I don’t like having to read an article 3 times. Thankfully, this recent one was short, although it was short on explanation too. The title reads “Thief Steals Ring Off Hand of 90-Year-Old Woman”. That wording seems to strongly suggest that the ring was actually physically removed from the woman’s hand, which is all the more disturbing, and I suppose more interesting news, too. The jewelry thief stole the $21,000 diamond engagement ring from a 90-year-old lady in an assisted-living facility. Without saying more about the woman, her age at least opens the door to the from-her-finger removal possibility.

But here’s the weird part. Apparently, the woman’s daughter-in-law is the one who noticed it was missing, and the official police report says it was stolen between March 9^th and 23^rd. Now either the thief followed her around and pulled it off her finger super slowly over a two-week period, or it was simply kept somewhere in her home and removed from there. As far as theft prevention is concerned the police commander is quoted as saying “the best thing to do with jewelry is to wear it.” This mostly suggests that she wasn’t wearing it at the time, although it could be interpreted as a “it’s the best thing to do, and still it was taken.” Given other recent ring thefts from the elderly like this, the news is disheartening either way.

So I guess this is either an absolutely outlandish crime, or a more regular but still very unfortunate crime, with confusing reporting. Maybe they meant to say something along the lines of “the criminal took it off her hands,” as in “no, go out, I’ll babysit and take the kids off your hands.” Except you’d end up returning the kids. And they’re probably not worth $21,000. Sorry - I don’t like kids.