How strange is this

[lynn cates]

explanations

Hello Sally. Thanks. A sensible alternative explanation.

And you are right that Helen may have wished to leave her "vocation" undesignated.

But why? How could she have earned the 4d doss? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Yes, or both of them were. If Thomas had a steady job portering he could bring in a reasonable amount of money. The wife is not listed as having an occupation in 1871; perhaps she was caring for their young family. 10 years later, when they were older, it would have been easier to work.

[lynn cates]

breadwinner

Hello Sally. Thanks.

Well, at least he was consistent. (heh-heh) I get the feeling that a move from Norfolk to East London would be consonant with her mum's being a machinist. Likely more lucrative than a porter, and many opportunities in East London for that sort of work.

So perhaps she was the breadwinner?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hi Lynn - yes, the same family. The names are just creatively spelled. Ah, variant spellings, how I love them

Thomas Smith is listed as a porter in 1871 too.

As for Helen Smith - no occupation might simply be because she didn't want to list her occupation of course - she must have had money from somewhere to have lodged at 14 Dorset Street.

[lynn cates]

same family?

Hello Sally. They're the same family, then?

I noticed that in the 1881 census, the mother was a machinist and the father a porter.

In 1891, given it is the same Helen, it looks like she is out of work.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

The family was living at Evans Buildings, St Luke Holborn in 1871 - they seem to have moved from Norfolk in about 1870.


SMITH, Thomas Head b1846 Norfolk

SMITH, Harriet Wife b1845 Norfolk

SMITH, Ellen (Helen) Sarah Daughter b1867 Norfolk

SMITH, Ellis (Alice) Emma Daughter b1869 Norfolk

SMITH, Roser (Rosa) Emily Daughter b1871 Middlesex

ALLMAN, Emma Lodger b1854 Norfolk

NEWTON, Harriet Lodger b1827 Middlesex

Other than the interesting spelling here Thomas' wife is called 'Cathrine' in 1881 - 'Harriet' is probably a simple error here; a confusion with Harriet Newton, lodging with the family.

So Helen Smith was Helen Sarah Smith and had lived in London virtually all of her life up to 1891.

[lynn cates]

our gal?

Hello Richard. Our gal in 1891?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

our gal?

Hello Richard. Is this our gal in 1881?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

detctive work

Hello Richard. Thanks. You are right that we must establish that she was there in 1888.

That would make her 21. It sounds as though this lassie were a trifle bored. Reminds me of the other lassie who wrote a "Jack" letter as "a lark."

Enjoy the lie down.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lynn.
Well spotted.
So we have someone from Yarmouth living at 14 Dorset street in 1891, born 1867, aged 21 when the murder happened.
If I was the speculative type.... I would say the alarm clock has gone off.
Naturally we would have to trace this person back to 1888, and her residence then, and see if anything emerges.
But we have yet another coincidence, someone ''possibly'' staying at that house in 1888,originally from the very place the letter was sent to..
I think I will have to have a lie down..
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

Yarmouth

Hello Richard, Sally. Thanks. I found the thread over at JTRForums.

I notice that Debs Arif posted a listing of occupants. The last one caught my eye:

113 SMITH, Helen Single F 24 1867
Yarmouth, Norfolk

Bell going off yet?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally, Lynn,
It really is amazing what turns up frequently, the letter appears to be a obvious hoax, but why 14 Dorset street, published one week exactly, to a murder just a few doors away.? and especially a house that Maxwell lived in.
It surely indicates at the very least the killer was very aware of this property, or was it just a lucky guess?
There is a vast amount of streets in Whitechapel, and a vast amount of houses,yet the writer of this hoax[ apparent] chooses not only the street of the next murder, but the residence of the witness,that has been discussed ever since with reservations.
Not that is strange...
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Sally. Thanks. I'll see what I can find.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Its under discussion on the other site, Lynn - there are citations from the letter, but the exact content is not revealed. It was signed 'Jack The Ripper' - so obviously a hoax

[lynn cates]

content

Hello Richard. Excellent find.

What was the exact content of the letter?

Cheers.
LC