|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Annie Chapmans Possessions
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Annie Chapman:
Annie Chapmans Possessions
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:41 pm |        | July 1996
Reports claim that Annie Chapman's possessions (an envelope, some coins, and a torn envelope) were arranged "in a cryptic fashion" around her feet. Many have attributed this peculiarity to a cultish behaviour, and it has been mentioned as damning evidence of Freemasonic involvement by conspiracy theorists. What importance should be given to this 'cryptic arrangement?' Does it implicate a conspiracy, perhaps a cult, or does it mean something else? Was it the result of over-enthusiastic police investigation, or does it mean something more?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 96 10:35:29 EST
From: Tom Saupe
I think we first need to consider what was really found next to Annie's body. According to the police and coroner's reports in which the crime scene was described, found next to her body were two combs and a scrap of envelope bearing the seal of the Sussex Regiment and what appeared to be a partial address containing the letter "M" the number "2" and the letter "Sp." On the reverse was a post mark, "London 28 Aug., 1888" In none of these reports is there any mention of coins being found on or near the body.
The polished farthings appear to enter the myth much later on and appear most often in the reminiscences of people who were not even at the scene. The idea of the coins may have gotten its start due to the mention of the brass rings missing from Annie's fingers at the time of the murder. It was known that she had recently purchased the rings and an extensive hunt for them took place after the murder. So I think we first need to establish that there were no coins piled symbolically at her feet.
Although there is a great deal of room for speculation as to the symbolic meaning of the combs and envelope being "placed" near her body, the chance of ever fully understanding the significance, if any, of these items to the murderer is slim.
Researcher Mark King, who is doing significant research on Mary Kelly does add one tantalizing tidbit to the significance of the envelope however. Writing in Ripperana #14, he suggests that the envelope may have originally belonged to Mary Jane Kelly.
Remember that Miller's Court was directly across Dorset Street from Crossingham's Lodging House in which Annie lived. There is little doubt that the envelope was the one which Annie was reported to have placed her pills in on the night of her murder after the pill box broke in the kitchen of the lodging house. The scrap of envelope was on the mantle over the fireplace.
The kitchen of a lodging house was the common room. A room were lodgers cooked their meals and socialized and it is certainly not beyond the realm of reason to assume that Mary Jane Kelly may have visited acquaintances at Crossingham's from time to time. Obviously these visits would have taken place in the kitchen.
Mark King states that Kelly's father was living in London in 1888 and was drawing a pension from the Sussex Regiment. For this reason and those above, he suggests that the entire address on the envelope may have read:
"M"ary Jane Kelly
"2"6 Dorset Street (13 Miller's Court was actually the back parlor of 26 Dorset Street.)
"Sp"italfields
Please do not read into this any assumption on my part that Kelly knew Chapman in any way other than, perhaps, by sight. But the proximity of Miller's Court to Crossingham's and the assumption that Kelly would have had at least some reason to have been in the kitchen of Crossingham's at some time and could have left the envelope adds one more coincidence to consider when thinking about the Whitechapel crimes.
Coming back to the idea of ritualistic behavior on the part of the murderer, there appears to be other evidence to support this. At the inquest on Catharine Eddowes' death it is stated by the coroner that a piece of intestine was placed, as if by design, between her right arm and thorax. As the rest of the intestine was placed over her right shoulder, just as with Chapman, this appears on the surface to have some meaning to the murderer.
This may have some bearing as well on the placement of Mary Jane Kelly's breasts under her head and feet. But let's not attach undue significance to any of these with first realizing that there may, indeed, be none what so ever and that this was all a matter of chance, accident, or impulse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:45:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: lpg@www.gnofn.org
Annie Chapman's personal possessions laid out in a "cryptic" fashion? Don't make too much of it. The items included a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb and a pocket comb in a paper case. Near the head portion was a portion of an envelope containing two pills. A few other articles lay about the yard -- an empty nail box, a piece of flat steel and a leather apron. The envelope bore a seal and the words "Sussex Regiment" embossed in blue. On the other side was a letter M in script and, lower down, Sp. There was a red-stamped postmark "London, Aug. 23, 1888".
No coins, no rings. Isn't it time to end the fantasy and get to the facts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 96 06:13:19 -0700
From: Stephanie Richey
The one thing I think can be reasoned from the arrangement of Chapman's things, regardless of what they were, is the murderer was not in a frenzy when he killed her. I find it difficult to believe someone could, in a fit of rage, kill and rip someone, then calmly arange the victim's things so precisely at her feet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:26:12 -0000
From: Martin Wolverton
The items found near Chapman were simply placed there at random after the ripper rifled through her pockets. There seems to be no rhyme or reason behind it, just chance. No rings or coins were found(this has been disproved for some time now). There was no masonic or cult involvement in these crimes, the items found by Chapman were just so much debris left by the killer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 15:47:37 -0400
From: Michael Rogers
I guess I can believe that Chapman's possessions would be found at her feet but am not so quick to believe that they were arranged "in a cryptic fashion." It just sounds too made up. I can't see the killer bothering to do it. And why wasn't it ever done again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:34:25 -0400
From: A. Dylan Gable
In reference to response #1...
Tom: Interesting idea, but it seems like you're ignoring the most obvious question: WHY?? What motive would Kelly have for doing this?? Are you implying she WAS Jack The Ripper, or that she was an accomplice in this murder, or that she she was an unwitting accomplice, and unknowingly loaned the room to a murderer??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 16:18:48 EST
From: Tom Saupe
In reference to response #6
Dylan,
Good lord, I make no such claims or inferences. Mary Kelly's involvement with the case was only as a victim. I merely point out that there is possibly one more coincidence, and nothing more than a "possibility of coincidence." However, now that you mention it, I'm sure some one will come along and make this into another ridiculous theory that we will all have to wade through only to discard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 14:29:05 +0200
From: Adam Wood
I'm no subscriber to the Druitt theory, but the first letters of the items found at chapman's feet: Muslin, Comb, Comb makes interesting reading. another one for the coincidences page!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:21:02 EDT
From: Yvette8475
This could definitely have been a "cryptic message." If you recall, Sir William Gull was a major suspect in the case, and it just so happens that he was an active Freemason. For those people who say it was just a concidence and that the killer didn't have time to arrange the objects, what do you say about the murder of Catherine Eddowes????? She was found underneath a message saying " The JUWES are not the men That Will be Blamed for nothing." He had time to write that and the word Juwes may have a pun to it. It was said that the word "Juwes" referred not to Jews, but rather to Juwes- three legendary killers--Sir William Gull, John Netley, and Joseph Sickert!!!!
Editor's Note: Kate Eddowes was not found underneath the Juwes message... it was written on a wall in Goulston Street, about half a mile northeast of Mitre Square. |
Author: Kikit (Kikit)
Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 01:35 pm | | | Just a question after reading all this: Does anyone know how the objects were "arranged" around Annie's body? Is there any information that actually supports the fact that the objects were "arranged in a cryptic fashion" around her? Could "Jack" have rifled her pockets and dropped the objects out of disintrest? Sounds to me like the police and public were reading more into the found items than was justified. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 04:39 pm | | Kikit -
Our wonders about the arrangement of Annie Chapman's trumpery items comes from the testimony of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, who, speaking to Chapman's inquest jury, said that the objects at her feet (a piece of muslin, a small-toothed comb and a pocket comb in a paper case)"had apparently been placed there in order, that is to say, arranged there" [from the 'Daily Telegraph' of September 14]. It is difficult from this to determine what Dr. Phillips meant by "arranged." Did he mean the items were all in a row? That they were all facing the same way? We cannot be sure, and it is this ambiguity that has led to some of the dottier theorising over these objects, Chapman's rings and her "fabled farthings" (for which, check out earlier posts on this particular site).
Dr. Phillips, I might add in passing, has also caused confusion for us in determining the Ripper's surgical ability with his ill-chosen phrasing in the 'Lancet' about Chapman's murderer managing to cut out her pelvic organs with "one sweep of the knife." Yes, he certainly took away her uterus cleanly, but made an utter hash of trying to get her vagina and bladder - if, of course, he was trying to do such a thing!
Sorry about that last; it is a trifle disquieting to dispassionately write about such things, but that is the manner of this case.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 05:25 pm | | Maybe the murderer viewed the comb and other personal items the same way he might internal organs. Save for intestines, which he doesn't appear to have liked because he usually just heaved them over the victim's shoulder, most of what he did concerning organs seemed to have an order or method to it. They were placed down in Mary Kelly's room with care for the most part. He took wombs, a kidney and a heart away with him. He was careful cutting out Eddowes' kidney. Maybe he was in the same sense careful with Annie's possessions. Kind of laid them out for his interested examination, delectation and comparison. The internal organs of the women, save for the intestines, seem to have been a point of primary interest and desire for him. What do others think?
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 08:18 pm | | David -
Certainly possible, but the question then is when did he examine them - before or after plundering poor Chapman's body? If before, why waste the time when time was of the essence? If after, might we not expect the objects to be bloodstained and Dr. Phillips to have mentioned it at the inquest? Questions, questions all around. . .
Wombs and kidneys, yes. But the heart? It depends upon your interpretation of Dr. Bond's words "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent." Does he mean the heart was merely absent from the body, or from the room entirely? Later reports (which I'm too lazy to find now, though I will if you don't trust me) speak of Mary Kelly's body as "complete in all respects," and so I don't think we can pronounce authoritatively on her heart.
I do agree with the main point (sorry) that it was internal organs that held the fascination for the Ripper. What made a woman woman, as I've said before.
CMD |
Author: DAG
Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 09:20 pm | | Has anyone considered that JTR may have been married? Considering the days he committed the murders, possibly done while his wife was away, visiting relatives? The organs....I don't agree that he took just the parts that make a woman a woman..after all, a heart and a kidney are also part of a man. However, could he possibly have had a child, maybe something wrong with the child, and therefore, was taking away things from the women that included giving birth, but also keeps a person alive, and therefore was sending a message that he wanted his wife dead?
Just some thoughts to ponder. |
Author: Jeff D
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 12:25 am | | HiYa Guyz 'n' Galz !
Just looking at CMD's post of March 7th., this is a really intersting point. Did the Ripper plunder the pockets and personal posessions of the victims before or after the mutilations ? If it was before, and say, the victim was lying unconcious or dead from strangulation, why did he search through their posessions, and what was he hoping to find ? He then laid the items out on the ground neatly. Then went to work with his knife.
He must have done this, else everything would have been covered in blood, slime and other matter, and if these items were covered in blood, it would surely have been noted at the scene of the crime. He was taking great risks of being discovered as it was, to search through the victims posessions, or at least to empty their pockets and such first, then plunder the abdomen and cut out various organs is quite an interesting point. Even in my work, I am always saying the sequence in which you do something has as much to do with the outcome as what you are actually doing.
Cheers, interesting point, and thanks !
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 04:06 am | | Hi Jeff,
I don't know that Jack did go through and empty the pockets of his victims, and as far as I know the bit about items being laid neatly about is one of those JTR faireytales. It is true that pockets, or to describe them better, pouches bound to the body, were ripped, or cut, and the contents lay about. If that was design or not is not proven, maybe the pouch was cut during the mutilations, maybe intentionaly.
It is evidenced that Jack killed, or at least rendered his victim unconcious, before he mutilated though. He didn't seem to be interested in sadism, or maybe it was too dangerous. That is indeed a point about his methods, as you say.
True is also that no money was ever found on the women (Forget farthings). If Jack enticed them with some big coin (half-sovereign etc) and took it back afterward (thus rifling through the pockets) or even some object of value that could have incriminated him is a question.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 05:24 am | | G'day everyone,
Christopher: There never was a reliable explanation of where Kelly's heart might have been. Shirley Harrison writes: 'certainly Dr. Phillips and Dr. Roderick Macdonald, returned to Kelly's room to sift through the ashes in her fireplace, in search of burned human remains.' Why would Doctors be sent to do this?
Kelly's inquest was very short and when the coroner invited the jury to establish the 'cause of death', he said 'There is other evidence which I do not propose to call, for if we at once make public every fact brought forward in connection with this terrible murder, the end of justice might be retarded'. - THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF JACK THE RIPPER.
The 'Times' and the 'Daily Telegraph', insisted: 'We are enabled to state that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 11:43 am | | | Hi everyone , me again. I think we can safely say that Chapman had no money on her or by her at time of discovery , that it is just a myth. But I am fascinated by the Sussex regiment envelope story and the possibility that there is evidence that might suggest MJK knew Chapman. What new evidence is availible on this , if any ? Is there any more evidence to suggest MJK's father was living in London at the time of the murders , or is this a discounted story now ? Does Mark King still read these pages and if so could he get in touch to give us an answer ? |
Author: paul merryman
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 06:14 am | | Hello,
I have heard on another message board that there is a photo of annie chapman before she was murdered available. Does anyone have a copy or know where I could find this.
Paul |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 09:50 am | | Hi, Paul:
The wedding picture of Annie Chapman and her husband is in Neal Shelden's recent book, "Annie Chapman, Jack the Ripper Victim: A Short Biography". I understand the website that Mr. Shelden set up with the picture may be currently down. Neal himself can address this question. Neal is doing important work in researching the lives of the victims.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
