Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Body undressed, but not washed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Body undressed, but not washed

    I have often read that Nichols' body has been undressed and washed by Mann and Hatfield, but looking into the inquest and press reports, I cannot find any evidence showing that the body have been washed.
    Mann and Hatfield only confessed having "stripped the deceased".
    On the contrary, in the case of Chapman, it is again Mann who received the body, which was undressed and washed by two nurses, Mary Elizabeth Simonds and Frances Wright.
    So I incline to think it a mistake to state that Nichols' body has been washed.
    Is it right?

    Amitiés à tous,
    David

  • #2
    Originally posted by DVV View Post
    I have often read that Nichols' body has been undressed and washed by Mann and Hatfield, but looking into the inquest and press reports, I cannot find any evidence showing that the body have been washed.
    Mann and Hatfield only confessed having "stripped the deceased".
    On the contrary, in the case of Chapman, it is again Mann who received the body, which was undressed and washed by two nurses, Mary Elizabeth Simonds and Frances Wright.
    So I incline to think it a mistake to state that Nichols' body has been washed.
    Is it right?

    Amitiés à tous,
    David
    Oh, wow! Well, that pretty much solves the entire mystery right there, doesn't it?
    What's all this then?

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Emlodik,
      that is at least an example of a mistake reproduced book after book.
      It shows also the relative interest in Nichols' case, since she's less "glamour" than Stride or Kelly.

      Amitiés,
      David

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DVV View Post
        Hi Emlodik,
        that is at least an example of a mistake reproduced book after book.
        It shows also the relative interest in Nichols' case, since she's less "glamour" than Stride or Kelly.

        Amitiés,
        David
        Well, I might be in the persecuted minority, but I always found the Nichols and Chapman cases to be the most interesting out of the five canon victims. But, still, compared to all the other inaccuracies, myths and flat out lies, the washing mistake seems really insignificant. Though, I'm sure that someone will later come out and scream: "MARY ANN NICHOLS' BODY WASN'T WASHED AFTER SHE WAS KILLED?!?! THAT CAN ONLY MEAN THAT MANN AND HATFIELD ARE THE KILLERS!!!!"
        Last edited by emlodik; 07-30-2008, 09:35 PM.
        What's all this then?

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it was fairly standard practice to wash the bodies so although it wasn't mentioned I think we can assume it was done.
          In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KatBradshaw View Post
            I think it was fairly standard practice to wash the bodies so although it wasn't mentioned I think we can assume it was done.
            No Kat,
            because Mann and Hatfield have been duly questionned at the Nichols inquest, to the point of being blamed.
            And the fact that Chapman's body has been washed by two women, though Mann was present, is also significant.

            Amitiés,
            David

            Comment


            • #7
              ...and I'm sure you will admit that washing the corpse was a bigger mistake even than stripping it.
              No doubt Dr LLewellyn, who made the post-mortem and had to "face" Baxter (who duly contested some of his conclusions), would have mentionned it in order to justify his inaccuracies.

              Amitiés,
              David

              Comment

              Working...
              X