I’m convinced Sid Vicious did not kill Nancy. Not that I have the least regard for him; he was a depraved shithead who once strangled a cat in cold blood for no reason at all. And utterly worthless musically. I cannot think of him except with severe loathing. But the evidence from the Chelsea the night Nancy died is not consistent with Sid being the perp.
For one thing, he was stone cold knocked out by a massive dose of Tuinal barbiturate for the entire time frame in which Nancy was stabbed. He was comatose before, during, and after it happened. The most likely suspect is an unidentified Chelsea resident who committed the murder in the course of robbing them (they had just come into a large sum of cash and had been indiscreet about it when buying drugs; it was never found after the slaying). The movie Sid and Nancy was heavily fictionalized and contrived the scene of her accidentally running into the knife he was holding, a bullshit cop-out by the director.
SeeWho Killed Nancy? for a close examination of the actual facts of the case. The authorities were more than happy to close the case when Sid died and wash their hands of it. The case ought to be reopened.
I dunno. I’m not going to say it’s impossible but my experience is that in real world murders (as opposed to murders in TV shows and movies) the obvious suspect is guilty ninety-nine percent of the time. Sid Vicious wasn’t picked as a suspect because he was conveniently dead. He was still alive when he was identified as the likely suspect and he then overdosed four months later. The police and DA had no reason to think they wouldn’t be presenting a case in court.
It isn’t all that simple, since Sid was wiped out unconscious on 30 Tuinals for 10 hours, which is when it happened. There’s a lot of other evidence too that just doesn’t add up. As for the prosecution, they charged Sid right off because he gave a confession while he was still in a druggy stupor, but he later retracted it, having no memory of the incident. If the prosecution had gotten a chance to go forward, it would clearly not have been such an open and shut case as all that.
I’ve never thought Sid murdered her. If he did in fact stab her, I think she coerced him into it. Has anyone read the book by Nancy’s mom? Very interesting.
The money disappearing isn’t as important as all that. Junkies will steal from each other without a qualm. The first reaction by a junkie, should he find an acquaintance dead, is not infrequently to go through hir pockets looking for drugs and money. The situation in which Sid and Nancy lived is such that I don’t have any problem accepting that Sid killed her and one/some of their low-life friends made off with the money before the po-po arrived.
Nothing to argue with there, although John Lydon speaks highly of the guy’s intelligence and natural talent–when he finally chose to give a damn. But “playing for shit” was never Sid’s Schtick so much as “fuck you, I do what I want” which is basically what the Sex Pistols & punk in general was about. In that regard, he was truly an icon and an artist–totally Cafe Society material.
I have no clue whether or not he did Nancy in. I sometimes feel like his own death should have been investigated as some level of manslaughter or murder. But I also can’t imagine a DA caring to spend resources on the likes of Sid when “junkie overdosed rather than spend more time in prison” is at least mostly true.
And there’s no possibility that a heavy drug user could have become semi-functional during that period - enough to become enraged and do something stupid, then pass back out.
I’m not saying SV was 100% the perp. But from a simple situation - one aggressive, uncontrolled personality on drugs kills another in a haze or even a semi-doze - to inventing a third party that came along, did the deed, didn’t kill Sid to be sure he wasn’t remembered or identified, and left essentially no traces… Paging Sir William of Ockham.
That’s because of how real world cops behave. They decide on a suspect and then gather all the evidence they can to support it, and ignore exculpatory evidence, rather than looking for all the evidence and then choosing a suspect.
Besides, that ‘fact’ trotted out all the time (90% of the time it is the obvious person) only applies to ‘solved’ murders. There’s no reason to think that same percentage applies to unsolved murders. And DNA has shown us that the cops and justice system were a lot more smug and secure than they ought to have been about getting the right person.
Maybe Sid killed her; maybe he didn’t, and a robber did. Both narratives seem plausible on their face.
Now that I think about it, given the legendary levels of police corruption in that time and place, it isn’t out of the question that the cops took the money. I have personally known cops who endangered their careers and freedom by stealing items or cash of vastly less value from crime scenes.
Well, according to the article, there were plenty of traces. At least 6 people were in the hotel room that night. (the article says the fingerprints of 6 people who were not interviewed) There was just no trace of the cash.
It’s true that two scenarios are plausible. That Sid, in a state of semi-consciousness, killed Nancy then passed out again. One of the other druggies at the party, or another junkie who just happened by, could have taken the cash after she was dead. Or the unidentified Michael, or one of the other junkies, could have killed her and left with the cash, leaving Sid in full doze.
If the cops were looking for an easy suspect to pin the murder on, why choose the only person around who had the resources to hire a lawyer and defend himself? If the cops had wanted an easy suspect, they would have picked a dealer or one of the other users and then pressured them into confessing.
I don’t know that cops think that way. SV was scum (to their righteous eyes) and he was there, at a crime scene littered with drug para, money (probably) and a corpse. Why waste time looking for another low-life who might have actually done the stabbing when a perfectly good candidate with a long uphill defense was right there?
That said - I still think SV is the most likely perp. Unless one of the others that was there that day ever speaks up, we might never know for sure.
