Where were all her things?

[Errata]

I was going through all of the clothing on the victims for a different thread, and I suddenly realized something different about Polly Nichols.

Why wasn't she wearing everything she owned? I suppose she might have been, if she down to one of everything. But that seems unlikely. So where were the rest of her clothes? She was to the best of my understanding still in a doss house. Where she could not have left anything. She took her mirror with her which she likely would not need on the street, so it seems there was no place to leave that.

I'm not terribly sure it matters either way, but it is something that stands out as different. Any ideas?

[Rubyretro]

I had (a very vague) idea that Polly lived with her Father ?

PS Just went back to read about Polly, and see that she had indeed left her Father's house at the time of her death. Her 'story' makes very sad reading -there is a tendancy to put her aside for the more intriguing victims, yet she is a 'classic' victim.

[Addy]

Hi all,

Probably she had all she owned on her. Or she did leave her things in the doss house, expecting to return the same day (she said: I've earned my doss money four times today).

Regarding the mirror: you can imagine she would need it to "tidy up" after a costumer, if she didn't have enough money yet. And a piece of mirror is more easily carried around than clothing (save putting it on ofcourse however if it would be too warm to wear everything, that's not likely)

Greetings,

Addy

[Jane Coram]

Hi Errata,

That was almost certainly all she possessed. She was staying at the White House up until the day she was murdered, and it's quite certain that she wouldn't have left any property there if she wanted to see it again. She'd been in and out of workhouses or sleeping rough prior to that and, again, that would seem to confirm that she owned nothing other than the clothes she was standing up in. Even the petticoats were nicked from the workhouse, and I suspect some of the clothing she was wearing was stolen from the Cowdry's.

The mirror she would have kept with her at all times as it was quite a prized possession to someone like her. She wouldn't risk anyone nicking it. Of course her bonnet was new (at least new to her) and I have a sneaking suspicion that she might have pinched that from somewhere, but of course that's only speculation based on her record of being a bit light fingered.

Not much of a life for poor old Polly.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Errata]

I guess I find it unlikely because she had clothes for work in July, and steals more from her employer. If she were to sell clothes for money, it seems likely she would sell the better quality ones from her employer. It just seems odd that whatever she had during her employment would be gone a month later.

[Hunter]

Hi Jane,

Your posts on the lifestyles of the people in this saga are always a breath of fresh air. An artist has to pay attention to detail to convey an accurate picture. Your talent in this field is unsurpassed and most appreciated by all who strive to enlighten their knowledge of the historical context of the tragic events of that period.

It is a sad reminder, but for the 'street victims' at least, their home was largely carried on their backs. Their perception of life was not only day by day, but minute by minute... numbed by alcohol and shunned by their peers. Their mark on history being only the tragic end that was bestowed on them.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Errata,

Well, the way I see it is that because Polly was placed at the Cowdrys by the workhouse authorities, she would have been either wearing clothes provided for her by the workhouse, or would have been given a uniform by the Cowdrys to wear when she started work there as a domestic.

It could well be that the Cowdrys provided her with the linsey dress she was wearing when she was murdered. It sounds like a very typical domestic's dress which were usually made of linsey. That would explain Polly still wearing the Lambeth Workhouse petticoats and the dress being reasonably new (if you favour Sugden's opinion on it). The dress could have been part of the clothing that Polly stole from the Cowdrys. Obviously there are a lot of different possibilities so we can only guess, but at least that makes some sense.

I suspect that Polly pawned most of the clothing she stole from the Cowdrys the instant she left to give her some money for a doss, booze and food. One item of clothing would be enough to cover her expenses for a couple of days.
It wouldn't have lasted long, a few days would probably see the whole lot gone. If the clothing was worth £3 10 shillings, she could probably pawn it for about 30 shillings, depending on how tight the pawnbroker was. That's assuming she didn't keep some of it.

To support the idea that she got rid of the items of clothing as quickly as humanly possible is that she was admitted to the Gray's Inn casual ward for one night after she left the Cowdrys. She would not have been given admittance if she had spare clothing or any money at all on her. The money/clothing must all have gone by the 1st of August.

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi Hunter,

It really was a hard life. Whitechapel and Spitalfields were crammed with people just like Polly, existing from day to day in any way they could.

Having just mentioned the casual ward at Grays Inn, I don't think many can appreciate how humiliating and degrading it was being admitted to a place like that.

They would have to queue for hours in all weathers to get in; they would be interrogated as to why they were there, searched to see if they had any money at all, and any tobacco and alcohol confiscated. After that they stripped and forced to bathe in water that had been used by heaven knows how many others before, in front of everyone; deloused if they needed it, and if they had head lice, their hair cropped short.

All of that to be allowed to sleep in a shed or cellar, with an overflowing bucket for a toilet, with boards or a hammock to sleep on. Whitechapel casual ward particularly was horrific to all accounts, Lambeth, amongst the best, which is probably why Polly went there. Breakfast was usually some near mouldy bread or oatmeal skilly to eat. Just to add insult to injury they would have to unpick two pounds of old rope (called oakum) the next day to pay for it, and that could take four or five hours, of finger tearing work before they would let them leave.

The good old days.

Much love

Janie

xxxx

[Adam Went]

Jane has hit the nail on the head with her account of things.
These women, having been reduced to that situation in life, owned virtually nothing. Anything of value had already been pawned off to get money. So anything else that Polly might have owned which she left behind (and I agree there probably wasn't any) would have been quickly snapped up by anybody who found them and who thought they were of any value.

I know it's not Polly, but i've wondered in the past whatever happened to Liz Stride's piece of green velvet.

Reminds me of a scene in Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist", where an old woman is attending her daughter's funeral and was lent a cloak for the occasion - when the funeral service was over, the old woman was more concerned with "bewailing the loss of her cloak", as Dickens put it, than her daughter's death. Fictional story perhaps, but this sort of thing really did happen, and it's still very sad.

Cheers,
Adam.

[lynn cates]

lucky

Hello Jane. You are dead on target about casual wards. Fishman in his "East End: 1888" suggests that the bad treatment, especially the oakum picking, was designed to be punitive.

And so it never ceases to amaze me that Kate was able to get out and make it back to see John--all by 8:00 AM. What a piece of good luck!

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Jane,
Gray's Inn does seem to clinch the fact that she had nothing at all. The position as a domestic may or may not have required separate clothing. I imagine that depends upon the status of the employer, and her job. Certainly she would not have been "upstairs" in any house. I originally did not picture it as a residential situation, where certainly her clothing would be provided by her employer, but it may have been. Scrubbing floors and peeling roots are not jobs suited to starched aprons and lace caps. The linsey was most likely her work outfit.

Personally, given Victorian attitudes on dress and comportment and a woman's vanity, I would have thought she would have obtained stays before a hat. And there are any number of reasons why this would not be the case, I merely find it surprising. Thanks for the help.

[Hunter]

Polly was wearing stays (brown)- albeit a very loose fit - at the time of her murder. They didn't seem to impede her muderer from carrying out his mutilations.

[Errata]

Polly was wearing stays (brown)- albeit a very loose fit - at the time of her murder. They didn't seem to impede her muderer from carrying out his mutilations.

You are quite right. I meant a chemise. And her stays likely were little more that a reinforced camisole, so I would not expect them to impede overly much.