|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:48 pm: |       |
G'day,
'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook' says: 'The deceased was in the habbit of wearing two brass rings (a wedding and keeper) these rings were missing when the body was found and the finger bore marks of their having been removed by force. Special inquiries were also made at all places where they may be offered for pledge or for sale by a person believing them to be gold, but nothing has resulted therefrom.'
She was seen wearing them when she left the lodging house, so I'd say it's beyond doubt that her killer took them.
Legend has two farthings and two rings arranged on the ground near her body. The truth is Dr. Phillips said at her inquest that he: "searched the yard, and in doing so found a small piece of course muslin and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman near the pailing; and they apparently had been placed there in order or arranged there." The wording "arranged there", has lead to the creation of myths and wild theories.
As her uterus had been taken from her abdomen, I'd say that her killer didn't need another 'trophy', and since the rings weren't pawned, I'd say that her killer had someone to give the rings to. The removal of her uterus suggests a hatred of his mother!
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
Two cheap rings such as these were found amongst Tumblety’s possessions after his death.
I can easily imagine Jack keeping these in his pocket as trophies, just for jollies.
Wouldn't you?
Sir Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 6:19 pm: | |
G'day Sir Robert,
Is there a description of these rings?
I believe one of Chapman's was round and the other flat, but I'll have to re-read this!
The killer couldn't have kept a uterus in his pocket!
LEANNE |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:40 pm: | |
A few thoughts and references on the rings.
"...we are thrown back upon the belief that these murders were really committed by a madman, or by a man whom a sottish passion interlaced with a lust for blood places too far outside the pale of human feelings to be governed by commonly recognized motives. However, if the police are right in believing that certain flash rings were torn from Nichols's finger, this is a circumstance which slightly disconcerts the idea that the murderer was a simple maniac."
This from the Times, 4 September, 1888, or four days before the murder of Annie Chapman. Nichol's rings are not mentioned in the news reports on the inquest, certainly Dr. Llewellyn doesn't mention any bruising to any of the fingers, but early newspaper stories did speak of bruises to Nichols's hands and/or evidence that a ring, or rings, had been removed.
"The hands and face were bruised and bore evidence of there having been a severe struggle."
From the Daily Telegraph, Saturday September 1, 1888.
"The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having 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 show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle."
From an unidentified news report dated 31 August (?), 1888. found in Ref. HO 144/220/A49301B, f 179
Also, existing police reports do not mention rings taken from Polly Nichols body nor do they mention any attempt to track down any rings so that there is no official evidence that Nichols rings had been taken by her killer. Interestingly if rings had been taken from Nichols, as they certainly were from Chapman, then this might explain Dr. Blackwell's observation that "there were no rings, nor marks of rings, on her hands." given at the Stride inquest. This might be seen as evidence of a perceived pattern existing in the minds of officials or that Blackwell was just a very thorough examiner.
As to Chapman's rings there is this news report dated two days after the murder.
"Farmer, (sic, Amelia Palmer,) was perfectly certain that on Friday night the murdered woman had worn three rings, which were not genuine, but were imitations, otherwise she would not have troubled to go out and find money for her lodgings....It has been ascertained that the deceased woman did wear two rings at the time of her death. They were of brass. One was a wedding ring, and the other a keeper of fancy pattern. Both are missing, and the police are still searching for them. It was believed on Saturday night that an important clue had been obtained, a pawnbroker having detained rings of the same description which were offered in pledge, but the incident has no reference to the murder, as investigation has showed.
The Daily Telegraph, Monday September 10, 1888.
Days later this was followed by further references made of the rings and the attempts made by the police in finding them.
"Yesterday morning two police-constables visited (Timothy) Donovan and showed him two rings, one a half-worn out "engaged" ring, the other appearing to be a wedding ring, which they stated had been discovered at a pawnbroker's. Donovan did not think they were the rings he had seen Mrs. Chapman wearing. The policemen then left, and Donovan heard no more of the incident."
The Times, Wednesday 12, September, 1888.
"Strenuous efforts have been made to find the rings torn from Chapman's fingers by the murderer, but not a trace of them has been discovered. It is probable that they have been destroyed, and with them, it is to be feared, disappears the most hopeful means of bringing the miscreant to justice."
The Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, September 12, 1888.
Edward Stanley, the Pensioner, offered us this about Chapman's rings during his testimony at the inquest into her death:
Coroner Wynne Baxter: Was she wearing rings when you saw her?
Edward Stanley: Yes, I believe two. I could not say on which finger, but they were on one of her fingers.
Coroner: What sort of rings were they - what was the metal?
Stanley: Brass, I should think by the look of them.
The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 20, 1888.
The Times reported Stanley's testimony thus:
He, (Stanley,) last saw her alive on Sunday, the 2d inst., between 1 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. At that time she was wearing two rings on one of her fingers. One was a flat ring and the other oval. He should think they were brass ones.
The Times, Thursday, September 20, 1888.
Eliza Cooper who testified at the inquest was also asked about the rings:
"That was the last time she saw deceased alive. At that time she was wearing three rings on the third finger of the left hand. Deceased bought the rings, which were brass ones, of a black man. Deceased had never possessed a gold wedding ring since witness had become acquainted with her. She had known deceased for about 15 years (sic)"
The Times, Thursday, September 20, 1888.
The final words on the subject belong to Coroner Baxter.
"On her wedding finger she was wearing two or three rings, which appeared to have been palpably of base metal, as the witnesses were all clear about their material and value....There were two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and had not since been found, and the uterus had been taken from the abdomen....The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing abdominal organ seemed overwhelming. If the object were robbery, the injuries to the viscera were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from the loss of blood at the neck. Moreover, when they found an easily accomplished theft of some paltry brass rings and an internal organ taken, after at least a quarter of an hour's work and by a skilled person, they were driven to the deduction that the abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin-veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered."
Summation of Wynne Baxter, inquest into the death of Annie Chapman, The Times, Thursday, September 27, 1888.
Wolf. |
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 10:42 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
"She was seen wearing them when she left the lodging house, so I'd say it's beyond doubt that her killer took them."
There is another equally plausible explanation. Robert Mann, an inmate at the Whitechapel Workhouse, took charge of the body at 7am. Later, two nurses from the infimary came and undressed the body of Annie Chapman. At the inquest, Mann said that he was not in the shed when they were doing this.
Coroner Baxter also deplored the fact that Whitechapel did not have a proper mortuary and added that "A workhouse inmate is not the proper man to take care of a body in such an important matter as this."
You may remember that it was also Robert Mann who was left in charge of Nichols' body in the mortuary previously, which he and James Hatfield washed and undressed unsupervised by the police and apparently without any authority to do so.
It seems to me that Annie Chapman's rings could have just as easily been stolen by Mann, or the two nurses as Jack the Ripper.
Cheers,
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 8:34 am: | |
G'day Jack,
That's possible!
Reading from Phillip Sugden's 'Complete History' book, I see that Inspector Chandler recorded what he saw when he found her: '....left arm resting on the left breast..' (that's the arm with the hand that women wear their wedding ring on, traditionally). I wonder did her killer drag the rings off, then place her dead hand on her dead breast? Chandler never noticed any rings, but that's no indication!
Near the fence and close to her feet was: 'a small piece of course muslin, a small-tooth comb and a pocket comb in a paper case. These articles appeared to be the contents of the dead woman's pocket and Dr. Phillips did not think that they had been casually cast on the ground. It does appear that her killer had gone through her things looking for something in particular, or maybe just looking for anything of value.
'But the woman wore a large pocket under her skirt, tied around her waist with strings, and this was torn, both down the front and at the side. It was empty.' Yes her killer might have been tempted to look through it's contents. He seems to have had the intentions of a murderer and a thief. But what you said is still possible!
LEANNE |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Whatever motive you privately entertain, the distraction to the killer to search under the victims clothing, cut or tear open a 'pocket', and remove the contents, is time consuming and detrimental to the 'hasty flight' of the killer.
I do not think the 'pockets' (Chapman & Eddowes) were cut accidently, or we might expect to see the contents distributed 'on' the body as opposed to a distance away from the body.
The reason must surely have been serious enough for him to take such a risk.
Why was getting his 'fee' back so important?, if indeed that was the reason.
regards, Jon |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 9:25 pm: | |
"Why was getting his 'fee' back so important?, if indeed that was the
reason."
Just like the rings, coins from his victims would make excellent trophies. Yes, of course the taking of coins could have been simple robbery, but I doubt it.
Sir Robert |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 10:20 pm: | |
"coins from his victims would make excellent trophies"
Why would any of the victims have coins?
Surely, and from what we have read from witnesses, the victims went out on the streets when they were pennyless, or had spent their doss money.
Therefore, we may reasonably deduce the vicitms had no coins on their person at the time of their encounter with 'Jack'.
Therefore, if 'Jack' took any coins, the coins he took were his own, which questions there value as trophies, surely?
So, if he did not take back his own 'fee', what on earth could he possibly have been looking for?.
Regards, Jon
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:28 am: | |
"Why would any of the victims have coins?"
There are very few things we can be sure of in this case, but one of the rare certainties is that these ladies demanded payment in advance. If they had a penny or two in their pockets to start with, all the better for our souvenir hunter.
Sir Robert
|
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
The chances of these women being beaten or robbed in this area of London was pretty high, you may agree with me on that.
For this reason I am inclined to believe that these part-time prostitutes (only when the need arose) did not go from one client to another.
More likely, when they had need of a few pence they would take to the streets, whether for a doss, 1/4 of tea, change for drink or food, it matters little, basically they lived from hand to mouth.
Therefore, I suggest these women had no money on them at the time they met with Jack. Like I was saying, if Jack searched through their private 'pocket' it was to retrieve his 'fee', not because he expected them to be carrying money in general. This does not mean the killer was not looking for money, but it does mean he did not take 'their' money.
So, it might be reasonably assumed they had no money to start with at the time they met with their killer.
And that tends to kill the trophy theory.
Regards, Jon |
lil_me
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
If jack the ripper did take the rings then, y wood he? does this prove that the ripper was not a well off person? he wouldnt need any rings if he already had loads of money! Im brainy lol |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
Whether or not a victim was carrying money is a matter of the circumstances attendant. (1) Tabram would certainly have been in coin. Based on the testimony of Pearly Poll, she had been at work immediately previously, and would have been paid. (2) Nichols specifically said she had spent all her money on drink, and was trying to score her doss with a final trick. She would have been penniless. (3) Chapman would have been penniless for sure. She was out trying to score her doss. (4) Stride was observed with various men previous to being murdered, she would have been working, and would have been paid. (5) Eddowes was the same as Nichols. She'd spent all her money on drink and was desperately trying to get some back. There is no way she could have turned a trick between the time Hutt let her out of her cell and the time the Ripper picked her up. She was penniless. (6) Kelly was seen actively at work that night bringing men back to her room, she owed for her rent, and very likely would have had money. It is conceivable in her case, however, that she was so alcoholic that she'd drink up each coin she received immediately.
There you have it. Logical all.
Saddam
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
"And that tends to kill the trophy theory. "
Not at all. I don't think any of us have enough of a grip on Jack's mindset to determine whether or not the coins he had given a particular "unfortunate" would have provided an attractive souvenir. It's possible that they did.
All I feel comfortable in saying is that SOMEONE robbed these women, as they had no money on them when found, despite requiring payment before services. And that someone was Jack, and that this doesn't tell us a blessed thing about what kind of economic class he belonged to, as he may have robbed them for pecuniary gain, or for trophies.
And considering the limited amount of time he had to work with, it is intriguing that he took the time to get the coins.
Sir Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Jack thought it utter nonsense
to kill a whore for four pence,
when he took his pleasure there
it was without thought or care.
His trophy was other,
no whore but his mother.
And if you asked him what he would rather,
of course it would be to stab his father.
All in all I find said theory rather limp,
when nobody here has thought of a pimp. |
lil_me
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 1:03 pm: | |
Yeh,but it was thoguht that the murderer was a well off person |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:40 pm: | |
"(1) Tabram would certainly have been in coin. Based on the testimony of Pearly Poll, she had been at work immediately previously, and would have been paid."
A better interpretation is that Tabram was alone, drunk, penniless, and calling it a night when she mounted the landing in George Yard Dwellings. RP |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 7:54 pm: | |
Yes RJ, quite correct.
Also....
(4) Stride was observed with various men previous to being murdered, she would have been working, and would have been paid.
Not enough is known about that night for us to determine whether she would have had money or not, how do we not know that the fracass witnessed on the sidewalk was not a 'pimp' taking her earnings from her?
If indeed she was on the game, she may have not had her first client yet.
(being seen with men does not imply a successful liason)
There's absolutely no way anyone can claim she had money on her person. Thats always assuming she was a Ripper victim to start with, which many, including myself, believe she was not.
Basically, all the victims appear to have been pennyless at the critical time.
Regards, Jon
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 4:57 am: | |
G'day,
I can see Jack watching the women drink their money away, so when they became desperate for doss money, he'd step in for the rescue. Especially as the murders progressed, prostitutes would have needed to be desperate for money to take the slightest risk. This made Jack seem like a savior.
I'm not certain yet that Tabram was 'Jacks' work, and she may have been 'in coin', but she was drinking all night with her friend.
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 10:18 am: | |
"I can see Jack watching the women drink their money away, so when they
became desperate for doss money, he'd step in for the rescue."
Hi Leanne!
Of course it is possible that this is the way things played out, but in a target rich environment I don't see it necessary for Jack to have stalked and hunted. I think he decided which night and which area, and let the victims come to him.
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 1:22 pm: | |
People seem to be missing the general idea in the above. We have a series of murders of prostitutes. A prostitute is a walking money machine--the purpose of being a prostitute is to get money expeditiously. None of the victims had one iota of value on her. Every single one without exception was found penniless. Not only that, but apparently Annie Chapman was minus three inexpensive brass rings, which were apparently removed with some difficulty. As Martin Fido has pointed out here, this is striking. While we can account by the attendant circumstances of the situations for some of the victims being without any items of value, IN GENERAL finding this many prostitutes without money is unusual. It is a question that appeals to the reasonable intellect. But one needs to know what the intellect is.
|
Saddam Huessein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 6:19 pm: | |
"A better interpretation is that Tabram was alone, drunk, penniless, and calling it a night when she mounted the landing in George Yard Dwellings. RP"
A better interpretation precisely in terms of WHAT, logically speaking? If you want to say that she had spent her earnings on drink, then you need to show that she had gone for a drink after heading up the alley with the soldier but before picking up the murderer. This isn't in the evidence. Therefore you are not making an interpretation, you're engaging in speculation.
Saddam Husseyn al Tikriti |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:37 pm: | |
Saddam,
Since all we are doing here is speculating, I'll throw my own supposition in there.
The reason we aren't finding any money on the victims is twofold. First, these weren't "whores by trade" (except, perhaps for Kelly). These were poor women who did what they had to do to survive. They weren't full time prostitutes. They did it to get money for a bed or a beer. And since we know, on a number of occassions, they had specifically gone out the nights they were killed to get money for their beds or booze, this makes sense. If they had had a penny or two, they wouldn't have been out prowling the streets.
Second, the only other logical reason for them not having any money on them is that it was taken by the Ripper. The killer had time enough to cut out uteri and hearts - he would've had more than enough time to search the small purses many of them kept for any cash they may have had. As for whatever money he lured them with, I'm sure he would've taken that back - or not given it to them until the act was completed. Either way, these are perfectly logical reasons why they would have no money on them.
Bryin Shaynymin al Baltimori |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 10:19 pm: | |
Ah, Mr. Radka, have you so quickly forgotten the "subjective" that you're making your jack-daw's nest out of?
" If you want to say that she had spent her earnings on drink, then you need to show that she had gone for a drink after heading up the alley with the soldier but before picking up the murderer"
Yes, that's exactly what I believe, but no, actually, I don't. I only need to demonstrate that Tabram's time of death is inconsistent with her being killed "immediately" [your word] after the encounter in George Yard, or 2) to demonstrate the improbability of her being killed by the two soldiers.
One needs to read a little further beyond what is on the cold, stark page.
A careful reading of the evidence shows that Pearly Poll's testimony directly contradicts that of Tabram's sister in law. Tabram was seen alone during the same time that she was allegedly pub-crawling with Poll and the two soldiers. Poll spent the evening in a drunken haze; if she was off by a mere hour in her reckoning then Martha was indeed seen alone after the trip up George Yard.
You claim Kelly is an alcoholic, but from what we know of Tabram's history, I suggest that she could drink Kelly under the table. If she survived her trip up George Yard, then I 'umbly suggest she immediately went for another glass of gin.
And did she survive? Or was she killed by the soldiers? The time of death and the method of dispatch casts serious doubt on the soldier theory.
Inspector Reid conducted the investigation. He personally interviewed Poll, PC Barrett, and all of the soldiers fingered. Reid believed Tabram was a Ripper victim. I have to agree with him.
So Tabram survived her knee-trembler with the soldier. We don't know what happened over the next couple of hours. But we do know that three people walked up the stairs of George Yard Dwellings and during that time and didn't see her. Frankly, I utterly refuse to believe that Tabram mounted the first floor landing in order to fornicate on someone's door-mat.
As I said before --More likely, she was three sheet to the wind, and was staggering off to sleep rough like she did so many other times. The blow to the back of the head suggests she was way-laid. RJP
|
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
JTR would have given his victims the money they asked for when he approached them. These women would defintely have wanted the money up front , and JTR would have complied, why wouldn't he, he wanted to appear as normal as possible.
The first thing they would have done would be to put that money in their pockets. They couldn't perform the sex act there and then,so they would put the money out of the way and then take the murderer to their little place where they had serviced men before.
After murdering them, JTR for some reason wanted that money back. What was that reason? would the possibility of fingerprints being found on the coins be known to the general public in those days? Or was fingerprinting not known at that time? Were any members of the police familiar with the art of fingerprinting at that time? Was JTR a copper? Having read what i have just written, it seems to me to be unlikely that this is the case, but all avenues must be explored.
It could be that he was just a common thief, this is the more likely explanation, he murdered these women and then rifled their pockets, to retrive his own money, and see if there was any more. How would he know what they had in their pockets? The only way to find out would be to look, and we know that he certainly went through the pockets of Chapman and Eddowes. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
