The first step in the process of Holmesian deduction, as presented in the stories, is to understand the circumstances which surround the victim at the time of the crime. I'll be tackling each victim separately, analyzing them as individual crimes, before re-approaching them as a series of related events.
The first canonical victim (though as I'll discuss later, I'm not putting any particular stock in the canon of the victims) was Mary Anne Nichols. At the time of her death Nichols was 43 years of age. At age 19, Mary Ann married William Nichols. The two lived alone for a short period before moving in with Mary Ann's father, with whom they resided for the next ten years. The couple had five children (three of which were conceived and born while living with Mary Ann's father).
Accounts of the dissolution of Nichols' marriage are rather spotty, though William Nichols testified at Mary Ann's inquest that before their final split, the couple had been separated numerous times (5 or 6 according to Jack the Ripper: A to Z) . The final separation, however came in or about 1880 (the accounts differ with her father saying the couple split 7 or 8 years before her death, while her ex-husband said they had been split for 9 years). At the inquest Nichols father claimed that the couple had split because William Nichols has entered into an affair with the nurse who had been caring for Mary Ann during her pregnancy with the couples daughter Eliza, while William claimed that it was Mary Ann's drinking that caused their split.
It is worth noting that at the time of Nichols death, her eldest son had ceased living with William Nichols and moved in with Mary Ann's father. (Caution must be given when considering this fact, though as the date for this occurring seems in question as I have encountered the date of his moving primarily as 1880 though The Complete History of Jack the Ripper apparently lists the date as 1886, but more on what this could mean shortly).
Nichols was paid 25p a week by her husband until 1882 when he successfully lobbied to end his support. It is indicated that Nichols was leading an "immoral life" at this point, though during the inquest, her father claimed it was because Mary Ann was living with another man. Additionally, regardless of whether Nichols drinking was, in fact, the reason for the failure of her marriage, there is no doubt that Nichols was a decided alcoholic by 1883, when, after living for two months with her father, she returned to living in Lambeth Workhouse after the two has a fight over Mary Ann's drinking.
After this incident Nichols moved from workhouse to work house, staying for various lengths of time and living with a man names Thomas Dew for an indistinct amount of time.
The last time Nichols family saw her alive was in 1886 at the funeral of her brother, where they took note that she was respectably dressed. Their last contact with her was through a letter Nichols sent her father in 1888 which spoke of a new job she'd taken as a domestic servant to a couple whom Nichols described as "teetotallers" and also remarked that they were "very religious, so I ought to get on" and claimed there wasn't "much work to do". Despite this apparent turn in Nichols luck, she left the job approximately two months later after stealing 3₤ 10s worth of clothing.
Shortly before her death Nichols has been living at 18 Thrawl Street, where she shared a room with 3 other women, though she is also noted to have stayed at a 56 Flower and Dean Street, where is must be noted they allowed men and women to share rooms.
On the night of her death Nichols was turned out of 18 Thrawl Street for not having the money to rent a room. A little more than an hour before her body was discovered, Nichols confided in Ellen (Nelly) Holland that she had earned the necessary money three times over that night but had spent it.
It is also very worth noting that at the time of her death Nichols was carrying on her person a comb, a white handkerchief and a piece of a broken mirror.
Additionally, attention must be given to the fact that Ellen Holland noted that Nichols was always a very clean person, and Llewellyn noted the cleanliness of Nichols thighs during his postmortem.
_______________
Now, what can be deduced from the above listed information?
Well, from the beginning, it can be concluded that Mary Ann Nichols drinking was not what caused the dissolution of her marriage. Based not only on the testimony of her father at the inquest, but also that her husband did not question nor refute the accusations of his having an affair. It can be inferred that it was this turn of events that led Nichols to drink, something it is evident she did not do in repeated excess before 1877.
It can also be presumed that William Nichols likely exhibited violence against Mary Ann on more than one occasion. This would explain not only the flight of Edward John, Nichols eldest son, from the family home at or about the time of the couples separation, but would also explain quite easily how a woman who by all accounts took pride in her appearance came to lose three teeth (though it has to be noted that losing teeth in the Victorian era was not exactly unheard of as dental practices were not what we enjoy today).
Additionally Mary Ann's drinking was in control of her rather than she of it, a fact which, I will explain later, cost her her life. Nichols exhibited all the classic signs of an addict, right down to stealing in order to feed her habit.
Nichols recounted to Holland that she'd spent her doss money three times over that night, and was seen that evening at around 12:30 the Frying Pan Public House. Nichols had to have been selling already that evening, as the going rate for a prostitute of her caliber (not to say anything about Nichols personally) was roughly the same as a large glass of gin. Unless we're to expect that woman who got herself drunk before half passed midnight would still be so drunk as to "stagger against" a wall, we can also conclude that Nichols had at least one more customer between her being tossed out of 18 Thrawl street.
Meaning, in short, that Nichols likely had her doss money after telling the house deputy that she'd return with the money. This would also begin to explain why Nichols was more apt, in speaking to Holland, to spend the night in a place where men and women would share a bed - Nichols wanted a client to pay for a bed instead of paying for one herself.
The fact that Nichols turned to prostitution is not so much a sob story as a fact of life in Victorian London. Very few opportunities existed for women with no apparent skill, and, as the city was severely overcrowded in the poorer neighborhoods, competition for what jobs there were was extremely fierce. Nichols turned to prostitution, though unquestionably at intervals, as a means to an end.
Nichols apparent value of her appearance and, presumably, hygiene creates the impression that Nichols was not necessarily someone who was a strict prostitute, but merely one who did what she needed to keep herself out of the work houses. She had obviously tried at least once to bring herself off the streets but the call of her addiction and the promise of immediate satisfaction proved to much for her to stay in the cushy position she acquired in May of 1888, in what appears to be distinct relapse of her addiction.
It is clear that for the later years of her life, addiction is what defined Mary Ann Nichols.
It would be inappropriate to say that Mary Ann Nichols was a stereotypical victim in this, someone who had a tragic story that lead to a tragic death. She made her own choices, one of which clearly got her killed.
Next we shall discuss Nichols actual murder.... with some interesting conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment