The Quintessential Ripper victim-Then what of the rings?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jane,

I believe postmortem "bloat" largely occurs in the digestive system, as gases well up in the stomach and intestines - assuming they're still in the body! Even then, I think we'd be looking at days before it sets in, rather than the short period of time between Annie's death and the discovery of her corpse.

[Jane Welland]

See?

I knew you'd know, Sam!

Cheers!

Jane x

[perrymason]

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.

Hi M & P,

I dont believe Ive ever encountered anyone here or elsewhere that believes Annie was not a Ripper victim...thats why anything that happened in that backyard is likely a snapshot of some of the killers habits and traits. This is also the ONLY extraction and theft of an organ that was in some medical opinions, quite skillfully.

So we have a petty thief who can perform surgery under trying conditions....although his patients are dead when he starts "operating."

Sam, you may be right about rings being hard to wrench off ones own finger at times, but she needn't have torn her inner pocket open. The rings arent the only thing that suggests theft, the scattered objects, the missing rings, and that torn inner pocket also do.

All the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, you may be right about rings being hard to wrench off ones own finger at times, but she needn't have torn her inner pocket open. The rings arent the only thing that suggests theft, the scattered objects, the missing rings, and that torn inner pocket also do.

I didn't suggest she tore her pocket open, only that Jack might initially have feigned a mugging. The removal of the rings and the arrangement of those few items at Annie's feet might have been done under duress, and under the illusion of appeasing her attacker, by Annie herself.

[perrymason]

I didn't suggest she tore her pocket open, only that Jack might initially have feigned a mugging. The removal of the rings and the arrangement of those few items at Annie's feet might have been done under duress, and under the illusion of appeasing her attacker, by Annie herself.

Respectfully my friend that is probably the least likely of the 2 prominent possibilities....bearing in mind that the pocket was torn, not just rifled through, and the rings were wrenched. So why didnt he take the glasses and case, if she dropped them willingly or if he had to tear her pocket to get at them? Why wrench the rings?

I think as I said that tells something about the man himself, not how he may have intimidated Annie before killing her.

I think he exhibits the traits of a petty thief by doing what he did with the non-biological theft, and for me, that makes him even harder to find....thieves were aplenty at that time. Men who open women to take organs werent.....but its that added theft that suggests at least a poor man to me, and a common criminal act featured within an uncommon crime.

All the best Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Respectfully my friend that is probably the least likely of the 2 prominent possibilities....bearing in mind that the pocket was torn, not just rifled through, and the rings were wrenched.

Like I said, Mike, I'm not saying that Jack didn't tear the pocket - although that could have been done inadvertently, I suppose. I'm merely suggesting that Jack might have started off by pretending that all he was doing was "mugging" her, and getting her to tear off her rings/start laying out her belongings on the ground (with her back turned, I might add). What he did afterwards, in terms of rummaging through pockets etc., is up for grabs. The two possibilities (i.e. Annie coughing up the goods at knifepoint first, Jack doing some rummaging later) aren't mutually exclusive.

[perrymason]

Like I said, Mike, I'm not saying that Jack didn't tear the pocket - although that could have been done inadvertently, I suppose. I'm merely suggesting that Jack might have started off by pretending that all he was doing was "mugging" her, and getting her to tear off her rings/start laying out her belongings on the ground (with her back turned, I might add). What he did afterwards, in terms of rummaging through pockets etc., is up for grabs. The two possibilities (i.e. Annie coughing up the goods at knifepoint first, Jack doing some rummaging later) aren't mutually exclusive.

Thats fairly put Sam, but Im wondering why we would need to look for any ruse at all to be played by Jack at that point in time. He has her alone in the backyard...all he need do is pounce, subdue, cut, mutilate. He kept Polly quiet, he kept Kate quiet, and we believe that its because they were subdued so as to be incapable of speech or resistance before he cuts the throat....that is in part due to the medical opinions that state the women were on the ground, and there was no apparent struggle.

Annie may have been choked, just like Martha may have been, and possibly Kate. Liz was probably choked with her scarf. Why would he play them and then suddenly jump on them and choke them....why would a sudden pounce need a prelude? Shes a prostitute, hes supposedly a client....they go somewhere she knows at least, the scenario is common to the woman...so....

....why does he need to fool them into believing hes a robber if hes already fooled them into thinking he's a client?

And threadwise, why would he have her dump all that she had around her, and still take only the rings? The glasses and case sound like a better pawn price. And how does she end up surrounded by the things she "dropped" when opening her pockets for him? She is cut by the fence, and lain down and mutilated with her head almost at the bottom step....with her stuff around her. How does he manage to avoid laying her on one or two items? Unless she was already there when he takes them out of her pockets, I dont see it.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

....why does he need to fool them into believing hes a robber if hes already fooled them into thinking he's a client?

So as not to panic her into thinking something much worse is about to happen, perhaps. Remember, I'm only referring to Annie here. Jack might have improvised according to circumstance. In this instance, the light was such that producing a knife would have been rather obvious, and might produce a bigger - and louder - reaction than on the previous occasion, when Jack struck in darkness at Buck's Row.

How does he manage to avoid laying her on one or two items?

If she's laying the items on the ground whilst facing the bottom of the yard, with Jack between her the doorstep, he's in the perfect position to take her by surprise. Pulling her backwards would avoid her "eclipsing" the items at her feet.

[Nemo]

Hi Sam & Perry

I like the theief/robber scenario and think the Ripper would have some previous history along those lines

I like Sam's suggestion that Chapman was standing when the items were dropped at her feet - probably by the Ripper tearing open her pocket

..so why not the whole hog? He might have got off on the power like many other killers and progressed within the crime from a robbery ruse, on to rape when he finds the victim has little else to offer

I imagine him forcing the victims to the ground, some more willing than others, requiring more force/choking in some cases

When in the position between the open legs of the victim, he cuts her throat and lays on her to immobilise her, to squeeze the blood out, and possibly to look into her face for a few seconds and also to listen out for witnesses etc

He then moves to the right of the body and begins the bodily mutilation

The right timing, the right location, the submission of the victim etc may all have needed to coincide for a Ripper murder to occur, otherwise a simple robbery or possibly a rape also may have taken place that would go unreported

[Lozle]

Speculation and NUMEROUS theories

Perhaps Jack the Ripper did pose as a thief. Perhaps he was waiting on Hanbury Street, Annie came along and he pulled her down to where the crime scene was situated. He could have given the impression to Annie that if she kept turned away from him and placed her belongings on the ground that she would live - seeming as she wouldn’t have seen his face.

Normally when people are being robbed by someone with a weapon, especially a blade, they don't take their eyes off of the thief, because if the thief had a change of heart and decided its too big a risk to leave her alive thus deciding to kill her, people have more chance to react and try to remove the weapon from their possession.

So, instead of posing as a thief and demanding her belongings and Annie HANDING them over to him - which is the normal scenario - he told her to place them on the ground, keeping her away from him, maintaining the idea that if she does not see him thus making him unidentifiable will give her a chance to live and also eliminating the chance she could grab the knife and get away, or fight which would alert people she would be in need of assistance. Which could explain why her possessions were laid out on the ground.

Or, Annie DID hand over her belongings, he took them, but then let them drop to the ground, using this as a smart distraction, then lunging and attacking her. This would be confusing to someone in that situation thus the chance to react being slim. He then later grabbed the rings which she had previously removed and laid out on the ground and left.

Or, perhaps being tight of money, improvised with her rings as payment for protection, giving them to "pimps" or thugs and came across JTR later.

Or, her rings were taken prior to meeting Jack, or Jack fighting to get them off her finger(s) once she had been killed. Later realising the rings were worthless, but looked the part.

IF JTR did take the rings then it certainly does indicate someone who has been accustom to theft and quite possibly the lower class.

Just speculation and thoughts. Ideas welcomed.

All the best.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I think the issue I was trying to raise by posing the question is,... in our imaginations, isnt a thief almost always someone of lower classes or lacking means?

How does the theft of biological materials fit in with that kind of man? As a food source? In my opinion no very likely in these cases. For some kind of skid row jar collection of oddities? Sounds bizarre, but I suppose its possible. Would theft for economic gains, like later pawning some possibly gold rings he sees and takes, indicate a secondary objective of the killer(s), or the primary?

If economic motivations are potentially at least part of the rationale for killing in the first place, then might the "street value" of his choice of organ to take in Annies case be a factor?

There are 2 stories, only one of which was denied, of an American quack trying to buy uteri at 20L apiece the year before from teaching hospitals, supposedly, to accompany a serious medical study being sent back to America to publish. Procreation was at the center of some medical research at that time, and reproductive studies would require uterus samples, likely from varied ages and classes of women. There is a story that isnt believed much that Tumblety owned such a collection.

Might a monied sponsor encourage a thief to stretch beyond his normal boundaries.....for todays equivalent of approx 1200-1500L sterling? When a local bed costs 4d a night? Might that thief feel compelled to still take lesser valued items based on a life style of trinket taking from poor people?

Best regards all