What did he take?

[Abby Normal]

What did the Ripper take from his victims (other than the internal organs)?
In other words-What other items from the victims did he take and kept as possible trophies, i.e what in all probability was it known that the victims had on them when they were murdered but was discovered missing when there bodies were discovered and never recovered or found?
For example, it seems in all probability that he took 2 rings from Chapman.

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Abby. That's a very good question. And it seems particularly compelling in Kate's case. After all, her belongings were rifled.

Makes you wonder if there were some physical thing, say, a letter, the killer was looking for.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Makes you wonder if there were some physical thing, say, a letter, the killer was looking for.

LC

Who said it's a butcher ?
The postman, for sure.

[lynn cates]

postman

Hello David. Hmm, I'll have to consult Father Brown about that one.

Cheers.
LC

[kensei]

Once I think about it, if the Ripper did take the two rings from Annie then it seems likely he probably made a quick check of what most or all of the victims had on them and made off with whatever caught his fancy, either as a souvenir or- if he himself was a poor man- something he could make use of. There is no way that anyone could know for sure everything each victim had in their pockets in order to know that something was missing. If he did this then it need not mean that he was looking for something specific. The way he laid Annie's things down in a seemingly neat order as he went through her pockets might indicate he felt like he had the time to do that there, whereas with Kate and others it would have been a very quick rifling and then off he went. With Mary Kelly- well, he probably made a close examination of everything in the room. I don't think I've ever read whether Joe Barnett was brought back there and asked if anything was missing.

[Abby Normal]

Once I think about it, if the Ripper did take the two rings from Annie then it seems likely he probably made a quick check of what most or all of the victims had on them and made off with whatever caught his fancy, either as a souvenir or- if he himself was a poor man- something he could make use of. There is no way that anyone could know for sure everything each victim had in their pockets in order to know that something was missing. If he did this then it need not mean that he was looking for something specific. The way he laid Annie's things down in a seemingly neat order as he went through her pockets might indicate he felt like he had the time to do that there, whereas with Kate and others it would have been a very quick rifling and then off he went. With Mary Kelly- well, he probably made a close examination of everything in the room. I don't think I've ever read whether Joe Barnett was brought back there and asked if anything was missing.

Hi K
Good points.
I guess one of the main reasons I started this thread is to see if the ripper was taking things for "trophies" or more for something he could gain for money. Since I beleive none of the victims were found with money, he obviously took what money he found and/or took back whatever money he gave them. The rings from Chapman, i guess could have been taken for either reason, as he could have pawned or sold them.

Does anyone know what other items may have been taken from any of the other victims?

[lynn cates]

paper

Hello Abby. In that case, it may interest you to know that my lad kept a piece of paper with trinkets--cheap articles, studs, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Why steal?

Hi gang,

Were not Annie Chapman's rings of the worthless brass variety? What's that going to get you, a cup of coffee in a pawn shop?

If you're going to rob someone these women were indeed poor choices. I doubt the killer was trying to indicate a robbery gone wrong. Oh, she angered me so I just happened to cut her guts out. Doesn't fit very well.

It's also very risky to waste the extra time needed to rifle through their worthless things. Perhaps he was a very poor man?

My guess is he was after trophies and any bit of money he might find or else a further ruse to confound the already confounded police......


Greg

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

Yes, I consider it very likely indeed that the killer sifted through the belongings of his victims, and almost certainly went off with any money they had on them. Coins in particular would have made little sense as trophies, given that they offered no personal connection to the victim.

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

cheap items

Hello Greg.

"Were not Annie Chapman's rings of the worthless brass variety? What's that going to get you, a cup of coffee in a pawn shop?"

Quite right. But recall that my lad said of his collection of cheap jewelry, "It is worth no end of money."

Cheers.
LC

[towboydds]

Interesting

This thread seems to favor the taking of trophies, whether for personal gain or for the keep sake and reliving of the deeds done, OR the counter measure to throw off police detection as just brutality but as of a robbery gone 'very' wrong. By this alone then it would be sufficient to hypothesis that JtR would then have a bit of education in both the intellectual study and of street wise knowledge.

I have not seen any posted material on any other trophies taken except for the rings, but there was information offered in each case that there were items normally on the personage of each of the other victims that were not present at the time of their discovery. But I have not come across a list of these items myself, and witness statements have been proven unreliable in every century so this may be a far fetched tale in itself.

Would love to see a report for each victim and the statements made by the witnesses that were at the scene. Anyone got these?

Sorry if this got too far off topic.
DDS.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Boy Toy, I'd say most of us have all the reports (that are left) as well as the inquest reports from various newspaper, etc, on our bookshelves or saved to a file on our comps. But the notion of 'trophies' and all that other profiler mumbo jumbo isn't taken as seriously as it once was. There's just enough truth to it to make sense, but overall it's rather useless. But if you're looking for trophies other than rings, there are the organs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[towboydds]

Hi Boy Toy, I'd say most of us have all the reports (that are left) as well as the inquest reports from various newspaper, etc, on our bookshelves or saved to a file on our comps. But the notion of 'trophies' and all that other profiler mumbo jumbo isn't taken as seriously as it once was. There's just enough truth to it to make sense, but overall it's rather useless. But if you're looking for trophies other than rings, there are the organs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

An interesting concept that a profile would be considered mumbo jumbo. The organs on the other hand, can only be proven to be trophies if they were found at a later date preserved in some way, otherwise they weren't trophies. They would then become the killers way of furthering the brutality that he/she inflicted upon them by taking them from them, which if one is paying attention to it, then the crime becomes robbery as the main theme and the killing is just a necessity to get to the robbery. But as it has been well thought through to this point, there is no evidence that murder was the primary ideal, nor robbery, only that mutilation seemed to be the prevailing aspect that stood clear of all other ideals.

I have seen many discussions on how it is murder as the main focus, and robbery as the main focus, yet neither can encompass the brutality nor the time frame needed to do all that was done.

As for the information that you have on each murder and the inquests, if any of this information is in the realm of 'free' I would be much obliged to have a look see at any and all you could turn me onto.

p.s. towboydds, I am hoping the Boy Toy was a eyeful slip.

Your Humble Servant
DDS

[lynn cates]

profile

Hello Darrel.

"An interesting concept that a profile would be considered mumbo jumbo."

In that case, you might find me VERY interesting.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Double-D's, the inquest reports can be found right here on the Casebook, and all the police files still existing are contained in the book 'The Ultimate JTR Companion' by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner. Regarding profiles, all the big names in that field have published profiles, and they all disagree with each other. In some cases, the errors made are so big and numerous as to be disgraceful.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott