Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Annie's rings

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

  • #16
    Hi, here you go-

    From the press reports of Nichols inquest.

    Helston - ‘No marks of any ring being torn off her fingers’ - The Morning Post 4th Sept

    ‘The Coroner: Do you know if she wore rings?
    Dr Llewellyn: There were marks of rings on the fingers, but I do not think she had wore any for five or six weeks’ - The Western Daily Press, Bristol, 18th Sept. 1888

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mr Lucky View Post
      Hi, here you go-

      From the press reports of Nichols inquest.

      Helston - ‘No marks of any ring being torn off her fingers’ - The Morning Post 4th Sept

      ‘The Coroner: Do you know if she wore rings?
      Dr Llewellyn: There were marks of rings on the fingers, but I do not think she had wore any for five or six weeks’ - The Western Daily Press, Bristol, 18th Sept. 1888
      I just found this reference in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion (2009, p. 29): "There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of Deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle." The source is a newspaper cutting from 8/31/88 (which actually preceded the inquest) and it is in HO 144/220/A49301B, f 179 (the name of the newspaper is not given). If the ring was simply looser-fitting than the rings Chapman wore, this could explain why the Ripper had not needed to "wrench" it from her if in fact he took possession of it.
      “When a major serial killer case is finally solved and all the paperwork completed, police are sometimes amazed at how obvious the killer was and how they were unable to see what was right before their noses.” —Robert D. Keppel and William J. Birnes, The Psychology of Serial Killer Investigations

      William Bury, Victorian Murderer
      http://www.williambury.org

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
        I just found this reference in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion (2009, p. 29): "There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of Deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle." The source is a newspaper cutting from 8/31/88 (which actually preceded the inquest) and it is in HO 144/220/A49301B, f 179 (the name of the newspaper is not given). If the ring was simply looser-fitting than the rings Chapman wore, this could explain why the Ripper had not needed to "wrench" it from her if in fact he took possession of it.
        What are your thoughts about Dr Llewellyns 'five to six weeks' quote (from prev post), as a loose fitting ring wouldn't leave those kind of marks?

        I've just had a look for that newspaper quote, it's from the Pall Mall Gazette, the previous sentence in the article is worth considering as well.

        ‘The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having been engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to suggest that it has been wrenched from her in a struggle’ - Pall Mall Gazette 31st August 1888

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mr Lucky View Post
          What are your thoughts about Dr Llewellyns 'five to six weeks' quote (from prev post), as a loose fitting ring wouldn't leave those kind of marks?

          I've just had a look for that newspaper quote, it's from the Pall Mall Gazette, the previous sentence in the article is worth considering as well.

          ‘The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having been engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to suggest that it has been wrenched from her in a struggle’ - Pall Mall Gazette 31st August 1888
          If I had to pick between the sources, I would favor the Western Daily Press article you mentioned, since it is based on the inquest testimony. It is odd, however, that it mentions impressions from more than one ring while the Pall Mall Gazette article, published the same day of the murder, only mentions the one distinct impression. Perhaps there was one "more noteworthy" impression among several...who knows.

          If the Ripper was a souvenir-taking killer, I presume he would have waited until the victim was finished off before taking something, so I think the absence of marks indicating removal during a struggle might not be relevant.

          Loose-fitting rings do not leave as strong of an impression on the skin as tighter-fitting ones. If Llewellyn observed light impressions, I'm wondering if he might have mistakenly taken them to be older impressions. I don't know if this is a reasonable possibility or not. I also have no idea how long the skin impressions from rings might stay with a corpse and whether or not that might also be a factor.
          “When a major serial killer case is finally solved and all the paperwork completed, police are sometimes amazed at how obvious the killer was and how they were unable to see what was right before their noses.” —Robert D. Keppel and William J. Birnes, The Psychology of Serial Killer Investigations

          William Bury, Victorian Murderer
          http://www.williambury.org

          Comment


          • #20
            Polly Nichols was married for about 16 years, and so probably wore a wedding ring throughout that time and perhaps for a while afterwards. Might there be a residual impression from that, especially if she had gained weight as she grew older? I don't know the answer - just wondering.

            Regards, Bridewell.
            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Wyatt, Bridewell

              Very interesting replies, I'm still undecided on the issue btw!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                Well even if you accept "Jack" at face value (ie the Canonical 5), then you've got Martha Tabram's killer, Jack himelf, the Torso killer (Elizabeth Jackson???), then at least one other for Clay Pipe Alice and Frances Coles ... so yes there were possibly a few floating round by the look of things!

                Dave
                Hallo Cog/Dave,

                Well, if there were so many of them running round I`m surprised the police didn`t catch at least one of them(law of averages).

                No !`m convinced Jack did `em all from Emma Smith to Coles and McKenzie but not the torso murders. This would be consistant with him being incarcerated after the murder of Mary Kelly somewhere not too far from London and managing to escape twice, after which he was moved to somewhere more remote.

                Not asking anyone to agree with me, just my personal interpretation of the facts as I see them.

                Best wishes,
                C4

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
                  I just found this reference in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion (2009, p. 29): "There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of Deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle." The source is a newspaper cutting from 8/31/88 (which actually preceded the inquest) and it is in HO 144/220/A49301B, f 179 (the name of the newspaper is not given). If the ring was simply looser-fitting than the rings Chapman wore, this could explain why the Ripper had not needed to "wrench" it from her if in fact he took possession of it.
                  Hello Wyatt,

                  Yes, I agree with you about loose-fitting rings. I suppose she could have sold/pawned her wedding ring earlier to get some cash but still think that if she was wearing one it might have been stolen by someone at the mortuary before the autopsy. As I said, rings are very personal and even if we don`t know what else was taken (by Jack or anyone), a ring that someone always wore would be missed by those who knew her well. There is no record of anything similar going missing from Kate Eddowes, for example. Her thimble would have made a good souvenir, perhaps, but was not taken. I think Kelly would have noticed this missing, or any ring (if she wore one).

                  Best regards,
                  C4

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mr Lucky View Post
                    What are your thoughts about Dr Llewellyns 'five to six weeks' quote (from prev post), as a loose fitting ring wouldn't leave those kind of marks?

                    I've just had a look for that newspaper quote, it's from the Pall Mall Gazette, the previous sentence in the article is worth considering as well.

                    ‘The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having been engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to suggest that it has been wrenched from her in a struggle’ - Pall Mall Gazette 31st August 1888
                    Hello Mr Lucky,

                    The autopsy report doesn`t mention any injuries to the hands as far as I could see. The doctor does mention them, but only to say that they were cold. Having said that, I think to say that no rings had been worn for five to six weeks is an odd thing to say. Unless he had had cases where he knew that a woman had normally worn a ring and had taken it off five to six weeks previously. I suppose if a woman had sold her wedding ring as her last possession and died after that period of time, it might be possible for him to say this - not so likely though, I think.

                    Best wishes,
                    C4

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by curious4 View Post
                      I think to say that no rings had been worn for five to six weeks is an odd thing to say. Unless he had had cases where he knew that a woman had normally worn a ring and had taken it off five to six weeks previously.
                      The more I think about this 5-6 week estimate, the more skeptical I become. In order for Llewellyn to assign a time value to the deterioration he believes he observed, he would have needed to know the appearance of the impressions when the rings were first removed (i.e. "the starting point"). But as we know, loose-fitting rings leave lighter impressions than tight-fitting ones, so Llewellyn couldn't possibly have known what that starting point was. It could be that the only thing we can really conclude from his testimony is that he observed light impressions.
                      “When a major serial killer case is finally solved and all the paperwork completed, police are sometimes amazed at how obvious the killer was and how they were unable to see what was right before their noses.” —Robert D. Keppel and William J. Birnes, The Psychology of Serial Killer Investigations

                      William Bury, Victorian Murderer
                      http://www.williambury.org

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by curious4 View Post
                        Hello Mr Lucky,

                        The autopsy report doesn`t mention any injuries to the hands as far as I could see. The doctor does mention them, but only to say that they were cold. Having said that, I think to say that no rings had been worn for five to six weeks is an odd thing to say. Unless he had had cases where he knew that a woman had normally worn a ring and had taken it off five to six weeks previously. I suppose if a woman had sold her wedding ring as her last possession and died after that period of time, it might be possible for him to say this - not so likely though, I think.

                        Best wishes,
                        C4
                        Hi C4

                        Yes, This is really what I find odd too, how he was able to state 'five or six weeks' rather than something like 'some weeks'

                        Some other newspapers from 18th Sept. mention her pierced ears.

                        ‘Dr Llewellyn stated that he had found an old scar across the forehead. The ears had being pierced, but rings had not been worn in them for some time, as the holes were nearly closed’ - Pall Mall Gazette 18th Sept. 1888

                        Unfortunately I haven't found an article that mentions both the finger rings and the ear-rings consecutively or found anything that connects the ear-rings directly with the 'five or six weeks' period, but there may be a possibility that the 'five to six weeks' may actually be refering to the time for the piercings to close, which could perhaps be gauged with this sort of accuracy.

                        But to leave the speculation behind, we have an impression of a ring, and no signs of it being removed in a struggle or we have an impression of a ring that hasn't been worn for 5 to 6 weeks and the fact that there was no sign of the ring been removed in a struggle become irrelevent.

                        Or are there any other options?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          rings

                          Hello again,

                          My query was more directed towards whether Jack took the- rings from Chapman (as was supposed at the time) or if they could have been stolen at the mortuary. This, I think, has some bearing on how he regarded these women, as human beings or as just cattle and as such, his "souvenirs" were the body parts of his victims, not their possessions.

                          Best wishes,
                          C4

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by curious4 View Post
                            My query was more directed towards whether Jack took the- rings from Chapman (as was supposed at the time) or if they could have been stolen at the mortuary. This, I think, has some bearing on how he regarded these women, as human beings or as just cattle and as such, his "souvenirs" were the body parts of his victims, not their possessions.
                            It seems likely to me (and I think it would have seemed likely to mortuary attendants) that policemen would have noticed rings on Annie's hand prior to her body being taken away if in fact rings were present. I would be surprised if mortuary attendants would risk being charged with theft for the sake of a few cheap rings.
                            “When a major serial killer case is finally solved and all the paperwork completed, police are sometimes amazed at how obvious the killer was and how they were unable to see what was right before their noses.” —Robert D. Keppel and William J. Birnes, The Psychology of Serial Killer Investigations

                            William Bury, Victorian Murderer
                            http://www.williambury.org

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              No !`m convinced Jack did `em all from Emma Smith to Coles and McKenzie but not the torso murders. This would be consistant with him being incarcerated after the murder of Mary Kelly somewhere not too far from London and managing to escape twice, after which he was moved to somewhere more remote.
                              That sounds like one heck of an hypothesis...you sure you don't want to include Fairy Fay and Ada Wilson too?

                              Not being funny, unless you feel JtR started out as part of a gang (and I think he's too solitary), I can't possibly see how you include Emma Smith...Martha Tabram I could stomach, as being part of an apprenticeship for Jack...

                              At the other end of the canon, I'm far more open...there are more coincidences ...McKenzie maybe, Coles maybe...but Catherine (Rose) Mylett??? No way...

                              So that still leaves a gang of sadists, JtR, a Whitehall murderer and a torso killer floating round - at the very least! (and this isn't counting the run of the mill prozzie-bashers who were always around)...

                              Rough old place in 1888...

                              All the best

                              Dave

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                annie

                                Hello Dave,

                                No, I'll give you Mylett, forgot about her, but Emma Smith was attacked by two or three men, I think perhaps two, she was hardly in a state to be coherent, so not quite a gang.

                                Anyway, my theory and I'll stand by it while you all batter it to death lol!

                                Cheers,
                                C4

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X