Annie's rings

[Billy Bulger]

Hi everyone

I was wondering what anyone else here thought about the fact that the Ripper apparently stole rings from Chapman. Was the Ripper merely attempting to make the murder look like a standard robbery - albeit a very unusual and bloody one? Or was he genuinely stealing from her?
If part of his motive was indeed robbery I think it gives us great insight into the type of man he was in terms of his own economic situation and all but eliminates any suspect deemed to be from the upper crust.
One the other hand, wouldnt I be right in saying that none of the canonical victims other than Annie Chapman evinced signs of robbery?

Love
Billy Bulger

[honey]

Hi everyone
Or was he genuinely stealing from her?
If part of his motive was indeed robbery I think it gives us great insight into the type of man he was in terms of his own economic situation and all but eliminates any suspect deemed to be from the upper crust.

id have though if he did take the rings, it would be more as a trophy than for financial gain...

[Billy Bulger]

Hi Honey I can see where youre coming from but-not to be too graphic here-he was already taking a kidney with him so why would he view rings in the context of a 'souvenir' or trophy as well? Ive heard some authors speculate that the robbing of the rings was intended to make it look like a botched mugging but I dunno; the Ripper seemed to me to be an intelligent, calculated man - albeit a fiendish one- so surely he would have had the foresight to realise that this minescule gesture of taking rings wouldnt be nearly enough to persuade police that what had occurred was trivial theft.
Just my opinion.

[Bailey]

Hi Honey I can see where youre coming from but-not to be too graphic here-he was already taking a kidney with him so why would he view rings in the context of a 'souvenir' or trophy as well?

Well, as a souvenir, the kidney has a limited lifespan. Once you've eaten half of it or whatever, unless it's preserved somehow it's not going to last more than a few days.

And forgive my potential slip, which I'm too lazy to look up 100% certainty on right now, but no kidney was taken from Chapman, just uterus, a bit of bladder, etc, as far as I recall.

Cheers,
B.

[Mitch Rowe]

Right...No kidney from Chapman.
No money was found on the victims so JTR most likely at least took his money back. If JTR took the rings it must have been first. We dont really know if JTR was trying rob Annie or not. The things from her pockets could have fallen out in a struggle. Or JTR could have just ripped in open and things fell out. Of course it was said the stuff looked as if it were arranged there.

The reasons I believe that the rings were known to be missing in the first place is because Phillips seen the marks of rings. And witnesses confirmed she was wearing them that night. Now if JTR were taking other trophies besides rings then how could anyone know?

The thing that puzzles me about JTR taking anything is that Polly had a broken mirror and I would have thought JTR might like something like that. You know..The victim looked into it while alive. Or maybe JTR didnt like to look at himself?

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[lovejoy]

hi mwr

[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,

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

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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