|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 837
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 10:10 am: |       |
There is a mention in the diary of the writer meeting a Mrs Hammersmith (also spelt Hamersmith). In both the 1881 and 1891 census I can find no genuine occurence of this as a surname. However if the 1891 index is searched (this is the searchable index compiled by modern transcribers) there is one alleged occurence of a family with four female members of the surname Hammersmith. However when I referred back to the original census return this is undoubtedly a modern transcription error and the real surname of the ladies in question was Harmsworth. (see below). this family lived in Stoke Newington, London.
Might be of interest.
Chris
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Hi Chris, All,
Shirley Harrison found just one Hamersmith – Mrs. M.A.Hamersmith, in the 1881 Census, the 17 year-old wife of Benjamin Hamersmith, both living with her parents in Prescot, about 11 miles from Liverpool.
However, the 1880 marriage certificate showed that the woman’s husband was actually Benjamin Hamilton, not Hamersmith – quite a difference.
Shirley also found several Hamilton births in Prescot in the years up to 1889, the last being in 1887.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 847
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Thanks for that- found her living with her parents at 21 Peter Street, Eccleston in Prescot, Lancashire. Her husband in 1881 was 21 and she was 17. Both she and her hsband (listed as a labourer0 were born in St Helens.
Thanks forthe info
Chris |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Hi
I’m sure I’m not the first to mention this but I was wondering if “Hamersmith” could actually be a double barrel which has been incorrectly written as one word rather than “Hamer-Smith”.
I had a quick look at the 1901 online census and there are quite a few “Hamer” females in Liverpool at that time. No “Hamer-Smiths” though, but its still a possibility.
Regards
Paul
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
If Mrs. Hammersmith were to be found in the 1881 or 1891 census then the anti-diarists would just point out that the forger had obviously found her there for inclusion in the hoax, arguments can be used either way, pro or anti.
If, for example I was able to locate the names of two Manchester prostitutes in Manchester murdered in 1881 having the same initials as the two unaccounted for on the watch, it would no doubt have been what the watch forger had already done. Heads I Win, Tails you Lose! |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Are we not missing a point here? We are not looking at 1881 or 1891, we are looking at 1888. Does Mrs Hammersmith have to be firmly affixed to the locale for 'x' amount of years? No, of course not. She can come for a few months and stay with relatives, she can come for a few years or even stay in the area from 1882 until 1890 if she wants. Surely the 'forger?' would have been careful to pick a name in the concensus of 1891 at least. What relevance is there anyway apart from that apparently felt personally by Maybrick to include her in his thoughts? |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 856
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi Tiddley
I agree that to look at two snapshot listings 10 years apart obviously has its limitations and there are feasible circumstances in which the alleged Mrs Hammersmith might not have been listed in either. If she married after 1881 she would be listed in that census under her maiden name. If she were divorced or widowed between 1889 and 1891 she might well appear in the 1891 census under a different surname. However, it does seem odd that neither census reveals any trace of her spouse or any of his family - the point is there is not one single Hammersmith in either census. Effectively the surname did not exist in the UK in those two years.
Chris |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
Hello everyone
I did find an instance on the 1901 census of two children indexed with the surname Hammersmith, with apparently no parents of the same surname.
On checking the entry the head of the household is a William ( Hammersmith )aged 32 b and living in the same place in England, therefore if his name is Hammersmith the name must have existed in England in 1881.
His wife and two children's ( the two on the index)surnames are not written down.
I would appreciate some help on identifying if this name is Hammersmith, I have read it as something else entirely, but would like to see what others make of it.
I only have it in PDF format so would have to send as a private e-mail attachment if anyone is interested.
Regarding the "mrs Hammersmith" mentioned in the diary, I know it says " I encountered Mrs Hamersmith in the drive......Mrs Hammersmith (sic) is a bitch..."
Is this the only reference to her or am I missing another something, there were a fair amount of Hammersmiths on the 1880 usa census, maybe she was an American just living temporarily in Liverpool., and was not around for either 1881 or 1891 census, I believe if members of the "maybrick" family had been out of the country during the 1881 census there would be no other Maybricks on the 1881 census either. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 865
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Debra
the two children listed you refer to are Alfred aged 6 and Edith aged 4 living at Caistor in Lincolnshire. I havent yet seen the original sheet - will have a look later. The name may be a misreading as the Harmsworth entry above.
The other possibility is that the name may be that of an Anglicized German family who came here under the name of Hammerschmidt.
All the best
Chris
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
"Tiddley boyar" wrote:
Surely the 'forger?' would have been careful to pick a name in the concensus of 1891 at least
This argument seems to amount to:
"The diary contains an obvious error - no forger would have included an error, as it would make the forgery obvious. So it must be genuine."
Unfortunately, the diary contains a number of obvious errors.
Either way, no index to the 1891 census was available when the diary was written - the census returns were not even released until the beginning of 1992, and the diary was being offered to a publisher a couple of months later.
I'd be surprised if the index to the 1881 census of Lancashire was available at that time either, though I'm not sure when exactly it was first published.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 866
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Hi Chris
Census returns are subject to a retention period of 100 years, so the 1881 census would have become public in 1981. This is why the 1901 census has only been on the PRO site for a few years now (since 2001)
Regards
Chris S |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Chris
As I said in my message, the 1891 census returns were released at the beginning of 1992. Public records aren't released scattergun fashion day by day, but at the beginning of January each year. The 1901 census was released 2 January 2002.
The point is a bit academic, as previous to the 1901 census, indexes were prepared unofficially, and weren't available for some years after the release of the records. The forger could not feasibly have checked whether there were any Hammersmiths in the census until the indexes were prepared. The index to the 1891 census was certainly not prepared by the time the diary was produced. I'd be surprised if the index to Lancashire 1881 was.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 31, 2004) |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi Chris
That is the entry yes, it actually looks like Hamersmith when viewed at normal size, but magnified it looks like Hearsmith or Shearsmith.
I looked at Riversdale rd. Garston Lancashire ( Battlecrease was on this road ? )on 1901 census just to be nosey, and at no. 4 is a family with a name that looks like Hamercliffe when viewed normally,I cant make much else out of it, it definitely ends in cliffe but it doesn't appear to be any of the usual *cliffe surnames,I just mention it because Hamercliffe sounds a lot like Hamersmith, if that's what it says, I wish I could read these better!
regards
Debra
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Well, of course you aren't going to find any record of a Mrs. Hammersmith. She's dead.
No, wait.
I mean she never existed. You see, Maybrick creates the character of "Mrs. Hammersmith" to represent all of the social snobs his wife hangs out with and that he doesn't like.
It's a literary device.
There doesn't need to be a real Mrs. Hammersmith, you see. It's a book. Well, OK, not a book, but it's something written, you know?
Just like there don't need to be real killings in Manchester, or any actual historical record of those either. Maybe they're metaphors.
No, not metaphors but those things like metaphors where they are one thing but they stand for something else.
Symbols! Yeah, that's it. They're symbols.
Besides, the guy was a drug crazed murderer, why should we expect him to be telling the truth about this woman, or remembering anything correctly, now that you mention it.
And besides, you can't use history to judge the diary because history might be wrong.
Oh, but if it does turn out that there was a Mrs. Hammersmith living in Liverpool, then you see, that proves that the diary is genuine! Because only the killer would know that. (This paragraph added, just in case.)
So if the diary does not match history, surely the diarist would have known this -- so he must be telling us the truth.
And if the diary does match history, of course this means that the diarist knew what really happened. So he must be telling us the truth.
So if Mrs. Hamersmith existed, that's strong evidence that the diary is real. And if Mrs. Hammersmith didn't exist, that's strong evidence that the diary is real.
I don't know why we're even arguing about this.
There's no way this thing can be a fake.
-John (reassured now)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Sorry, John, I'd do it for you if I knew how, but I don't, so I can't - make the horrid things go away that is.
Nope, when I last looked, the beastly diary and watch were still there, large as life. 
Oh well, no one could ever say you didn't give it your very best shot.
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:36 am: | |
Of course, they are still there, Caz.
And it's certainly not because they are being tirelessly kept alive by the bored, desperate or greedy, either. After all, there's no money to be made off them (no one has made more than a few dollars in any case) and we all do have busy lives and so many better things we could be doing. So it's not that.
No, they are clearly still there because all the logic and all the evidence supports their authenticity. That's obvious. The idea that they are a hoax demands that we believe so many impossible coincidences that no one with half a brain could take it seriously. No, there's no question about it, they're obviously the real deal. Heck, the argument concerning Mrs. Hammersmith and the Manchester murders above simple proves that.
I do hope there'll be similar responses from you on the other threads as well. I'm sure I'll agree with them all and we can join forces in our constant and vigilant battle against all the close-minded people who have leapt to the bewildering and impossible conclusion that this book is a modern fake.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm certainly more convinced than ever by them.
--John (anxious to read the other threads now) |
Constance Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
I am researching the Norfolk business links Maybrick had at this time. I am also checking on the "Hammersmith" connection. Since Maybrick and his wife travelled to America frequently, it is possible that Mrs. Hammersmith was someone who was hired in America. The 1880 US Census shows that there were 256 entries for the name, mainly all in the Chicago, Illinois area. By 1990 there were no families listed under the US Census information with the name. It is commonly believed that the name Hammersmith came from the americanization of the german name Hammerschmidt.It may be the case there in the UK also, or Maybrick's incorrect spelling. |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Well Connie,
You seem to have stunned this thread into a total silence!
Dozens, if not hundreds of potential Mrs. Hammersmiths all around at the right time but who strangely seem to have been a dying breed.
I believe Cotton manufacturing was thriving in the Chicago area in the 1880’s, and presumably many in the trade would have has as good a business reason for visiting Liverpool as James had for visiting the US.
If Mrs Hammersmith was the wife of someone in the business, just like Florrie was, and maybe even knew Florrie personally which is more than likely, then James’ outburst against her in the diary makes a good deal of sense.
Well, that’s yet another supposed diary anachronism neatly dealt with. Our supposed hoaxer got it right again. What a surprise!
Internet genealogy resources were nothing like as developed when the diary appeared as they are today. No hoaxer would have had the same opportunities as we do now to check these things out. The diarist picked a suspicious sounding name which now seems to be virtually non-existant, but which was fairly common in 1880, and he did this by chance…? Of course he didn't.
Best regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Paul,
Sorry, I missed the part where Connie offered any real evidence that the Mrs. Hammersmith mentioned in the diary ever existed.
Perhaps you could locate that for me so I could see exactly how this anachronism has been so neatly "dealt with."
Thanks, And a happy and joyous day to you,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
The diarist picked a suspicious sounding name which now seems to be virtually non-existant, but which was fairly common in 1880, and he did this by chance…? Of course he didn't.
I agree - of course he didn't!
He picked a name that was was virtually unknown in England at that time - and still is - and was extremely rare in the USA (about one Hammersmith per quarter of a million people), and still is - a quick search on a US directory enquiries site indicates rather more Hammersmiths now than in 1880, but broadly comparable numbers.
Thankfully, the Internet makes it pretty easy to check erroneous claims like these.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi, Constance
You wrote: "I am . . . checking on the 'Hammersmith' connection. Since Maybrick and his wife travelled to America frequently, it is possible that Mrs. Hammersmith was someone who was hired in America."
Constance, you make it sound as if Mrs. Hammersmith was an employee of the Maybricks whom they hired while on one of their trips to the United States. We have no indication of that either in reality, as it pertains to the actual Maybrick family that lived in the Liverpool suburb of Aigburth in the 1880's, that they every had anyone in their employ of that name, nor in what is said about "Mrs. Hammersmith" in the Diary.
Rather, Mrs. Hammersmith, from what we are told about her by the diarist, seems to have been a local busybody that "James Maybrick" disliked. Note also that in the Diary there is no indication that she was anything other than British, whether, say, American or German, so we cannot assume that she was not British.
To my mind the person "Mrs. Hammersmith" most resembles in the Maybrick case of 1889 is Mrs. Matilda Briggs but maybe the Diarist preferred to invent a character to be a local bête noir rather than to make the fatal mistake of introducing the meddlesome Mrs. Briggs at too early a stage.
The diarist mentions meeting Mrs. Hammersmith on some boulevard, which might have been Aigburth Road, or else one of the drives in Sefton Park several miles northwest of the Maybrick's home of Battlecrease mansion. According to the transcript of Florence Maybrick's trial, Mrs. Briggs, the wife of Thomas Charles Briggs, lived at Livingstone Avenue, Sefton Park, which might make plausible my identification of "Mrs. Hammersmith" as a fictionalized Mrs. Briggs.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Hi Chris (P),
I'm not sure what you are claiming here, as your explanation of a modern hoaxer's thinking. Are you guessing that he (or she) plucked the name Hammersmith out of the air and did no research to try and ascertain how many - or how few - Hammersmiths there were in the world at the right time, who could have been living, or at least staying, in Liverpool?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 14, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
Hi Caz
To go back to what Melvin, RJ, and others have said, what evidence is there that the hoaxer did anything more than read the modern books about the Ripper and Maybrick cases? I think it unlikely that the diarist did anything more than think up the name Hammersmith. I doubt if they researched it.
I do think, as I wrote in my prior message, that it is worthwhile to note that there is a busybody in the actual Maybrick case that might correspond to Mrs. Hammersmith. And that person is Mrs. Briggs.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Caz, everyone,
Is Hammersmith not a place?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Caz
As you're so fond of saying, I'm not claiming anything - I'm pointing out that the previous two posts contained misleading information about the commonness of the name Hammersmith.
That is, at 240 occurrences out of 60 million or so in the USA it wasn't "fairly common" in 1880, and it's far from extinct there now - something must have gone wrong with Constance Bowen's search of the 1990 census.
I was just refuting Paul's claim. Sorry if I confused you.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Chris and Caroline,
I'm not claiming anything either. It's so much fun!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
In case anyone's interested, I'm not claiming anything either -- ever again. 
It is indeed much more fun in Diary World when no one ever claims anything.
All together now,
Nothing new ... Nothing real.
Loving life today,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
You claimed that the diarist ‘picked a name [that was virtually unknown in England at that time…’]. When I ask if you can expand a bit on the diarist’s name-picking process, you deny claiming anything and call me confused!
Hi Jenn,
I do hope Hammersmith is a place. I was apparently born there, in Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital, and I went to school there from the age of eleven.
Have you noticed what happens to most of the bold claims made in this place, when questioned or challenged? They are either left to fester, unsupported or unexpanded upon, but rarely if ever withdrawn; repeated a thousand times in a desperate effort to add weight; or else denied almost as soon as they are uttered.
I couldn’t be less interested in claims not made in the future, but I remain fascinated to see how they ran from those made in the past – when their tails fell off.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz, the farmer’s wife
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:39 am: | |
Caz,
ahh good i'm glad its a place.
Its good to know i didn't make it up!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
Caroline Morris actually writes:
"Have you noticed what happens to most of the bold claims made in this place, when questioned or challenged? They are either left to fester, unsupported or unexpanded upon, but rarely if ever withdrawn..."
Heh heh heh. I'm not even going to mention any of the other threads. Nope. Not me. I wouldn't do that. Not here in this new DiTA year of peace, love, and understanding. Nope. Not gonna' do it. No way.
I just hope Chris doesn't read this.
Incidentally, amidst all this madness, I hope people did not miss the fact that Chris George came here and explained accurately and patiently why Constance's idea concerning the diary's "Mrs. Hammersmith" being brought as help from America by the Maybrick's directly contradicts what the diary says. And therefore why Paul Butler's rash and silly claim that Constance's information had somehow "neatly dealt with" this anachronism was, to put it as nicely as I can, simply stupid.
Let's not let the silliness make us forget what actually happened above and what the diary actually says, as Chris G. has properly reminded us.
Enjoying this new DiTA year already,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Caz
For some reason, you persist in highlighting the unimportant phrase "picked a name" that I repeated from Paul's post, and putting the rest - which was the whole point of the post - in brackets. As I've already explained the point once, this is pretty transparent even by your standards.
But I'll try one more time. The point of my post was to correct the erroneous information in the previous posts about the commonness of the surname Hammersmith.
That's all.
I'm sorry, but I don't have time to get into one of those Alice-in-Wonderland arguments to the effect that "no forger would make such a crass error, so the diary must be genuine ..."
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
'I hope people did not miss the fact that Chris George came here and explained accurately and patiently why Constance's idea concerning the diary's "Mrs. Hammersmith" being brought as help from America by the Maybrick's [sic] directly contradicts what the diary says.'
Where did Constance suggest Mrs. H was 'brought as help from America'? I must have missed it. I thought she simply meant that a Mrs. H could once have worked for the Maybricks while they were in America and came over for a visit in 1888, staying with or near the family.
In any case, I don't see how the diary's words directly contradict either possibility. Why couldn't JM have encountered, while out walking, any woman staying in or near his household? If she were a friend of Florie's, or of Florie's side of the family, he could have put up with her presence reluctantly, while hating the sight of her.
Hi Chris,
"no forger would make such a crass error, so the diary must be genuine ..."
No need to apologise. Since I have never written anything even remotely resembling 'one of those' arguments, it was your own time you were wasting pretending otherwise.
You could always spend a bit less time judging my standards and a bit more time working on the diary and your forger's thought processes.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Caz
No need to apologise. Since I have never written anything even remotely resembling 'one of those' arguments, it was your own time you were wasting pretending otherwise.
Good. I'm relieved to hear that you don't set any store by those arguments. They really are nonsense, aren't they? So glad we can agree on that.
Though what you imagine I was pretending beats me! I was only trying my best to work out what you were confused about - and to alleviate your confusion.
Anyway, I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of it, and that you finally got the point.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
Caroline,
On Monday, April 19, 2004 - 10:37 pm, Constance Bowen wrote:
"Since Maybrick and his wife travelled to America frequently, it is possible that Mrs. Hammersmith was someone who was hired in America."
But there is no suggestion at all in the diary or anywhere in any of the records that the Maybricks ever employed the Mrs. Hammersmith that James runs into and complains about. And so Paul's silly assertion that the anachronism has now been "neatly dealt with" by Constance's purely speculative little theory is just nonsense.
Not to mention Chris's numbers, which demonstrate that Constance is not accurate about precisely how common such a name was or was not either in England or America.
But I'm wasting my time. Everyone feel free to reread Chris George's post from Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:34 pm above. That's all I meant to say.
Getting more efficient as each day of the new year passes,
--John (at least trying to make the circles smaller)
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 68
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Well there’s nothing like a bit of plain English to get the debate going again, if that’s what this load of nonsense can be called.
The position here for years was that there was no real Mrs Hammersmith, hence the diary is a fake. Well there are plenty of potential Mrs Hammersmiths now, thanks to Connies researches, and absolutely no way to use this supposed mistake by the diarist as any evidence for anything.
Very neat indeedy.
We don’t need all this smokescreen about whether she was hired help or just an acquaintance or anything else for that matter. Just one Mrs Hammersmith who could have been in the right place at the right time is all the diary needs to survive. We’ve got plenty of ‘em at our disposal.
Just who are these silly tactics of picking up on something someone suggests as nothing more than a possibility, and trying to rubbish it in a vain attempt at clouding the real issue trying to convince? It isn’t working here, and it certainly isn’t working anywhere else in Maybrickworld either.
Now what about those damned farthings……?
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Paul
I agree there's been a "smokescreen" erected over this, but it wasn't done by those who believe the diary is a fake.
Fortunately, it failed to obscure the plain fact that much of what you claimed about the frequency of the surname was simply wrong.
And surely it wasn't news to you that there were a couple of hundred people named Hammersmith on the other side of the Atlantic? The problem for the diary is that there weren't any Hammersmiths at all in England and Wales in 1881.
Now what about those damned farthings……?
If your faith in the diary is so easily strengthened, I can give you some more encouragement. I would guess there were several million farthings in London in 1888. Another triumph for the Maybrickites!
Unfortunately none of them was present on the body of Annie Chapman ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Hi,
The problem with the Mrs Ham(m)ersmith thing as far as I always understood rested upon whether such a person was in Liverpool in 1888 not whether the name existed. Equally if it had said Mrs Hunstanton and that name did not exist the problem would. My point is that it is not the name in itself that is the problem it is the context in which it is used.
'Strolled by the drive, encountered Mrs Hamersmith, she enquired of Bobo and Gladys and much to my astonishment about my health. What has that wh**e said? Mrs Hamersmith is a bi**h.'
Clearly Mrs Hamersmith is a neighbour is she not? She is at least well known to the Maybrick household?
Just a thought
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
So, Paul.
Still no real evidence that the Mrs. Hammersmith mentioned in the diary ever existed then, eh?
Ah, well. So much for "neatly dealing with" even this one of the book's many anachronisms.
I sense Figment coming to remind us that we are still in the land of pure imagination.
Fiction, it seems, has a bad habit of not measuring up to history.
Unless, of course, desire is allowed to trump both. Then anything is possible.
Not surprised that there turned out to be...
"Nothing new, nothing real,"
--John |
Constance Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 5:20 am: | |
I had tried posting this before, but apparently this hasn't got to be posted, so I will try again. I wanted to give those people who had questions about the frequency of the name Hammersmith some numbers.On the 1880 US Census there are 204 individuals with the name Hammersmith.The Census lists not only the names of a households members, but their ages, occupations and where they were born.A very high percentage of these had a birthplace listed as being Darmstadt, Germany or Prussia. On the 1990 US Census, since it has not been released to the general public as of yet,but you can get statistics of surname occurances.The surname Hammersmith occured once in every 22,999 households which gives it a frequency of 0.000% of the general population. Let's now go and take a look at the UK. The British BMD database has only about 15 or so listings of the surname searching from 1837 to 1983, and the 1891 UK Census only has six individuals with the surname. Those numbers, however you look at them do not look good.Then you have to take into consideration the number of people who would not fit this reference in the diary,so eliminate all those people who are male,and all females too young to have been married. When you compare those to one another, it seems more likely that if James did encounter a Mrs. Hammersmith while walking near his home, and that Florrie was rambling to her, odds are in good favor that Mrs. Hammersmith was not British.
While I was doing some researching into this surname, I got the opportunity to have contact with quite a few Hammersmiths in the US. Almost all of them said that Hammersmith was not the original surname, but deviations of Hammerschmidt, Hamerschmidt, or Hammerschmid and changed after immigration to the UK or US. |
Constance Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
Oh and for statistics in the UK, the frequency of the name can accurately be placed on less than 50 or so individuals. The BMD 1837-1983 only has about ten listed. |
Constance Bowen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Sorry I started such a rukus! Here is where I got the name frequency among the general population in the US (This is from the US Census information website)
NAME (last) %FREQ FREQ RANK
HAMMERSMITH 0.000 22999
Look at the % Frequency of surnames in the US. In 1880 this was at .284 meaning that while the US had a smaller population, the name was more frequent. The way I understand it the frequency rank of 22999 is the name is found once in every 22999 families that they completed a Census on in 1990 ( the latest Census where percentages are available), which totals to a number less than 0.000% of the general population.Those are not great numbers. While I was seriously taking a look into this name, I got to have contact with quite a few Hammersmiths. Most that I did have contact with, were of German origin,and said that "oh when my grandparents came to America, they were born as Hammerschmidt, or Hammerschmitt, or Hammerschmid.Somehow, in three or four generations, we ended up as Hammersmith. I also was told by several living Hammersmiths that their surname was changed to the English sounding name after one of the world wars.Other things that need to be taken into consideration here is the number of people who could speak English in the case of the german immigrants and the number of people working in England and the US where they took names of passengers or records offices who could speak german, and the ability of the working class to read and write in the 1880's.There were many cases of "spelled like it sounded." After spending countless hours looking at entry after entry of Hammersmith's on the 1880 US Census and a few on the 1881 British census, most with this surname worked as laborers and domestics. I was especially interested in anyone who had the surname who was anywhere in the general vinicity of James and Florrie here in America,and was old enough to be a "MRS." Hammersmith.
Illinois and Texas has the largest populations of Hammersmith as a surname in the US,and apparently, James had a business in Galveston, TX.
Just my two cents worth... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi,
don't be sorry. Personally I'm find it all rather interesting
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
It is interesting, Jennifer.
Unfortunately, as Chris has properly pointed out, it does nothing to solve the problem that there still seems to have been no record of any Mrs. Hammersmith in the right place at the right time.
And, as the other Chris has pointed out, there was a character in history who did play the same sort of role that Mrs. Hammersmith plays in the diary, and she had a different name.
Of course, that's how it often happens in fictionalized versions of events.
If you read a lot of fiction, you get used to it.
-John  |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Constance Bowen
Sorry, but I don't think you're interpreting these figures correctly. A rank of 22,999 would normally mean that the surname was 22,999th in order of popularity.
The frequency figure of "0.000%" is presumably a rounded figure to 3 decimal places, so that just means "less than 0.0005%", or in other words "less than 1 in 200,000". That's not particularly useful information, as the 1880 figure amounted, I think, to about 1 in 250,000. (I don't see how a frequency of 0.284% in 1880 can be correct, as that would imply hundreds of thousands of Hammersmiths - probably 0.000284% would be closer to the mark.)
I don't know about the situation now, but in 1880 the name was certainly not well represented in Texas - only 6 entries in the index (perhaps just one family in the whole state).
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Hey John,
I do read a lot of fiction. I like a good Patricia Cornwell novel (thats for another thread).
Heck bobo is a nic name why can't mrs hamersmith be?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
Well, "Bongo" is a nickname, too.
Speaking of fiction writers...
--John (in our little friend Figment's spirit of pure imagination) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
Hi John,
I could give you an endless list of nicknames but i shan't bore you!
Jen (who is this figment anyway)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi, all
To further elaborate on my Mrs. Hammersmith/Mrs. Briggs parallel, I think the forger/diarist was looking for any way to get in a mention of Jim's drug addiction and to relate it to the Maybrick or Ripper cases.
Since it was not known that Mrs. Briggs said anything about or had a view of James Maybrick's drug habit, or his health (an extension presumably of his drug-taking), it was safer to make up a busybody of another name so the passage got written: "Strolled by the drive, encountered Mrs Hamersmith, she enquired of Bobo and Gladys and much to my astonishment about my health. What has that wh**e said? Mrs Hamersmith is a bi**h."
In the same way, the forger/diarist does the sleight of hand with Annie Chapman's pills to make it seem as if Maybrick might have replaced the victim's pills with his own or vice versa.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Thanks, Chris.
Jennifer, Figment is the official mascot of pure imagination here in Diary World. He is a small purple dragon who comes originally from EPCOT, where he guides riders through the Land of Imagination. You can see him here: http://www.figmentsimagination.com/
He's got plenty to do in this part of the world.
All the best,
--John
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 70
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Awwww John.
Sore loser or what? Like I said, one Mrs Hammersmith is all it takes and we’ve got several. You can’t have you’re cake and eat it no matter how hard you try. The diary’s won again. It has this funny little habit doesn’t it?
Chris.
As for the theory about using Mrs Briggs as a model for Mrs H. Well anything’s possible, but it doesn’t matter does it? If the diary’s a hoax, the hoaxer picked a completely plausible name. Something that’s been poo-poohed in here many times over.
Sir Jim got it right. Simple and demonstrably true!
End of.
Have a good weekend in here too.
Paul
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
