Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 09:10 am |        |
Hi Leanne,
The difficulty with the Ripper forging a diary of James Maybrick (assuming it is a forgery) is that the Ripper would have to know not only intimate details about his own crimes but also have an intimate knowledge of Maybrick's own life. I would imagine the only way this would be possible is if the forger was a friend or relative of Maybrick. For example, I don't think a stranger living in London would know in 1888 or soon after about James' nicknames for his children or that he found a new source for his arsenic addicition in Jan. 1889, etc.
Having said all this I must admit I have thought at times that Michael Maybrick might have had some sort of connection in all of this (although I've never thought he might be the Ripper)
Dela |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 09:32 am | |
Leanne:
I'm still trying to work out what your point is about the "strong James Maybrick connection" but I can say that the ink dating is beset with problems and there is as much evidence just on the strength of the ink alone, of a late 20thC date as for an early one. When you include the other evidence showing the diary to be a modern forgery then the admitted fact that some of the information in the diary wasn't available until the late 1980's argues even more for a modern forgery than an early one.
ON another board, Moran is claiming some internal information showing the diary to be composed around 1915 and of course if that's true then I'll have to change my mind but until that time, I do still believe that the diary's modern.
Peter |
Author: Moran
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 10:18 am | |
Dear leanne and everyone,
I think your post about a possible forger is intresting. My own research has uncovered the true fact of who forged this diary. I have a name, and a date - 1915.
I didnt know that this date fits in with some independant tests done on the paper. My professor would like to know who did these tests and where he could obtain a copy of the results. When you break the code, its clear that the man who forged the diary was not the ripper, but a man who was involvd in the trial of James Maybrick, and wrote the diary as a hoax. He tore out some pages because they had pictures of his holiday in Cairo from the early 1900s.
Thank you all for you great help
Moran O'Sugreadh |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 10:24 am | |
Moran --
I've tried writing to you at the address given in your posts but my e-mails are returned? Is there another address I can contact you at? I'd like to hear more about your findings.
Stephen P Ryder
Administrator |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 04:55 pm | |
MORGAN,
Tell your professor that Paul H. Feldman's book:
'Jack The Ripper - The Final Chapter', holds the results of research made on 'The Diary...'.
At the begining it states: 'A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library'.
Maybe the forger wasn't the real JACK. I'm no Sherlock Holmes. I just see this like a hobby!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 05:01 pm | |
| Sorry, I missread your name!....MORGAN should be MORAN!!!!!!! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 03 April 1999 - 01:37 am | |
For what it's worth. This is not a subject that I would normally become involved with but may I here give my opinion on the diary
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it is a modern forgery concocted around a median date of 1990. There is no proven evidence to suggest it is older.
This is informed opinion, I have followed the story from its 1992 beginnings, and I was a regular visitor to Paul Feldman's offices in 1994 when he was working on his research for his video on the subject.
Finally, again in my opinion, there is no way that James Maybrick was responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders.
I make this statement in answer to those who have asked for my opinion. I do not wish to enter into any discussion on the matter. |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 03 April 1999 - 05:12 am | |
Hi Stewart,
I don't mean to be flippant, but could this turn out to be a bit like Mrs Thatcher's statement that there would be no female Prime Minister in her time? Just a thought (said with a grin in case any offense is taken).
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Michael Fairfax
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 01:32 pm | |
Hi people,
Although I'm new to this whole discussion, I have to admit I've read the diary and had my doubts as well BUT since this is a discussion of the handwritting I'll save my doubts for or against "forgery" for that topic. My intrest is somewhat related to handwriting...and since I"m not an expert "ripperologist" I'd like to hear the views on the bloody handwriting left on the walls at two particular crime scenes witht he initials of "FM" for one (at time I can't remember if their were other specific initials) but if indeed these were left at the crime scenes (and recently noticed thru enlargements and close examination) would this not strengthen the "Maybrick" theory regardless of whether the diary is indeed a hoax?
Indeed certain facts do not "fit" neatly together but as many scientists and doctors have discovered when you are dealing with a "persona" your handwritting is not necessarily going to be the same (if you prescribe to the theory that the diary is indeed authentic which I stay neutral@ this time) many people with split personalities are not crazy homicidal killers but do show a striking difference in handwriting samples when they are aflicted with another persona..which could easily be the case in the "Maybrick" theory. So if you still prescribe to the fact that the diary is real but have doubts due to little indicators that throw you off, you may be able to swallow "the pill" easier with that information. Not to indicate that Maybrick had a split personality but given medical science today, it would not be unheard of or unrealistic to beleive especially under the influence of the "medicines" that he overdosed on frequently. However it still does not explain the initials in blood on the walls left as clues. Which opens another can of worms as well as the Police poster which mentions Maybricks surname which Barrett could have easily picked up on if he did forge the diary but then again it could be a coincidence? Since the watch seems to be a hot topic as far as the handwritting, I agree witht he term "etching" many of us have etched our initials into trees or other surface materials...and NEVER once has my "etched" writing matched my normal paper writting and it is pretty (forgive my bluntness) stupid to think that it would (really I'm not trying to be rude but c'mon now) people "etch" into things with whatever they have on hand, people "etch" their names or initials or common phrases in park benches with a stick at times or a pen or a paper clip, why would Maybrick be any different if indeeedd he did etch his initials as well as the victims. Neatness or accuracy would not be a issue if it was a momento for his personal enjoyment. In regards to the "K" theory, my family has a surname which has a captial "V" and the a capital "D" in it, many memebers do not capitlize it whereas some do and other smistake it and do either or at times. I think too much significance is being placed on whether it should be a "K" at one time and a "k" at another, it is a common occurance among families to change when the need suits them, it is just a matter of taste at the time. When you reference the will, it is my understanding that their were severla coipies of the will which had several mistakes in them, whether they were forged by Maybricks brothers or not remains to be proven. Additionally if you prescribe to the Maybrick theory as JTR who else would better fit into the "Ripper's Cloak" than Maybrick as he fits the description as best can be done late at night when everyone is half drunk to begin with and not to mention that the crimes revolved around him if you prescribe to the facts placed in the diary and even if you did not their is still significant evidence that links him moreso than others...I mean the Queens Nephew? Gimme a break..
O.k I've probably steered off the path of reason by now, just my opinions that I thought I"d share and I welcome anyone elses. This isa facinating subject and no one should be put down based on their interpretations (please excuse my stupid comment from before, meant only in jest). I look forward to hearing more on this subject.
-Mike |
Author: Michael Fairfax
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 01:37 pm | |
| also excuse my lack of using spell check |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 11:34 pm | |
Michael:
There is real doubt among Ripper experts about whether there actually was an "FM" daubed on Mary Jane Kelly's wall. We have had discussion here on the message boards to the effect that it is just some discoloration on the wall or partition. If you look elsewhere on the paneling you can see other marks and blotches. In addition, I have a theory that a washstand shown in one sketch of the crime scene published in a newspaper at the time may have been in the corner where the so-called "FM" appears (the sketch shows the washstand) in that very corner, so the corner would have been obscured at the time of the murder and no initials could have been put there.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 07:31 am | |
Couple of quick reminders.
The only references to initials in the actual diary are:
'Her initial there [struck through]
An initial here and a [sic] initial there
would tell of the whoring mother'
Then again later when the author writes the whole rhyme out again in a form he's happy with:
'An initial here and an initial there
will tell of the whoring mother.'
The FM, wrongly assumed to be daubed on the wall, to my mind just isn't suggested by those words anyway. I think the author could have intended 'her initial there' to refer to the gashes on Mary's forearm (only guessing) which could be seen as a large F (reversing the photo shows this best). Before you all burst out laughing, I'm not saying there is an initial carved into her arm, just trying to work out why the diary author wrote these words!
Another point I just noticed again. The diary author makes good use of a piece of Hutchinson's testimony, by writing:
'A handkerchief red,
led to the bed'
so if Hutchinson was making it up, as many people suspect, Mary had no red hanky from a previous client that night, and the diary has to be a forgery.
The author also mentions his cane a lot, as in:
'Sir Jim with his fancy cane
Will soon strike again'
which doesn't fit any of the witness statements as far as I can recall. I wonder why he put that in?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 09:09 am | |
Hi Caz:
I would suggest that the Diary author put in the lines
'Sir Jim with his fancy cane
Will soon strike again'
because it fits in with the stereotypical view of Jack the Ripper with the cape, top hat, and cane. Whether that popular view of Jack matches the reality of the Whitechapel murderer is immaterial, because the concocter of the forged Diary was determined to put in every bit of Ripper lore we have come to expect.
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:42 am | |
Or maybe it's a pun. You know: 'Kane'.
(joking) |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:45 am | |
| cane = Kane (?) |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:28 am | |
I have only just caught up with the Hamersmith/Hammersmith discussion on the boards. The name appears to be spelt both ways in the Diary. This is the position to date.
I have always been curious about Mrs Hamersmith (Hammersmith) - her arrival in the diary read oddly to me…..and I couldn't understand why a forger would have alighted on such an unusual name at any time…..1988 or 1888.
On July 14th this year, Ripper researcher, Allan Jones sent me his findings about the lady. He reported that he had found an M.A Hamersmith living at 21 Peter St, St Helens, in the 1881 census. She was 17 and married to Benjamin Hamersmith, 21 year old labourer. Also in the house were M.A Hamersmith's parents John (coal miner) and Catherine Mousdell, three young daughters and a niece. According to Allan, they were the only Hamersmiths in the Liverpool area. So I decided to double check for myself. Through the IGI and through the internet I found no Hamersmiths anywhere in England at that date. There were a few in America. But sure enough in the original census we found "M.A. Hamersmith". I was getting quite excited. By the date of the diary 1889 she could have been living anywhere in the region - even Aigburth.
But despite the accusations that have been laid at my door, that I do not probe deeper when afraid of answers….I was NOT satisfied to leave it there. I looked for a marriage certificate (I guessed the couple must have been married in 1870/80) and then I looked through ten years at the Family History Centre in London for baby Hamersmiths (and Hammersmiths). There were none.
I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in 1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes are made in official documents but this particular error - after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith - was bizarre.
I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." But if anyone really trawled through the census looking for an unlikely name to drop into a diary "forgery" in 1987/8/9 then he deserves all credit for finding the one name that appears on record just once and nowhere else in the country.. I wonder if we have heard the last of Mrs H? |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:28 am | |
I have only just caught up with the Hamersmith/Hammersmith discussion on the boards. The name appears to be spelt both ways in the Diary. This is the position to date.
I have always been curious about Mrs Hamersmith (Hammersmith) - her arrival in the diary read oddly to me…..and I couldn't understand why a forger would have alighted on such an unusual name at any time…..1988 or 1888.
On July 14th this year, Ripper researcher, Allan Jones sent me his findings about the lady. He reported that he had found an M.A Hamersmith living at 21 Peter St, St Helens, in the 1881 census. She was 17 and married to Benjamin Hamersmith, 21 year old labourer. Also in the house were M.A Hamersmith's parents John (coal miner) and Catherine Mousdell, three young daughters and a niece. According to Allan, they were the only Hamersmiths in the Liverpool area. So I decided to double check for myself. Through the IGI and through the internet I found no Hamersmiths anywhere in England at that date. There were a few in America. But sure enough in the original census we found "M.A. Hamersmith". I was getting quite excited. By the date of the diary 1889 she could have been living anywhere in the region - even Aigburth.
But despite the accusations that have been laid at my door, that I do not probe deeper when afraid of answers….I was NOT satisfied to leave it there. I looked for a marriage certificate (I guessed the couple must have been married in 1870/80) and then I looked through ten years at the Family History Centre in London for baby Hamersmiths (and Hammersmiths). There were none.
I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in 1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes are made in official documents but this particular error - after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith - was bizarre.
I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." But if anyone really trawled through the census looking for an unlikely name to drop into a diary "forgery" in 1987/8/9 then he deserves all credit for finding the one name that appears on record just once and nowhere else in the country.. I wonder if we have heard the last of Mrs H? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:29 am | |
Scott: Great minds think alike 
It strikes me that there is a giraffe in the parlor that no one likes to mention. You know, that giraffe. Unless she speaks, this enterprise of great pitch and moment....will remain in its grinding halt. |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:33 am | |
I have only just caught up with the Hamersmith/Hammersmith discussion on the boards. The name appears to be spelt both ways in the Diary. This is the position to date.
I have always been curious about Mrs Hamersmith (Hammersmith) - her arrival in the diary read oddly to me…..and I couldn't understand why a forger would have alighted on such an unusual name at any time…..1988 or 1888.
On July 14th this year, Ripper researcher, Allan Jones sent me his findings about the lady. He reported that he had found an M.A Hamersmith living at 21 Peter St, St Helens, in the 1881 census. She was 17 and married to Benjamin Hamersmith, 21 year old labourer. Also in the house were M.A Hamersmith's parents John (coal miner) and Catherine Mousdell, three young daughters and a niece. According to Allan, they were the only Hamersmiths in the Liverpool area. So I decided to double check for myself. Through the IGI and through the internet I found no Hamersmiths anywhere in England at that date. There were a few in America. But sure enough in the original census we found "M.A. Hamersmith". I was getting quite excited. By the date of the diary 1889 she could have been living anywhere in the region - even Aigburth.
But despite the accusations that have been laid at my door, that I do not probe deeper when afraid of answers….I was NOT satisfied to leave it there. I looked for a marriage certificate (I guessed the couple must have been married in 1870/80) and then I looked through ten years at the Family History Centre in London for baby Hamersmiths (and Hammersmiths). There were none.
I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in 1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes are made in official documents but this particular error - after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith - was bizarre.
I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." But if anyone really trawled through the census looking for an unlikely name to drop into a diary "forgery" in 1987/8/9 then he deserves all credit for finding the one name that appears on record just once and nowhere else in the country.. I wonder if we have heard the last of Mrs H? |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:34 am | |
I have only just caught up with the Hamersmith/Hammersmith discussion on the boards. The name appears to be spelt both ways in the Diary. This is the position to date.
I have always been curious about Mrs Hamersmith (Hammersmith) - her arrival in the diary read oddly to me…..and I couldn't understand why a forger would have alighted on such an unusual name at any time…..1988 or 1888.
On July 14th this year, Ripper researcher, Allan Jones sent me his findings about the lady. He reported that he had found an M.A Hamersmith living at 21 Peter St, St Helens, in the 1881 census. She was 17 and married to Benjamin Hamersmith, 21 year old labourer. Also in the house were M.A Hamersmith's parents John (coal miner) and Catherine Mousdell, three young daughters and a niece. According to Allan, they were the only Hamersmiths in the Liverpool area. So I decided to double check for myself. Through the IGI and through the internet I found no Hamersmiths anywhere in England at that date. There were a few in America. But sure enough in the original census we found "M.A. Hamersmith". I was getting quite excited. By the date of the diary 1889 she could have been living anywhere in the region - even Aigburth.
But despite the accusations that have been laid at my door, that I do not probe deeper when afraid of answers….I was NOT satisfied to leave it there. I looked for a marriage certificate (I guessed the couple must have been married in 1870/80) and then I looked through ten years at the Family History Centre in London for baby Hamersmiths (and Hammersmiths). There were none.
I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in 1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes are made in official documents but this particular error - after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith - was bizarre.
I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." But if anyone really trawled through the census looking for an unlikely name to drop into a diary "forgery" in 1987/8/9 then he deserves all credit for finding the one name that appears on record just once and nowhere else in the country.. I wonder if we have heard the last of Mrs H? |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:44 am | |
| Oh lord! I may have an inflated impression of my importance but HOW did I manage to put that message up so many times? I promise you all I have no idea (though doubtless someone will find something sinister in it!! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 01:08 pm | |
Don't worry Shirley,
It shows you are one of us lowly mortals - this happens to all of us at times - well, almost all of us. I'm not sure Melvin repeats himself like this - perhaps we are sometimes in the presence of a higher being after all....after all....after all.... :-)
Regarding Mrs H, as you say, people will now say that the forger must have found her in the 1881 census, and was unable to resist adding this delightfully rare character to his/her shabby creation, unaware that he/she would be tripped up by the fact that the census made a mistake and the name should have been Hamilton. Any other explanation is quite frankly going to be considered even more unlikely or else downright impossible. How about the forger plucking Mrs Hammersmith out of thin air, and by pure chance hitting upon a name used only once, and then in error, in the 1881 records for the whole country, and that this person just happened to be living not far from Liverpool? Don't think so.
But then, it will surely be considered impossible that Benjamin and his wife may have been calling themselves Hammersmith instead of Hamilton by 1881, and that the diary author knew this from a source other than the census record - won't it?
It will be interesting to see which option proves most popular. The whole thing gets more baffling by the day....at least to this lower mortal.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 03:13 pm | |
Hi Shirley:
With due deference, Shirley, St. Helens is a distance from Liverpool, circa fifteen miles, and there is absolutely nothing to connect M. A. Hamersmith aka Hamilton to where the Maybricks lived at Battlecrease House in the south Liverpool suburb of Aigburth, despite your provocative and "leading" statement, "By the date of the diary 1889 she could have been living anywhere in the region - even Aigburth."
I fail to see how in your words this finding of a "Hamersmith" somewhere in Lancashire a few miles from Liverpool is "extraordinary" or "bizarre" or "unlikely." If proof of a connection to James Maybrick and Aigburth could be provided such terms might apply but none is so far forthcoming, is it?
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 03:33 am | |
| good morning Chris. No there isnt. But I fail to see also WHY had there been a Mrs Hammersmith (Hamersmith) which now sadly it seems there wasnt, she could not have moved 15 miles over the space of 10 years. Of course she could! The Victorians were always on the move. My use of the word bizarre is solely because I DO find it astonishing that such a rare name crops up at all, even as a mistake, in the census and there it is in the diary. It tells us nothing, gets us nowhere but is typical of the teasing that I find fascinating in the diary.Had Hamersmith not turned out to be Hamilton I would have tried to find the family later. That's all. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 06:30 am | |
Hi Shirley:
Frankly I think you have very little here. Since you lack the definitive proof that M. A. Hamersmith had a connection to Aigburth, we cannot be sure there is a link. I am more inclined to think that Mike Barrett, if the forger, plucked a London placename out of the air to give to a person as another "in joke" for the readers of the diary.
Now, as for the Hamersmith/Hamilton name change, this does not disturb me. People changed their names all the time in those days. It may not have been a clerical error. Mr. (or Mrs.) Hamersmith may have preferred the name Hamilton to Hamersmith. In addition, I know of instances in which people in the nineteenth century changed their name in order to qualify for an inheritance. I would not necessarily give up on the name Hamersmith having been this couple's actual name even if they did later change it to Hamilton, and even if (so far) you have proved no link to Aigburth, Liverpool, and the Maybricks!
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:12 am | |
| Oh dear we are going round in circles. I KNOW there is no proof of an Aigburth connection and I had hoped that sharing my failure to find one and openly my disappointment would help to further some attempt at open-ness. As for Mike - it just does not work Chris and if you knew the man you would appreciate this - who would this "in"` joke be aimed at? Besides Mike would have had to look for other records to establish the nationwide rarity of the name.But I do like your idea that Mrs H might have changed her mind about her name (she couldn't write incidentally) ....food for thought there but I shall keep any further researches, if any, to myself for the time being. Off to the rubbish dump now - a regular Saturday trawl. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:35 am | |
Hi Shirley:
Happy trawling. :-) I mean that the use of the name "Hammersmith" could be an in-joke just as the Diary writer says that his taking lodgings in Middlesex Street was a joke in itself. We have to see that there is a need to tie Maybrick to London and the introduction of the name "Hammersmith" even if subliminally does give a London connection. As I have remarked before, the placing of Maybrick, a Liverpool businessman, as the Whitechapel murderer is a stretch and somewhat illogical so the story needs all the help it can get to make it work.
By the way, Shirley, you may be interested to know that I gave a talk in Norfolk, Virginia, last week in connection with a book on the War of 1812 that I will shortly publish. We had corresponded earlier about James Maybrick's business connections to Norfolk and that while he lived there he contracted malaria which led to his drug habit. While in Norfolk, I saw the old Customs House built circa 1850 with which Maybrick would have been familiar. I spoke at a restaurant called The Painted Lady. How come the name? Possibly a former whore house that James frequented? :-)
Chris George |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:50 am | |
Shirley I too found Mrs Hammersmith on the census a while ago & having discovered she was the only 1 , thought it strange. I couldn't check it out any further but concluded that it makes a modern forgery ( when the name is more common )more likely or an old forgery by a person who knows 1 person in 40 million more likely ( plus knows Maybrick & the Ripper )... or. Interesting huh!
John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 10:41 am | |
Those who have long memories and read the old message boards may remember that over two years ago I gave the information about the Hamersmith's. Now let's use some sense: is it really likely that a 24-year-old daughter of a coal miner married to a labourer and living miles away in Eccleston is going to know a reasonably well-off cotton merchant from a fashionable part of Liverpool well enough to enquire about his children and about his state of health?
It's much more likely that the forger(s) put in a name that they just happened upon. Although Mike is supposed to have said that he picked the name because of the area where MJ Druitt died, we know that Mike is unreliable.
Shirley:
If Allan Jones and yourself were referring to either the 1881 census on CD or on Fiche please be aware that in such a mammoth task of transcription, many mistakes were made by misreading the original handwritten records for typing. Anyone who uses the thing almost daily will realise that. Using a rare or unique name in the diary does not prove or disprove its authenticity.
Let me however congratulate you on finally proving the diary to be a fake. Let me elucidate:
James Maybrick meets Mrs. Ham(m)ersmith in Liverpool in 1888 and writes about the meeting in his diary. But we now know from the census and other records which you have discovered that the only occurence of the name in the UK is a mistranscription from the 1881 census. The name does not otherwise exist then or now. Therefore James couldn't have met anyone of that name, the diary (as the true word of James Maybrick) is a lie and therefore has to be a forgery. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 10:31 am | |
Hi All,
Shirley wrote:
'I found no Hamersmiths anywhere in England at that date. There were a few in America.'
Chris wrote:
'Now, as for the Hamersmith/Hamilton name change, this does not disturb me. People changed their names all the time in those days. It may not have been a clerical error...In addition, I know of instances in which people in the nineteenth century changed their name in order to qualify for an inheritance.'
Neither of these statements cuts any ice with Peter, who writes:
'...we now know...that the only occurence of the name in the UK is a mistranscription from the 1881 census. The name does not otherwise exist then or now.'
I guess this means we all have to accept as definitely ascertained fact that Hamilton was misread and transcribed as Ham(m)ersmith. And more to the point, that whoever wrote the diary was stupid enough to include a character with a surname which would prove to be non-existent. Come to think of it, perhaps something only someone like Mike could achieve. It's a wonder he didn't pick a name like Mrs Turnham-Greene.... :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 11:31 am | |
Hi All,
I have to agree with Peter, IMHO.
Chris's explenation would have some merit if indeed they would have needed to change their name for an inheritance, but since there are no other Hammersmiths are existent, except for America, there is noone to inherit from and thus no reason to change the name.
Hamilton wasn't a foreign name either, as in the case with Klosowsky.
Therefor I go along with the reasoning that it was a faulty transcription. The couple would still have been known as the Hamiltons, and thus the Hammersmiths were non-existent. Another pointer for the contra-diarists.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Tracy Steinbach
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 10:54 pm | |
Hello all!
I had a feeling that someone would eventually fall upon the Mrs. Hammersmith thing. I will add a little intrigue by telling a quick story and my own theory of the "Mrs. Hammersmith" reference. During my last visit to London in 1975, my grandmother asked me to drive her to the last known London address of her Auntie Laura and Uncle Michael (Laura and Michael Maybrick). When we got to the address we found that a modern apartment block had replaced the place where Laura and Michael had lived. Although my grandmother was disappointed, the visit satisfied her curiosity. Because I had to drive her, I distinctly remember the address, which was on Hammersmith Rd. or Court (if I had a map, I could pinpoint it, but I don't). I think the number was 60, but it's a long time ago. When I read Mrs. Harrison's book, I immediately assumed the reference Mrs. Hammersmith to be a sort of a humorous pet name that James had for Auntie Laura (remembering back to the trip in 1975).
Cheers!
Tracy Steinbach
tsteinbach@snet.net |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 12:57 am | |
Hi Tracy,
What is your grandmother's name? Is she still alive?
Did your grandmother have any oral traditions about Michael and James? What about her Aunt Laura?
Let us know if you have any more details, it would really be interesting. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 04:25 am | |
Hear hear Scott!
Hi Tracy,
Yes, it would be lovely if you could give us all some more information on Michael, the famous composer, who seemed to fade from the scene a bit after his brother's death.
Incidentally, I gather his old home town of Ryde, on the Isle of Wight, where he was once Mayor, has suffered from bad flooding in the recent heavy rainfall we've had over here.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 08:10 am | |
I realise that speculation is of no value on its own however ... ( isn't there always )...
perhaps Maybrick induced Hamilton to use Hammersmith ( which he may have heard in the USA ). Feldman suggests James had lovers whom he supported.
Peter do you recall if the microfiche had Hamilton or Hammersmith ( so that it agreed with the CD )? It is not uncommon for the 2 to be different & for them to be in error as you have said.
Tracy seems to have a valuable story to tell us.
Tracy anything you can tell us would be most interesting.
Cheers John |
Author: Barry Street
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 01:33 pm | |
This huge debate over the name 'Hamersmith/Hammersmith' really does reveal the sorry state of affairs in diary discussions. Hammersmith, Blacksmith, Gunsmith, anythingsmith; what does it really matter? Unless the person who thought of it (possibly Barrett as he has stated) is proven to have done so, then you can debate ad infinitum. It's just another diary nonsense. Amazing how the whim of a forger generates so much discussion.
I really do get the impression that some people just love these totally irrelevant and unproveable speculations. They don't advance serious Ripper research one inch, but they go on endlessly. It is baffling as to why they do it unless they love playing semantics and word games. Relevant Ripper debate it certainly is not. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 03:23 pm | |
Hi Barry,
There's some really interesting discussion about the REAL JTR on another message board I was just reading. Its called Occams (sic) Razor. There's some secret passageways and previously unknown sheds that JTR may have used to make his escape. In all, I'd say it's pretty fascinating reading. |
Author: Michael Fairfax
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 02:19 pm | |
| Well I'd like to thank all for the in depth discussions, I did not realize that so many peopel were intrigued by JTR..really I'm in the states and it doesn't seem to be much of a topic open for dicussion, I don't know if any of you are in England or whatnot but I did have the chance to visit London earlier this year in February and make a trip to Whitechapel which proved very interesting...although since I'm not as well versed in Ripper methodology it was a bit difficult to get around and find out anything or see anything that may or may not have been directly influenced by Jack but it was intreresting nonetheless...I think I got a bit farther down the main road past the school (college?) and went thru a few side roads but basically I was blind walking around. |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 06:39 pm | |
| The "fancy cane," like the "rose to match the red," is "Maybrick"'s PENIS. Let's all remember that these were SEX crimes, and that anyone who would want us to believe that the "Diarist" committed them, would have had that fictional diarist refer to his penis in many supposedly or truly clever ways. Thus, there IS NO "MR. KANE," and THERE WAS NO "ROSE," and "SIR JIM" IS MEANT TO SYMBOLIZE THE DRIVING FORCE AND DECISION-MAKER BEHIND THESE CRIMES -- THE PENIS, WHICH IS "LITTLE JAMES" WITH THE PENILE CROWN, WHERE CROWN PLUS JIM EQUALS "SIR JIM." |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 09:47 pm | |
Um... a year later, I had a question and this seemed a relevant board to post it:
Somewhere in the crowded fairground of words that are these boards (!!) was a reference to a cache of Maybrick's letters that had been discovered. Where? By whom? Is this so?
Sorry to interrupt with what is doubtless something you all knew about ages ago. I'm new here.
madeleine |
