Mary Ann possibly giving her rings to her son

[Elaine]

Anne Monk testified on the second day of the inquest (September 3rd) that she saw Mary Ann on August 30th “about seven o’clock entering a public-house in the New Kent Road.”
Daily Telegraph, September 4, 1888.

The Evening Standard of September 1st additionally reported Anne Monk actually sat with Mary Ann to have a drink at this time.

Another report from the Illustrated Police News of September 8th reported something different; they stated Anne Monk told the coroner she “last saw the deceased about seven weeks ago in a public-house in New Kent Road.”

According to Dr. Llewellyn - when he was recalled at the inquest on September 17th - he saw “marks of rings on the fingers,” but did not think “she had worn any for five or six weeks” prior her murder as reported in the Morning Advertiser of September 18th.

This “five or six weeks” period would coincide with the time the Illustrated Police News (Sept 8th) reported Anne Monk “last saw the deceased about seven weeks ago in a public-house in New Kent Road.” This is corroborated by a letter written September 9th to the Lloyd’s Weekly, where William Nichols writes how he saw his son “only two or three months ago.”

Would it be a logical assumption to state that Mary Ann (accompanied by Anne Monk who waited at the pub) went to see William Nichols, and her son, and either gave her rings to her son to help him out, or had them taken off her by William Nichols at this time period? William Nichols (in 1888) lived at 37, Cogburg Road, off Old Kent Road.
Elaine

[Elaine]

Hi Elaine

I`d say she pawned them when she arrived at the Common Lodging houses of Spitalfields.

Her son was an engine turner, and Polly was the worst off out of the whole family.

Yes, the son did work, but we don't know when he lost or left his job, as his father tells in a letter he wrote to the Lloyd's Weekly. I've underlined the section of interest.

September 9, 1888.
Dear Sir,
I hope you will correct an error in your Sunday Edition in reference to the Whitechapel murder. It is stated that I did not know my own son. That is not so. He left home of his own accord two years and a half ago, and I have always been on speaking terms with him. Only two or three months ago I saw him, and last week received two letters from him, asking me if I knew of any work for him. I did not leave my wife during her confinement and go away with a nurse girl. The deceased woman deserted me four or five times, if not six. The last time she left me without any home, and five children, the youngest one year and four months’. I kept myself with the children where I was living for two and a half years before I took on with anybody, and not till after it was proved at Lambeth police-court that she had misconducted [prostituted] herself.
Yours respectfully,
W. Nichols

Mary Ann was still a mother and we don't have her version of accounts on what happened when she "left" her children. We only have William Nichols's account who was having an out of marital affair; a strong enough motive to discredit his wife. None of the children testified to corroborate or not what actually happened.

[Elaine]

Indeed, it was a trade not just work, and he didn`t write and ask for money.

Jon,

I understand your point of view and thank you tremendously for responding.

Which was the case, is terribly difficult to ascertain. But Dr. Llewellyn testified he saw “marks of rings on the fingers,” meaning she wore more than one ring.

If one of those rings was her wedding band, we’ll never know, but one ring could have been given to her son to help out until he found work, which until a week before his mother died, he had not, according to his father.


The remaining rings may have been sold (or pawned) by Mary Ann herself and I agree with you on this taking into consideration her destitute situation at the time.

I haven’t (yet) found any reference to a police report stating they found a pawn ticket on her or some pawn shop reporting she pawned these rings. Would the police not have investigated this?


In addition, Monk's testimony on being with Mary Ann in the vicinity of William Nichols's residence, has a strong odor to suggest Mary Ann went to see her son there at the time he visited his father; again according to William Nichols's letter.
Elaine

[Elaine]

Would it not have been mentioned in the letter, or at the inquest if Nichols had visited her son ?

No, I don't think so. Consider the character of the individuals who testified at the inquest on behalf of Mary Ann's lifestyle:

The husband, who went to all the trouble to have her followed in 1882 just to "prove" she was living with another man than Drew, and so slither out of supporting her whilst he was creating another family with his nurse friend.

JURYMAN: It is said that you were summoned by the Lambeth Union for her maintenance, and you pleaded that she was living with another man. Was he the blacksmith [Drew] whom she had lived with?
WITNESS: No; it was not the same; it was another man. I had her watched.

Source: Daily Telegraph, September 4, 1888.


The witness Mrs. Oram/Holland who is supposed to have tried to persuade Mary Ann to lodge with her at 02:30 on August 31st, which is doubtful. How many women of their class paid for each other’s lodgings? Regardless if they shared a room, Nichols could not give her share that night. It was bad enough to provide for one’s self let alone for someone else.

But, when someone is murdered in an atrocious fashion as Mary Ann Nichols was, there always crops up from the woodwork a so-called “Samaritan” who wanted to do good for that person; but alas, they did not listen and look what happened to them.

As a consequence, the public now knows of this Mrs. Oram/Holland who is a "considerate" character, and so she escapes for a while the life of a destitute woman.

Mary Ann Monk who either last saw the Nichols woman some hours prior the murder, or according to another paper report, several weeks ago. Or, according to other reports, Mrs. Monk had only been around the Nichols woman when they were inmates, "six or seven years ago."
Source: The Times, September 4, 1888.

The father did not know of his daughter's movements or actions during this time, yet supports her in spreading the story that it was William Nichols's fault the marriage flew out the window. She was a Walker; she attended her brother's funeral when he died in an explosion, she could not have been indifferent to her father or siblings.

I will not go into the police officers; they did not know the Nichols woman.

Also take into consideration the times, the poverty that surrounded most of these witnesses, and how fame had a hold on them worse than a disease. Fame brought respect which brought acceptance into society which brought -in many cases- some coins dropped into callous hands and some secondhand clothing, if you will.

This is only my opinion on the matter as to why Mary Ann's visit to her son would not have been mentioned at the time. In addition, who would have come forth to state the mother gave one of her rings some weeks ago to support her child instead of supporting herself? Streetwalkers weren't supposed to act that way.

An article in Living London (1902) goes through a series of events on what used to happen to the women from the East End of London when they entered a doss-house. And, “if you fill in the details,” the article reports, “it is not a pleasing picture. Look back. Long, long ago - twenty years, thirty, forty in some cases - numbers of these women came here or to a neighbouring house as girls. And now look forward. You can see them all going to the workhouse or the hospital gate. That is their well-nigh inevitable end, unless they meet a worse fate. They will not, they cannot, rise to a higher level.”

Source: George R. Sims, Living London, Vol. II. (London: Cassell & Co., Ltd., 1902).

One must wonder why that would be, for there never has been the lack of instinct in any individual to strive for a living - animals strive for survival. But when we read how the streetwalkers of the East End are refused to rise “to a higher level,” this is predetermination guaranteeing no elevation of status beyond a workhouse or a “hospital gate” where odd variables direct they “meet a worse fate.”