Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by caz 17 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by caz 28 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by RockySullivan 39 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by The Station Cat 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by John Malcolm 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (9 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (2 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (2 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Ann Nichols

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-27-2017, 05:01 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,621
Default

Returning to the date discrepancy in Nichols' letter, it occurs to me that she may have dated it earlier than it was written so as to make her concerned father believe that she had left the workhouse for gainful employment rather earlier than was actually the case.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-27-2017, 01:06 PM
Flower and Dean Flower and Dean is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Returning to the date discrepancy in Nichols' letter, it occurs to me that she may have dated it earlier than it was written so as to make her concerned father believe that she had left the workhouse for gainful employment rather earlier than was actually the case.
That crossed my mind as well, but I wonder if in April she would have already known about where she would be and what she would be doing. Would she be told with this type of advance? And wouldn't the letter be specific enough (the address, postal markings, etc.) to make it possible to know where she was?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-28-2017, 03:27 AM
Madam Detective Madam Detective is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Hi MS

Thanks. That's probably the explanation because the Lambeth, Renfrew Road workhouse creed register has a Mary Ann Nichols aged 39, charwoman being admitted on 8 February 1881 and discharged on 26th May 1881 (136 years to the day!) which covers the date of the census, meaning she was there for the 1881 census as some books have stated.

This rules out the Mary Ann Nichols in Newington casual ward that I mentioned earlier, appearing several times in 1881 and born in 1852, the same year of birth given by Mary Ann Nichols in the Lambeth workhouse and other institutions in 1887/88.


Strangely, the older Mary Ann Nichols (49) who appears in the 1881 census at Lambeth workhouse is in the same creed register too, further down the same page, but is noted as being admitted May 26th 1881 and discharged June 17th to police. So she wasn't there for the census but is listed on the census for that institution!
That's odd.

Mary Ann Monk also appears in this same Lambeth workhouse Renfrew Road creed register for 1880/81
Just reading back through these old posts. One of the reasons that Polly won't appear in the workhouse records during the 1881 census is because she was being given a maintenance by William. This maintenance was designed to keep her out of the workhouse and living independently of the parish. However, this doesn't mean that she wouldn't turn up in the casual wards if she spent it all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-28-2017, 12:09 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madam Detective View Post
Just reading back through these old posts. One of the reasons that Polly won't appear in the workhouse records during the 1881 census is because she was being given a maintenance by William. This maintenance was designed to keep her out of the workhouse and living independently of the parish. However, this doesn't mean that she wouldn't turn up in the casual wards if she spent it all.
You are probably right. The interesting thing is there are three women named Mary Ann Nichols in the Lambeth workhouse records from 81 onwards. One (a) is much older and not the right woman, one (b) is the same age as the woman we are interested in and was in and out in 1881, and one is younger (c) but exactly the same age as the age we definitely know Mary Ann Nichols passed herself of as in the workhouse (William is mentioned in her settlement records) and she doesn't turn up in Lambeth workhouse until 1883. She does correspond to the age of the casual ward user in 1881 though.

One (a) appears in the the Lambeth workhouse in the 1881 census, but she is too old to be the Mary Ann Nichols we are interested in. But checking the creed registers of Lambeth workhouse, which record the admission and discharge dates of inmates, shows that this older MA Nichols (a) was not actually in the workhouse at the time of the 1881 census in April 1881 but the woman who is the same age (b), was, even though she isn't listed on teh 1881 census!..It's puzzling. Perhaps the person who compiled the creed register or the person who filled out the 1881 census return seem to have got their Mary Ann's in a twist.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-28-2017, 12:57 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,302
Default

Might be "the younger version" of Mary Ann Nichols in the Ailie Street hospital for the 1881 Census.
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-28-2017, 01:46 PM
ChrisGeorge ChrisGeorge is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,518
Default

A period view and a modern view of Lambeth Workhouse --





See Victorian plan of the workhouse posted by Maggie Jones on Flickr at https://flic.kr/p/nzgqyw. She writes: "On the map it has rooms for men and women of good or bad character. This is the workhouse that Charlie Chaplin was sent to as a child with his older brother and mother."

See also http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Lambeth/
__________________
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon in Baltimore
http://blog.casebook.org/chrisgeorge
For info about RipperCon, in Baltimore, MD,
April 7-8, 2018, go to http://rippercon.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-28-2017, 01:54 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJA View Post
Might be "the younger version" of Mary Ann Nichols in the Ailie Street hospital for the 1881 Census.
The thing that puts me off that Mary Ann Nichols is that she was born in Bow whereas 'our' Mary Ann had her birth registered in West London.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-28-2017, 02:23 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,302
Default

Have you found a birth record in Bow?

Odds are you are correct,however she hasn't been found elsewhere.

Sort of like Mary Kelly being born in Limerick,Ireland
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-28-2017, 04:16 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJA View Post
Have you found a birth record in Bow?

Odds are you are correct,however she hasn't been found elsewhere.

Sort of like Mary Kelly being born in Limerick,Ireland
Mary Ann's birth certificate says she was born in Dawes Court Shoe Lane in 1845, that's the City. The GRO ref gives the registration district as the West End Union, which included Fleet St. As Mary Ann Walker in 1861 her place of birth is given as St Bride, which is describing the same place. In 1871 she just gives London

The Mary Ann Nichols in the census at the London Hospital in 1881 says she was born in Bow.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-29-2017, 07:31 AM
Madam Detective Madam Detective is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 29
Default

That's all really interesting and also what I discovered when looking through the A & D registers too, so obviously we're probably both on to something. It would make sense that 'our' Mary Ann only appears in the workhouse records from 1883 because in her examination she states that William paid her a maintenance for two years. In fact, there seems to be one entry which I identified as might being her dating from 24 April 1882 - 18 Jan 1883 at Lambeth Workhouse. If William cut her off because he needed the extra money to move out of the Peabody flats with Rosetta (which he did in July of that year) this would be about the right time frame.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.