Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Quintessential Ripper victim-Then what of the rings?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Quintessential Ripper victim-Then what of the rings?

    Hi all,

    Ive never seen any evidence that has dissuaded me from the position that Annie Chapman is probably Jack the Rippers line in the sand,....its when they knew Polly wasnt an individual one-of murder, and when they first encountered his penchant for removing and actually taking internal parts of the victims. Not to say she was the first victim by the line in the sand remark.....just that Annies death made the above abundantly clear... Someone new was killing strangers and doing these terrible mutilations.

    If the above is true, then the crime scene and all related evidence regarding her murder is potentially the first look at his psyche...now that hes "operating" in private.

    Which brings up, to me, a critical point.

    If Annie is an actual Ripper victim, early in his series, ....what significance can be attributed to his theft of her cheap, "flash" rings....brass that appeared to shine like gold.

    They were not pawned immediately in London, according to the authorities who sought out that information, and that may mean that he is not solely interested in biological souvenirs...or that he may have traded them for money or goods at a later date. The second possibility suggests someone who could wait to access any money he might get for them....and that doesnt sound like a very poor man. The first possibility suggests that he may have also done similar things at later murders, to later victims. Yet we dont know of anything non-biological that was taken from a victim after the rings other than the section of Kates apron. And he discards that.

    I know it is said that on his person while he was being examined after death, Dr Tumblety was found to have some "flash" rings in his vest pocket. Along with an expensive gold watch, and I believe a substantial bit of cash. Were these rings something like trophies that the killer might have carried with him....like is suggested about Dr T and his rings? Or was this theft linked to another and far more prevalent kind of violent crime of that period and to that date....economic motivations?

    The question Im asking is this........should we be including Thief among his traits? And if so....does that suggest robberies may have preceded his murders?

    Any ideas are welcomed, best regards all.
    Last edited by perrymason; 07-14-2009, 03:20 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by perrymason View Post
    The question Im asking is this........should we be including Thief among his traits? And if so....does that suggest robberies may have preceded his murders?
    Hi Mike

    There may be an argument for some sort of mugging prior to the attack, but we do know now that serial killers take items from victims which are souvenirs, and also body parts which are trophies.

    At the moment, I am reading Stewart Evans` book on James Berry, the British hangman and executioner. Interestingly, he also took souvenirs and trophies from those he hung, which he would keep at home. In fact, later in his career he noted that these trinkets, and locks of hair, still carried an aura of evil that wore him down mentally, eventually he had to get rid of them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
      Hi Mike

      There may be an argument for some sort of mugging prior to the attack, but we do know now that serial killers take items from victims which are souvenirs, and also body parts which are trophies.

      At the moment, I am reading Stewart Evans` book on James Berry, the British hangman and executioner. Interestingly, he also took souvenirs and trophies from those he hung, which he would keep at home. In fact, later in his career he noted that these trinkets, and locks of hair, still carried an aura of evil that wore him down mentally, eventually he had to get rid of them.
      Hi Jon,

      Thats one reason I started this thread....we all know that he takes the organs and its very possible that they are just trophies for him, without practical or economic usage planned for them....and we know, or believe strongly that The Ripper killed Annie.....so how does the absolute theft of non-biological material in the Hanbury murder define Jack? As a Thief a Murderer and a mutilator? A coveter of anything from a victim?

      If he was a thief, then did he merely steal before he killed?
      If he was a thief, what might he have taken from his other victims that the investigations didnt reveal?
      If he was a thief, and didnt take another non-biological item to keep after Annies rings....why not?

      We have a few knife attacks that year that involved robberies...and those kinds of acts are far more frequent than strangers killing strangers for "fun"...or trophies...Im just looking at whether that theft from Annie tells us anything about what to look for in later murders, or suspects.

      Cheers Jon.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello,

        Hmm, well, you learn something new everyday, I wasn't aware she had items on her person stolen...

        I would usually think that if JTR stole some possessions from Annie then by nature he probably has a theft streak in him... I would also imagine he would take something resembling the same things... "flash" rings....brass that appeared to shine like gold." Something shiny... It could be that JTR was a bit of a magpie if thats the case... If he didn't take anything from the other victims, it may indicate a bit of growing confidence, pleasure in it all, or perhaps something was "special" about Annie, as the methodology from Polly and Annie also show signs of growing confidence and evolution...

        Best regards =o).

        Comment


        • #5
          Could it simply be the case that the subsequent victims (we know of) had nothing 'flash' to take?
          aye aye! keep yer 'and on yer pfennig!

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello,

            Hi "Harry the Hawker". Mmhm, quite plausible. Though I'm wondering if Annie, perhaps, simply lost her personal belongings. She was in a career where I imagine it would be quite easy to lose some personal belongings. On that note, its quite plausible that the other victims weren't wearing jewellery or didn't have anything that caught anyone's eye. It could be something as simple as that.

            All the best.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi folks,

              The fact that the rings were not of any real value but still were wrenched from her finger indicates to me this is not someone of "means". He takes what appears to be shiny like gold and having some value, but doesnt know enough about real gold jewelry to be sure. It seems like the act of a petty thief...or a grave or corpse robber. When you consider that her uterus was extracted cleanly by perhaps a petty thief, you have to wonder whether a Burke and Hare scenario is happening with that murder.

              Im not so sure myself that wrenching the rings from the finger comes across as someone grabbing a "souvenir" Lozle....and I wonder why a man who would cut a woman open and cut things out of her would struggle to remove rings when he could easily remove the entire finger.

              We dont know Harry if any of the other victims had "shiny" things to take, but it would make sense to assume not I think....these were the poorest of poor, and hardly a candidate for a few real gold rings or items of any real perceived value. But he may have taken things we dont know about...maybe less for potential pawn/sale value and more down the "souvenir" road. I say a few Lozle because there is discussion whether there was 2 or 3 rings on that finger.

              What puzzles me is what this says about Annies killer...who we can be almost certain is the man we call Jack today. He is a serial sexual mutilator who also steals? He is a collector, biological materials or otherwise? He is a thief who is an opportunist and desperate enough to kill to get trinkets to sell?

              That he took some time to wrestle her rings from her finger and leave abrasions means something I think. Something about him.

              All the best.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello again,

                Hi Michael, well, now knowing he had to wrestle with her corpse (or before death perhaps?) to get the ring(s) off her finger(s) certainly indicates a certain disposition and trait.


                However, maybe JTR had his bit of dysfunctional fun, got up and left, and a beggar came by? Thinking she was drunk or asleep or something along those lines, the shiny jewellery catching his / her eye... Perhaps it was someone living on the streets in a just as bad financial situation as Annie Chapman who wrestled with the ring(s) to get them off of her with the intention of pawning them off.

                All the best.

                also in regard to "souvenirs" I was convinced that he was ultimately after the victims' organs and saving them as trophies... Why would he want to steal personal belongings which he would have to fiddle and wrestle about with when he acquires what he went there for?
                Last edited by Lozle; 07-15-2009, 12:42 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Personally I find it a bit difficult to grasp that JTR would kill with theft in mind. Killing and collecting trinkets doesn't sit quite right with me. His/ her victims were subjected to JTR's fantasies and desires of disfiguring women and taking the major organs that 1) make a woman and 2) responsible for child carrying and preserving life. The organs is what JTR went there for and why he / she did what they did. the women served a purpose to them. Why would he go to the trouble of gathering futile trinkets when he already acquired what he set out to get in the first place?

                  All the best.

                  And indeed, why wrestle and fiddle about with struggling to get her ring(s) when he thinks nothing to cutting a woman up and taking out her organs for his own personal gratification. If it were JTR i would imagine he wouldnt bother to fight to get the rings but rather just cut her finger off. It was a good point / question, Michael... which is now going to torment me until further theories are concocted to get my mind going.

                  Again, all the best.
                  Last edited by Lozle; 07-15-2009, 01:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've previously - and recently - speculated that the Ripper might have got Annie to remove the rings herself in a feigned "mugging" scenario, lulling her into a false sense of security before doing what he really wanted to do. Indeed, perhaps he even got her emptying her pockets and arranging her belongings on the flag-stones before he struck ("Let's see what yer got. Put 'em on the floor!"), which might explain at least one of the mysteries 29 of Hanbury Street.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hey again,

                      "false sense of security before doing what he really wanted to do."

                      Developing a rapport?

                      I've always had a bit of a theory that maybe JTR was an original Bundy, with befriending them, developing a rapport which is how his killings were so easily carried out. for someone to be in the same area as you, to whip out a blade and slit her throat before she could react in any way always made me wonder if JTR went to the trouble of befriending them, but actually just concerned with carrying out what he wanted to do to her. a bit of a "two-faced" scenario.

                      All the best.
                      Last edited by Lozle; 07-15-2009, 01:30 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        I've previously - and recently - speculated that the Ripper might have got Annie to remove the rings herself in a feigned "mugging" scenario, lulling her into a false sense of security before doing what he really wanted to do. Indeed, perhaps he even got her emptying her pockets and arranging her belongings on the flag-stones before he struck ("Let's see what yer got. Put 'em on the floor!"), which might explain at least one of the mysteries 29 of Hanbury Street.
                        Hi Sam,

                        Would she wrench them from her finger so hard it caused an abrasion though? Wouldnt she know how to slip them off when she needed to...maybe when washing her face. And why wouldnt the items like the glasses/glasses case, and the envelope corner, and the pills from the Infirmary be in the same place on the ground if she is standing in place emptying her pockets,... and how would she then end up in the middle of the items when she is being mutilated, after being near the fence when her throat was cut?

                        I think the evidence suggests that they were removed with force, to cause an abrasion....one that we have no idea how severe it was. Her inner skirt pocket is torn open....did she do that herself as well?

                        She didnt just fall very badly on a knife did she?

                        Seriously though, the aggressive nature of the wound to her finger, her torn pocket, and a scattering of its likely contents sounds like it was done to her, not by her.

                        My best tongue in cheek regards Gareth

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                          The fact that the rings were not of any real value but still were wrenched from her finger indicates to me this is not someone of "means". He takes what appears to be shiny like gold and having some value, but doesnt know enough about real gold jewelry to be sure. It seems like the act of a petty thief.

                          What puzzles me is what this says about Annies killer...who we can be almost certain is the man we call Jack today. He is a serial sexual mutilator who also steals? He is a collector, biological materials or otherwise? He is a thief who is an opportunist and desperate enough to kill to get trinkets to sell?

                          That he took some time to wrestle her rings from her finger and leave abrasions means something I think. Something about him.
                          Stealing Annie's rings puts him in the lower classes as far as I can tell. I doubt they would've been more trophies, he had a uterus and a piece of bladder that would probably suffice in that respect, and that he likely stole them to sell. If he was a Whitechapel local, which seems the likeliest scenario, then he would've needed the money as much as the next person, despite possibly having a job. That's one (and the first) thing it says about him, the other is that you could be right about him being a petty thief as well.

                          Though I'm not sure why there's any doubt over Annie's candidacy as a Ripper victim. Without her, there would be no Jack. She's his hallmark victim, together with Kate and Polly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by perrymason View Post
                            Would she wrench them from her finger so hard it caused an abrasion though? Wouldnt she know how to slip them off when she needed to...
                            Sometimes that's not possible, Mike - and I speak from experience. Fingers can swell and/or grow bigger, Mike, but rings don't. A person forced to wrench off their own rings would certainly leave abrasions, if the rings were smaller than their fingers.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Any chance that...

                              Her fingers could have swollen post mortem and somebody else took the rings?

                              I don't know - I'm just wondering.

                              Jane x

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X