquiries, so as 'clues' are pretty useless, just an interesting aside.

All the best

Jane

xxxx

[m_w_r]

i cant believe no one on this site has ...

Right, well, according to Eliza Cooper at Chapman's inquest, the murdered woman wore three brass rings on her middle finger of her left hand, although they do not seem to have had any notable or distinguishing features, and, despite police enquiries at local pawnshops, were never seen again, unless you take a certain perspective on Tumblety, which relies more on speculation than it does on hard "evidents", as you put it. So they're probably not the clinching clue you think they might be. In the meantime, a quick glance through your posts so far indicates that you intend to take a fresh approach to the case; but it took someone else to help you identify which victim the rings were taken from, you got deeply confused about the nature, purpose and procedures of the UK census, you have described the work done here as "insignificant", instead perceiving an emphasis on trivia, which would seem to me to be disparaging to an array of expert researchers whose contributions make this site what it is, and you have failed to locate either the shift key or the full stop key on your keyboard. So am I with you? ... um, no. Sorry old chap.

Regards,

Mark

[lovejoy]

rings are evidents

i cant believe no one on this site has added to this subject its a crucial clue we can only find the culprit with clear clues if a suspect of the numerous being called out had then in possesion bingo so why is it no one has any descriptions of what this rings looked like surely the police tryed to find out and checked if they were pawned locally can anyone help i need people who really want to find this guy whose with me

[nicole]

Hi all,

It seems that Nichols, like Chapman, may have been robbed also.

The Echo 1st Oct 1888

The police are of opinion that the same person murdered both these women. They favour the theory that, being disturbed with his first victim, he left her, and induced the second one to go with him; being disturbed in this case by Constable Watkins just as he was completing his operations. It is suggested that the murderer decoyed the women in selected spots by means of gold which he had taken from the pockets of his previous victims after he had taken their life. Hence the turning out of their pockets. They do not believe the motive of the crimes is robbery. It is further believed that he wears gloves when cutting the poor women to pieces, and he takes these off immediately his work is done.

my italics

Nicole

[BillyE]

Just a thought here, but is it possible Annie pawned her rings for the money for a bed or gin? Catherine Eddowes spent the money from her man Kelly's boots on gin. If Annie had pawned the rings that day, or the day before the ring marks would still be on her fingers. Just a thought. What do you all think?