Annie's rings

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

[Mr Lucky]

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

[Cogidubnus]

Ah yes, another one of the hordes of people running round Whitechapel at the time, strangling and mutilating as they went lol. Sorry, not with you there!

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

[Wyatt Earp]

As a general point I think it's worth mentioning that while we know what the Ripper didn't take from his victims -- whatever was left with their bodies -- we can't really know what trinkets he might have taken from them.

[curious4]

Hello Lynn,

Ah yes, another one of the hordes of people running round Whitechapel at the time, strangling and mutilating as they went lol. Sorry, not with you there!

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

annie's rings

Thanks Wyatt - I'll look it up.

Cheers,
C4

[Wyatt Earp]

curious4 and lynn, I am currently reading William Beadle's Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth, and this is mentioned on page 18: "An item which Dr Llewellyn did not mention, he probably thought it of no consequence, was that one of Polly's fingers bore the impression of a ring." He doesn't have it footnoted, so maybe someone else here can chime in on the source for that.

[lynn cates]

Jack

Hello C4. I don't think "Jack" would--but I think Annie's assailant did.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

blood

Hello MB. Certain signs on the body are different before and after death.

Moreover, the finger and the ransacked pocket had no blood on them, if I recall properly. And given the arterial spray found by Phillips, she was not quite dead when her throat was cut.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello Moonbegger,

Yes, you have a good point there - unless (if it was Jack) he took them off after choking her and before the mutilations.

Best wishes,
C4

[lynn cates]

inquest

Hello Wyatt. Is that in the inquest testimony?

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello Wyatt,

That's interesting - where did you read that? Must have missed it. Nevertheless, the same could apply here - when she was killed the panic had hardly begun, so any theft from the body would perhaps be business as usual. These people were incredibly poor - I read recently that it was said that you could walk from one end of Petticoat Lane to the other, find your pocket handerkerchief missing and buy it back with the initials picked out before you got to the end of the road. Stealing from the dead was hardly deemed a crime - except in the mysterious circumstance of Druitt's money still being on his person after he was fished out of the river by a waterman of course.

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

Annie's rings

Hello Lynn,

Why not post mortem? Don't think somehow Jack took 'em off before doing his thing.

Cheers,
C4

[moonbegger]

Hi Curious ,
The thing for me that makes it unlikely that the killer wrenched her rings off is the fact that once the killers hands have been in viscera, it's not just that they get wet, but slippery. Blood and guts make one's hands very much more slippery than just water. And her rings would have been easy to slide off , surly leaving some mess on Annies fingers in the process . i think the evidence pertaining to the state of Annies fingers points more to the likeliness of being pulled/tugged off post mortem .. especially after her fingers would have swolen up a bit ... hence the red marks where they were not too easy to remove . just a thought !

cheers
moonbegger .

[Wyatt Earp]

Rings are very personal articles and it strikes me as strange that nothing of this kind seems to have been taken from any of the other victims

It's possible that a ring was also taken from Nichols (one of her fingers bore the impression of a ring).