The Whitechapel Society 1888 Victims Conference 8 Sept. 2018

[MrBarnett]

The birthplace on that one was a problem for me too, Gary. I did notice a woman giving her birthplace as Clerkenwell in other census entries and wondered if that was the 1881 MA Nichols picked up HR. I haven't gone in to any detail looking at it though. There's also the question of whether she is the same MA Nichols using the Newington casual ward regularly in the late 70s and early 80s that I mentioned before. That establishment is close to her old home I gather? If those are correct then a move to Islington would seem odd to me.

And even more unlikely that William Nichols would had someone spying on her on the other side of London, I’d have thought.

In fairness to HR, she admits she isn’t sure that this woman is Polly.

[Debra A]

The Mary Ann Nichols on the 1861 census mentioned by HR was living with a ‘scavenger’ named George Crawshaw in Wellington Road, Islington.

Crawshaw seems to have spent his entire life in Islington, being born there in 1841 and dying there in 1907.

You have to ask yourself how Polly, based in Lambeth, south London, might have hooked up with a scavenger (rubbish collector/street cleaner) living in Islington, north London.

Not impossible, but it’s one thing that makes me question whether it is ‘our’ Mary Ann Nichols.

I also question whether someone born in a Court off Shoe Lane and Christened at St Bride’s would give Finsbury as her place of birth.

The birthplace on that one was a problem for me too, Gary. I did notice a woman giving her birthplace as Clerkenwell in other census entries and wondered if that was the 1881 MA Nichols picked up HR. I haven't gone in to any detail looking at it though. There's also the question of whether she is the same MA Nichols using the Newington casual ward regularly in the late 70s and early 80s that I mentioned before. That establishment is close to her old home I gather? If those are correct then a move to Islington would seem odd to me.

[MrBarnett]

The Mary Ann Nichols on the 1861 census mentioned by HR was living with a ‘scavenger’ named George Crawshaw in Wellington Road, Islington.

Crawshaw seems to have spent his entire life in Islington, being born there in 1841 and dying there in 1907.

You have to ask yourself how Polly, based in Lambeth, south London, might have hooked up with a scavenger (rubbish collector/street cleaner) living in Islington, north London.

Not impossible, but it’s one thing that makes me question whether it is ‘our’ Mary Ann Nichols.

I also question whether someone born in a Court off Shoe Lane and Christened at St Bride’s would give Finsbury as her place of birth.

[Elamarna]

It could be that Ms Fielder didn't know by sight each and every one of the inmates at the workhouse, even though its said she arranged Polly's employment with the Cowdrys.

JM

Very fair point Jonathan. Which of course explain why another inmate, Monk.ended up going and identifing her.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Morning Advertiser, 1st September 1888—

The deceased woman's clothing was of a common description, but the skirt of one petticoat bore the stencil stamp of Lambeth Workhouse. The only articles in the pockets were a comb and a piece of looking glass. The latter led the police to conclude that the murdered woman was an inhabitant of the numerous lodging houses of the neighbourhood, and officers were despatched to make inquiries while a messenger was sent to Lambeth to get the matron to view the body for the purpose of identification. The latter, however, could not identify the woman, and said that the clothing might have been issued any time during the past two or three years.

The story also appeared in Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks for the source Simon,

Firstly it is a word pefect repeat in Lloyds of the Advertiser, so it's really only a single common source.

And these are early general press reporting, and should really not be treated the same as inquest reports in my estimation.

Indeed the early press reports are often garbled and incorrect, from talking of signs of a struggle and the clothing being torn or cut to the account in the East London Observer 1st Sept.
Which says Neil took the body to the mortuary with the aid of street scavengers.
For that particular report to be correct, it means that the vast majority of those giving evidence at the inquest lied, not just the police, but the neighbours, the doctor, the slaughter men and mulshaw. Totally unacceptable without any proof to back it up.

Papers get it wrong.

However let's look if there are any obvious reasons why this report would be carried.

Just because the article says Fielder attended the mortuary, it does not mean such actually occurred.

It could, and I stress could well be that she did not recognise Polly from a verbal description. We do know however Mary Ann Monk went from the workhouse and did identify her.

So maybe, and it is a maybe Fielder never actually went, but Monk did.

The inquest reports make no mention of her attending the mortuary.

We also know that she was identified because her father confirmed the ID, and attended the inquest on the Saturday, 1st. Monk appeared 3rd.
Helsons report of the 7th only says she was identified due to the label on her clothing, not who by, or any other details

I can see no reason why Fielder could not identify her, and suspect that she actually never attended the mortuary, Monk going in her stead.

I had forgotten the source, although it is included in the press section of my overdue book, because I had discounted the report and see no reason to change that view

This isn't a Nichols thread so perhaps could go elsewhere if you wish to continue, so we don't annoy people.

Happy new year by the way.

Steve

[jmenges]

It could be that Ms Fielder didn't know by sight each and every one of the inmates at the workhouse, even though its said she arranged Polly's employment with the Cowdrys.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Morning Advertiser, 1st September 1888—

The deceased woman's clothing was of a common description, but the skirt of one petticoat bore the stencil stamp of Lambeth Workhouse. The only articles in the pockets were a comb and a piece of looking glass. The latter led the police to conclude that the murdered woman was an inhabitant of the numerous lodging houses of the neighbourhood, and officers were despatched to make inquiries while a messenger was sent to Lambeth to get the matron to view the body for the purpose of identification. The latter, however, could not identify the woman, and said that the clothing might have been issued any time during the past two or three years.

The story also appeared in Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi All,

Does anyone know why Mrs Fielder, Matron and wife of the Master of Lambeth Workhouse, was unable to identify Polly Nichols?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,
Was she asked to?
Whats the source for it?

Have to be honest not something I even looked into.


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Does anyone know why Mrs Fielder, Matron and wife of the Master of Lambeth Workhouse, was unable to identify Polly Nichols?

Regards,

Simon

[MrBarnett]

In the light of HR’s contention that the Nichols’ would have made friends in the Peabody Buildings, it’s interesting to note that the female witness to Polly and William’s marriage was Sarah Good, the sextoness of St Brides, presumably because no suitable female friend or family member was available or willing to support Polly.

Sarah Good also witnessed the marriage of John McCarthy’s parents, but they were newly-arrived immigrants who possibly didn’t have much in the way of family or friends to hand.



Polly apparently grew close to her father after her mother died, and shortly afterwards she married her ‘sweetheart’. Proper Mills and Boon stuff.

When they moved to Lambeth it was cockney knees-up time in the Peabody Buildings - mates galore. But one of them was a snake in the grass and the ‘sweetheart’ turned sour - nothing to do with Poll’s drinking, you understand. That was frowned upon by Mr Peabody. Try as hard as you like, you’ll never find an example of a pie-eyed Peabody resident.

She left, broken-hearted, and was forced into the workhouse in order to survive. She attempted to squeeze a few measly shillings out of cold-hearted Bill, but he set a spy on her trail and found her shacked up with a scavenger in Holloway.

It was probably at that point that she started drinking and possibly even ‘soliciting’ (avoid the P word at all costs).

Is that how it was? Was Polly the innocent victim in the story? I don’t know.

[Elamarna]

No problem, Steve.
Happy New year to you.

Hi Debs
Very interesting research, and the Lambeth workhouse thread too.

Although I doubt I will add much to my chapter.
One question, do you know if there are any links online to an image of her birth cert?
Be nice to add the link if there is one.


Be interested to hear your views on identifying the Nichols in the 81 census as Polly referred to in the podcast.

While there undoubtedly appears to be new information included, I also feel from
reading the various threads on this, that the agenda, came before the research. Much like many suspect books.

I await the publication so one can get a fair view.


Steve

[Debra A]

Thanks for the link Debs

I am editing my chapter on Mary Ann herself to allow me to incorporate the new( or at least stuff I was not aware of) info from the podcast, referencing it of course temporary to the talk.
So I will have a look at the thread to see if anything there I have missed, credit will of course be given.

I may be late with publication, but I will be up to date.

Happy New year


Steve

No problem, Steve.
Happy New year to you.

[Elamarna]

Thanks, Steve. I understand your point now.
I found the link to the vagrancy discussions and edited it in to my post anyhow. There are links to images from the settlement papers of Polly Nichols on that thread too which might be of interest.

Thanks for the link Debs

I am editing my chapter on Mary Ann herself to allow me to incorporate the new( or at least stuff I was not aware of) info from the podcast, referencing it of course temporary to the talk.
So I will have a look at the thread to see if anything there I have missed, credit will of course be given.

I may be late with publication, but I will be up to date.

Happy New year


Steve

[Debra A]

Hi, Debs

The context was that at times , 81 and 87 she consciously took the decision to. Slept out on the streets, rather than go to the workhouse.
It was that she took these decisions because she wanted to, not because she had to that I am questioning.

My view is that such is unknown and unknowable and it was presented in the talk as fact, when of course it's not, it is however perfectly reasonable to suggest such may have occurred, not that it did.
I hope the book will be clearer, that this is only a possible interpretation of events not a definitive one.


Steve

Thanks, Steve. I understand your point now.
I found the link to the vagrancy discussions and edited it in to my post anyhow. There are links to images from the settlement papers of Polly Nichols on that thread too which might be of interest.

[Elamarna]

What was the context of the tramping comments please, Steve? I don't remember offhand and can't listed again at the moment.
Gary and I discussed both Polly and Kate's 'vagrant' lifestyle a few times in the past and Polly's possible use of Newington casual ward over a period before 1881. I documented the possible stays at Newington casual ward somewhere.

Hi, Debs

The context was that at times , 81 and 87 she consciously took the decision to. Slept out on the streets, rather than go to the workhouse.
It was that she took these decisions because she wanted to, not because she had to that I am questioning.

My view is that such is unknown and unknowable and it was presented in the talk as fact, when of course it's not, it is however perfectly reasonable to suggest such may have occurred, not that it did.
I hope the book will be clearer, that this is only a possible interpretation of events not a definitive one.


Steve