"Who Do You Think You Are?" - Josh Groban

It seems like I'm always running behind lately.  I was desperately trying to finish my write-up about last week's episode of Who Do You Think You Are? just hours before this week's was set to air.  I obviously was not able to make it this time.

This episode was about Josh Groban (another celebrity I had not heard of!).  The teasers said we would be researching his mother's side of the family and going to 17th-century Germany, there to witness brilliance and the torment of prediction.  Groban is a multiplatinum singer, songwriter, actor, and record producer.  He graduated from the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts.  He has sold more than 25 million records and has been nominated for numerous awards.  He started his own charity, Find Your Light, to bring music, the arts, and cultural awareness to school children.

Groban was born and grew up in Los Angeles.  He lives in Los Angeles just a few miles from the home he grew up in.  To start his research, he goes to visit his parents, Jack and Melinda (Lindy) Groban; he has a brother, Christopher, who does not appear in the episode.  Groban says that both of his parents are intelligent and that they took their sons to music performances.  His mother was (is?) an art teacher, and education was always important in the family.

From a family history perspective, both of Groban's parents were only children, so he didn't grow up with any aunts, uncles, or cousins, and family trees never came up in conversation.  That said, someone apparently has done research on his father's side of the family, because he says it has been documented.  No research has been done on his mother's side, however.  He knows that his mother was born in Los Angeles and that his grandmother lived in L.A. for many years.  His maternal grandfather, Grandpa Lee, died before Josh turned 1.  He is curious because he doesn't really know much about him.

Lindy (Melinda) says that her father was one of five children.  The Great Depression had a big impact on the family, and her father had to quit school to go to work to help support the family.  Her father's father died when she was very young, and doesn't know much about the Johnston history.

Groban says that he is doing this research mostly for his mother.  He would like to find out when and why the relatives on her side came to the U.S.  The research will be a gift for the whole family but especially for his mom.

Groban begins his fact-finding mission by heading to the main branch (downtown) of the Los Angeles Public Library, where he meets professional genealogist Kyle Betit (pronounced "Beatty"; we have seen him previously on WDYTYA, on the Trisha Yearwood episode, where he was able to show off his French research specialization).  He had asked Betit to research his mother's father's side of the family "as far back as possible" (oh, I love requests like that!).  Betit explains that he used wills, deeds, newspapers, and other records to help create the tree that he obligingly has posted on Ancestry.com.  What struck me immediately was that Groban's mother is listed on the tree with her married, nor her maiden, name, which is something you should never do.  I also noticed that Groban was squinting at the screen.  He went back and forth during the episode between wearing glasses and not, and when he didn't, he squinted.  Vanity, thy name is Josh Groban!

Lindy's father is shown on the tree as Merril L. Johnston (Grandpa Lee; 1909–1982), who was married to Dorothy Z. Blumberg (1906–2001).  Lee was the son of Merrill Willis Johnson (1882–1954) and Lulu Christine Winslow (1888–1969).  Groban comments on the spelling difference between Johnston and Johnson (very observant of him, but he didn't say anything about Merril [one "L"] versus Merrill [two "L"s), and then the subject is never brought up again.  (Does that mean the Ancestry researchers couldn't find out when or why the spelling changed?)

Betit clicks on great-grandpa Merrill Willis Johnson for more details.  He was born July 6, 1882 in Algona, Kossuth County, Iowa and died August 30, 1954 in Oakland, Alameda County, California.  Moving up the tree, his parents were George M. (maybe Merrill?) Johnson (1844–1899) and Mary Ann Zimmerman (1845–1914).  Betit clicks on Mary Ann, and we see that she was born in January 1845 in Cass County, Iowa and died in Algona, Kossuth County.

After showing Mary Ann's details, we jump from Ancestry.com to the floating family tree in the sky.  On this tree, Grandpa Lee was Leander Merrill (two "L"s) Johnston, instead of Merril L.  We then fly through several generations:  Mary Ann's father was John Zimmerman; his father was Samuel Zimmerman; his father was another John Zimmerman; his father was Jacob Zimmerman; and his father was Jacob Christopher Zimmerman, Groban's 7th-great-grandfather.  Jacob Christopher is shown as being born before 1694 and dying in 1759 in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  He was married to Sibilla Van Fossen (1691–1745). When we arrive at Jacob Christopher Zimmerman, Groban jokes that he was the "original Jay Z."

Groban asks if there's more, and Betit shows him an index entry on Ancestry.com that has Jacob Christoph Zimmerman arriving in Pennsylvania in 1694 (which actually means he was born before 1695, because without more information, he could have been born in 1694 and been a babe in arms).  The entry says that he arrived with the primary immigrant Maria Margaretha Zimmerman.  Groban wants to know what that means, and Betit explains that Maria Margaretha was the main passenger and that Jacob Christoph was traveling with her.  Some discussion ensues about how Maria Margaretha was probably Jacob Christoph's mother, making her Groban's 8th-great-grandmother. Groban wants to know where her husband is:  Did he take a hike?  Did he die?  Were they divorced?

Betit points out that what is displayed on the screen is only a transcription.  To learn more, they need to go to the source of the information, which is the book William Penn and the Dutch Quaker Migration to Pennsylvania.  Groban wonders why they would have gone to Pennsylvania, and Betit explains that people of many religions were going there because it was a haven for freedom of religion.  Groban wonders whether Zimmerman would have been German or Dutch.

Betit conveniently has a copy of the book at hand and has Groban look up Maria Margaretha.  The Ancestry.com reference is for page 409.  (Betit does not mention that the book is also only transcriptions.)  The entry for Maria Margaretha shows she came from Bietigheim (east of Pforzheim), Würtemberg [sic], now part of Germany.  (Betit is surprised that Groban pronounces Bietigheim correctly.)  She was the widow of John Jacob Zimmerman (Groban's 8th-great-grandfather) and came with four children.  John Jacob died in or after leaving Rotterdamn, en route to Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, page 409 of the book is not shown in the preview on Google Books, but I did find two other references to Zimmerman:

(William Penn and the Dutch Quaker Migration to Pennsylvania, William Isaac Hull, originally published Swarthmore, 1935, as Swarthmore College Monographs on Quaker History, Number 2; reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, 1970, pages 337 and 338.)

But they couldn't show the first section this early in the episode, because it would have given away some of our "surprises" later.

Now, of course, Groban wants to know how John Jacob died.  He also asks why Zimmerman would have wanted to leave Württemberg and go to North America.  Betit tells him he'll need to look in Germany and says the best archive is in Stuttgart, the capital of Württemberg.  From this point on, the episode is focused on this one ancestor and his story.

In the outro to this segment, Groban says that something is telling him that Zimmerman must have had a desperate need to make his journey.  Unless he's psychic, I don't know how he could have gotten that from the information Betit provided him.  But since WDYTYA is always heavy on foreshadowing, we can take that as a sledgehammer hint that not everything goes well for John Jacob.

After arriving in Stuttgart, Groban meets archivist Peter Rückert at the Württemberg state archive (Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart).  Prof. Dr. Rückert was subtitled throughout this segment, though I did not find him difficult to understand.  After Groban says he is there to find information about his 8th-great-grandfather John Jacob Zimmerman, Rückert pulls out a book of marriage records covering 1630–1749.  He has Groban put on conservator's gloves, but then lets him page through the book until he reaches page 1671.  If you're that worried about the book, why have him page through it?  Anyway, on page 1671 they find the marriage of Johan Jacob Zimmerman, the only words Groban can read on the page.  (They go through some pronunciation gymnastics here, as Groban says "Jo-hon" and Rückert is polite and says that's ok.  Later Groban correctly pronounces the name as "Yo-hon.")

Rückert kindly provides a translation of the entry, which says that on February 22, 1671, "Mister M. Johan Jacob Zimmerman, Deacon at Bietigheim, legitimate son of M. Mattheus Zimmerman, citizen and hospital cooper at Vaihingen on the Enz, married Maria Margaretha, legitimate and left behind daughter of Mister M. Philipp Henrich Schaal, late faithful Deacon here."  (I'm guessing that "left behind" is a poor, literal translation that should have been "surviving.")  Groban asks what religion this is for, which Rücker says is Lutheran.  Groban then latches onto the word Deacon, totally ignoring the fact that the entry also identifies his 8th-great-grandfmother's maiden name and the name of his 9th-great-grandfather on that line.  (Maybe he did ask about it but it ended up on the cutting-room floor.)  Rückert says that a deacon handled marriages, burials, and baptisms in the church.  He also explains that a hospital cooper was a craftsman who worked at the hospital (pretty vague, I know), and that Mattheus' father and grandfather probably also did the same kind of work.  The abbreviated title of "M." stands for Magister or Master, indicating that someone had a university degree.  (But does that mean Mattheus had a university degree, since his name was styled the same way in the translation?  If so, why was he still a hospital cooper?  Or was this another translation error?)  Johan Jacob studied Lutheran theology for his degree.

Rückert next produces a book recording visitation protocols, which were visits made by higher-ups in the church where they checked on your work and how everything was going (Big Brother looking over your shoulder).  The book is for Bietigheim from 1601–1809, and this time it has a bookmark.  An entry in 1676 for Deacon Johan Jacob Zimmerman indicates his birthday was November 25, 1642.  He had one little son and one little daughter.  The entry continues that Zimmerman had studied well and was a good preacher, and that the family was "holding themselves" very well.  (Ancestry really needs to hire better translators.)

Johan Jacob studied at the university in Tübingen, Württemberg, for eight years.  Usually four years would be enough, but he apparently was a great thinker and believer.  Rückert says that if Groban is interested in learning more about his ancestor's education, he can go to Tübingen, as the university is still there and has lots of great records.

As he is leaving, Groban comments that history repeated itself in his family.  His mother is a teacher, and her father had worked with his hands; she had broken the cycle.  (Guess what?  That's a common theme in lots of families.  Nothing special here.  In fact, since Johan Jacob had a university degree, the family had gone backward and then regained ground.)

Tübingen University Old Hall

And on we go to Tübingen.  Groban walks through the town and to the university, where he finds head archivist Beate Martin.  She points out that one of the buildings is a student dormitory where Johan Jacob lived while he was there.  They then go to the archives, which look cramped and which Groban calls very "cozy."  Martin says that the archive has documents for all the students who studied there.  She has a book for 1624–1748 which has a bookmark on a page with candidates for Master in 1664.  Johan Jacob is second on the list, which she explains was his ranking in the class.  Groban asks what he studied besides theology.  Martin has a document that is essentially Zimmerman's "report card" from 1668.  He had been a math and music instructor, in fact the only music instructor.  The report says he "supervises music with care", which Groban says gives him chills, and "not just because it's cold down here."

Martin then shows Groban a book she says that Zimmerman used for teaching music.  Groban revels in the fact that he is holding a book that his ancestor actually held.  He flips through pages showing music theory and some practice pieces.  (Wow, 17th-century music theory!)  Groban is excited that his ancestor was passionate about music, as he is.

Martin says that the library also has other documents and shows a book that Zimmerman wrote.  This is not about music but about the theory of movement of the planets.  From this they extrapolate that Zimmerman was studying the planets and could effectively be called an astronomer.  He was studying the planets to be closer to God and to understand God.  In all, he wrote twelve books about astronomy.  (And I looked on Google Books, Gutenberg.net, HathiTrust, Archive.org, and WorldCat but couldn't find a single one of them online.  There are several variations of the spelling of his name, however, and I didn't search under all of them.)

Martin also shows Groban a copy of Newton's Principia, in which Newton mentioned Zimmerman.  Zimmerman witnessed a comet on November 23, apparently in 1680.  Since Zimmerman seems to have spent quite a bit of time studying the stars, Groban wonders how he managed to do that and have time to be a deacon.  Martin says he can visit the church in Bietigheim to find out more.  (I've commented before that WDYTYA reminds me of those computer games where you have to find one piece at a time before you are led to the next . . . .)  Groban wonders why someone who seemed to have everything going for him would want to leave and says that something must have happened.

The Duke of Württemberg
to whom Zimmerman wrote

And so we finally head to Bietigheim, where we have already heard the Zimmerman family was living before they began their journey to Pennsylvania.  Dr. Jonathan Clark, a historian at Concordia College, meets Groban at the church where Zimmerman was a deacon.  Groban says he has asked Clark to research Zimmerman's work at the church.  Groban starts here by asking why Zimmerman would go to America when he was so involved in his studies and being a deacon.  Clark shows Groban a document from January 28, 1678 with Zimmerman's signature.  The translation shows that the document is a letter addressed to the Duke of Württemberg, imploring the Duke not to transfer Zimmerman elsewhere but to spare his family; his wife was pregnant at the time.  Clark explains that the cause of the tension was that Zimmerman had rubbed his pastor the wrong way and had previously been warned.

Clark then shows Groban a book, Neue Comet Stern, from 1682.  Zimmerman saw Halley's Comet in 1682 and was profoundly affected by it, and wrote the book.  He believed the comet foretold future calamaties on Earth.

Another book, from 1684, has an author's name of Ambrosius Zehman von Caminiez.  Zehman means "seer", and the name is a play on words with Johannes Jacobus Zimmerman's name.  Clark says that the two names have the same number of letters (I think he said 27?), but I count 24 in Zimmerman and 26 in Caminiez.  When you remember that I and J could be substituted for each other, all the letters from Zimmerman's name are accounted for, but you end up with a V and a Z left over from Caminiez.  Maybe it works with a variant spelling of Zimmerman's name?  Either way, Caminiez was a pseudonym of Zimmerman.  He didn't want to use his real name because the book dealt with heretical predictions that the church would fall.  Many people, including Newton, have seen comets in religious contexts and as signs from God.  Zimmerman actually put his predictions about the destructions of buildings and Christ coming to earth in writing, however, and then he was caught.  Groban was amazed and said that Zimmerman was "mad by candlelight", a phrase I've not heard before.  (It only shows up six times on Google, so it isn't common.)

Some of what Zimmerman wrote in the book was that something would destroy the churches and that it would be the "fault of the ordinary ministry."  Zimmerman was part of a movement called Radical Pietism, which emphasized a personal relationship with God and a belief that the church was unnecessary and corrupt.  This was obviously not looked on kindly by the established church.

Zimmerman prophecied that 1693 would be a year of real change.  He apparently believed that the stars had revealed that date to him.  Historically it was not uncommon for people to believe that astronomical events could foretell tragedy.  A comet in 1618 was believed to have presaged war in Germany.  Zimmerman would have made his astronomical observations from the steeple in the church the two men are standing in.

Groban quite reasonably wants to know how Zimmerman could have maintained his decorum in church if his beliefs had become so radically different, and what would have happened if these heretical materials had been found in his possession.  Clark says he should go to the Evangelical Lutheran Church archives in Württemberg to see what records might exist.

The Evangelical Lutheran
church in Bietigheim

Groban has had an extraordinary experience being in the church where his ancestor worked.  He goes up to the steeple to see the sky as Zimmerman would have.  He wonders if Zimmerman's heresy is the reason the family left Württemberg.  Maybe they had feared for their lives if they stayed.

Groban now goes to Stuttgart, where the archives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Württemberg are housed.  He heads to the central library (Zentral Bibliotek), where he is met by Jan Stievermann, a church historian at Heidelberg University.  Groban asks why Zimmerman would have begged the Duke for permission to stay if he no longer liked the church.  The answer is simple:  He had a family to support.  Stievermann has records from the Württemberg consistory, the ruling body of the state church.  If something official had happened to Zimmerman, it would be in those records.  It's possible he could have been called in and interrogated about his beliefs.

The book Stievermann has contains minutes from consistory meetings for 1680-–1688.  On page 577 the name of Johan Jacob Zimmerman of Bietigheim appears, from an action in 1684.  He had been discovered.  Even though he had published his book under a pseudonym, Stievermann asks, "How many troublesome theologians with astronomical training were in Württemberg?"  I guess it didn't take long for them to figure it out.  After Zimmerman was summoned, he confessed that he had written the book.  He pled that his conscience should not be constrained and said that he would quit rather than recant his words.  He believed that all European state churches were so corrupt that they would fall when the judgment of God came.  He was unequivocally a radical, which Stievermann says meant he could be expelled from the state.

Interestingly, the researchers lost track of Zimmerman in Württemberg after this.  (I guess that means he left before the church kicked him out?)  They don't know where he was; he just seems to have disappeared for several years.  The next mention of him was found in a letter from the St. Petersburg archives.  The letter was written by Zimmerman and was dated February 1688.  He was writing from Frankfort, but it was not stated which one.  He had been relying on his Pietist connections.  One child had died, and he was in debt.  He "recommend[ed] everything to the divine power."  (No explanation was given as to how the letter ended up in St. Petersburg, which I was really curious about.  Stievermann also didn't say to whom the letter was written.)  He was really hoping his beliefs would carry him through.

Groban asks if there would have been a community to help him.  Stievermann explains that other Pietists would have helped as much as possible.  They gathered in private homes, outside church authority.  Everything would have been very clandestine.

The last item after the letter from Zimmerman was one from a pastor in Hamburg, who wrote that Zimmerman had died in September 1693 and was buried in Rotterdam, where the family had gone to board a ship to Pennsylvania, but there is no information about how he died.  So Zimmerman actually died the year he had predicted would be a year of change; he just hadn't realized exactly what the change would be.  Other people hadn't wanted him to leave, but Pennsylvania would have acted as a magnet, as it was a safe haven for people with different faiths and unusual convictions.  The translation of the pastor's letter ends, "May God have mercy on his widow and children."

Groban is fascinated by what he has learned about Zimmerman.  He says that Zimmerman was honest about having written the heretical book (but conveniently forgot that he only did so after he was caught), even though he had everything to lose.  Zimmerman had seen a beacon of light in Pennsylvania and committed to taking his family there.  It was sad that he hadn't made it himself, but Groban sees it as a triumph for his ideas that his family did.

Walking in his ancestor's footsteps has obviously been a special experience for Groban.  His ancestor has gone from being a name on a page (one he only just found out about, no less) to someone he learned about as a person.  Because Groban himself is a musician, he particularly identifies with the fact that Zimmerman taught music "with great care" (gotta love those translations), but also appreciates that Zimmerman studied math and became a scholar and someone great.  He of course ties this into his own beliefs that education is important.  He appreciates the opportunities that he has had and is glad he is able to offer opportunities to young people.

I'm kind of surprised that Ancestry.com is still airing the commercial where the woman says she found her grandfather's World War I draft registration but the image displayed is from World War II.  Personally, I think it makes them look unprofessional.  Would it be that difficult to edit it?

And of course, since I mentioned in my post about the Julie Chen episode that I found Long Island Medium questionable looking, when I tuned in to TLC to watch this episode, what were they talking about on Long Island Medium, which was just ending?  Genealogy!  Apparently they're getting into family history also!

"Who Do You Think You Are?" - Cynthia Nixon

This past Wednesday the new season of Who Do You Think You Are? began.  I had been planning on posting my predictions before the first episode, but I ran into a couple of problems.  First of all, I hadn’t even heard of four of the celebrities!  Three of them I seem to be a little too old for, and I’ve never watched Sex and the City so had no idea who Cynthia Nixon was.  The other problem is that younger celebrities tend to have less information available online on which to base educated guesses.  The only prediction I could come up with was that most of the travel would probably be in the United States, because TLC doesn’t have the budget NBC does.  I say “most” because Kelsey Grammer wasn’t born in the U.S., so I suspect his episode will take us overseas somewhere.  Other than that, I’m at a loss.  We no longer appear to have our basic formula of one Jewish and one black celebrity — everyone this year seems to be white and WASPy.  But who knows what revelations await us?

So the first episode was about Cynthia Nixon, who is best known for her work as Miranda Hobbs in Sex and the City in its different incarnations.  She is an Emmy and Tony award winner, so some good stage work must be in there also.  She tends to play strong female characters and supports various causes, with GLAAD and marriage equality being specifically mentioned.  She lives with her wife Christine Marinoni and their children in New York City.

Nixon’s parents, Ann Elizabeth Knoll and Walter E. Nixon, Jr., separated when she was 6.  She knows quite a bit about her mother’s side of the family but little about her father’s side, as she saw him rarely when she was growing up.  She knows his father’s name was Walter Elmer Nixon (Sr.?), and that the elder Walter’s father was Samuel F. Nixon.  (Maybe she'll find out she's related to Richard Nixon??)

Nixon’s first step is to visit the New York Historical Society (logical, since she lives in New York City), where she meets with professional genealogist Joseph Shumway.  (We’ve seen him before assisting Christina Applegate, Steve Buscemi, and Blair Underwood.  Ancestry.com acquired him and his services when it bought ProGenealogists.com, now its in-house research team.)  Shumway starts their meeting by unrolling an already-prepared calligraphed scroll with Nixon’s ancestors listed (shades of D. Joshua Taylor again).  Nixon learns that her grandmother was Margaret J. Eaton and that Samuel Nixon was married to Mary M. (with no maiden name).  She wonders if she’ll be able to learn Mary’s maiden name and maybe her parents’ names, and Shumway assures her that this was just the initial information and that he had continued to look for more.  He then shows her Mary’s death certificate, which states she was born in Missouri:  father unknown, mother Martha Curnutt.  What?  Why didn’t they know her father’s name?

Shumway suggests they look on Ancestry.com (one of the earliest appearances in an episode, I believe) for a marriage for Martha.  Nixon enters Martha Curnutt (why don’t they teach the celebrities that capitalization isn’t necessary?), and she finds a marriage to Noah Casto on August 15, 1839.  Shumway then has Nixon search for Martha Casto in the 1850 census (why not look for Noah in 1840 instead of jumping ahead more than 10 years?), but she doesn’t find anyone.  He then “suggests” she look for Martha Curnutt, and amazingly enough, we find Martha in Cole, Missouri.  The household includes John Curnutt, who is of an age to be appropriate as Martha’s father, and three Curnutt children (Mary, 10; Noah, 7; and Sarah, 6), who could be Martha’s.  Nixon assumes the children are Casto's and wants to know why they don’t have Casto as a last name and where Noah the husband is.  Shumway says that divorce was not common in that period but did happen, and that some records still exist that could be checked.

Something that should have been explicitly discussed while they were looking at this census is that family relationships are not stated (they don’t appear in the federal census until 1880).  The children need not have been Martha’s.  They could have been children of a brother, foundlings whom the family had taken in, or even John’s children.  It’s perfectly fine to make the hypothesis that they’re Martha’s children and that John is Martha’s father, but make it clear that it’s a working hypothesis!  Then look for records to see if the hypothesis is correct.

Then Shumway comes up with something that’s totally out of left field, at least based on my logic.  He tells Nixon that he always looks for information related to the Civil War.  But why does he bring it up now?  We’ve only looked at a marriage in 1839 and the 1850 census.  We haven’t even found the family in 1860, just prior to the beginning of the Civil War.  Ok, we know why — because the Ancestry research team found a record.  But this was an incredibly heavy-handed way to introduce the information.  I felt like I was riding in a car that had just veered off the highway.

That said, Shumway starts talking about pensions and how they can help prove family history.  My first thought was that Noah Sr. had served and maybe Martha had filed for pension benefits based on his service.  But no, Shumway talks about Noah Jr. and how Nixon might want to check to see if he had served, as he would have been 18 years old when the war began in 1861, and there probably would be a lot of detail about the family.  (In a court case, this would probably be classified as a leading question.)

Nixon asks if she should try it now.  Shumway tells her to go to Ancestry under military and look for Noah Curnutt.  She finds an image of an index card for a pension application under Martha's name, filed on July 22, 1881.  Shumway explains that the fact it’s a mother’s pension suggests Noah had been the financial support of the family and that he had died.  He tells Nixon that the pension file is available at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and that should be her next stop.

In the interlude segment, Nixon says she is intrigued by what she has learned so far.  Martha using her maiden name and the children also using it make her wonder what happened to Noah Casto.

Nixon's first trip is indeed to Washington.  Nixon meets with historical researcher Vonnie Zullo in the main building of the National Archives.  (We've seen Zullo previously also; she worked with Kelly Clarkson.)  Zullo has the pension application file for Martha Curnutt, filed July 22, 1881.  Martha was 61 years old and living in Calhoun, Missouri.  She had stated she was the mother of Noah S. Curnutt, who had died while serving in the Civil War.  The file also contains the information that Noah Casto had died in 1842.  This made me immediately think again about the ages of those children in the 1850 census and how accurate they might have been.  Whether Nixon had thought of this herself we will never know, but at least on air she commented that Noah had been born about 1843 and Sarah about 1844.  While it is possible that Martha could have been pregnant with Noah the younger when Noah the elder died, the numbers just don’t add up for Sarah, who doesn’t seem to have been Noah Casto’s daughter.  Zullo tells Nixon that she can find local records about individuals at the Missouri state archives.

As she leaves the National Archives building, Nixon says how awful it must have been for Martha with her husband dying early and then her son dying.  She wonders what happened to Casto and just who Sarah is. (Wondering about Sarah's identity is a very legitimate question at this point, given what we've seen.)

Nixon now travels to the Missouri State Archives in Jefferson City, Missouri.  Waiting to see her there is Donna Schuele (credited as a historian, not a professor, at the University of California at Irvine, because even though she has a Ph.D. she is a lecturer, not a regular faculty member).  She has documents ready for Nixon to view.  They are court documents for the case of the State of Missouri versus Martha Casto/Curnutt with a charge of murder in July 1843.  The court found the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the 1st degree.  The court documents, however, do not give specifics of the killing itself.

A history of Barry County, Missouri, does discuss the “Castoe” murder (remember, spelling is inconsistent until well into the 20th century).  Apparently Martha used an axe to kill her husband in 1843 while he was sleeping.  Schuele and Nixon agree that sounds like murder, not manslaughter.  Schuele offers that reducing the charge to manslaughter could have been a way of avoiding a sentence of execution, which would have been extremely rare for a woman in that period, and which a jury would probably have been reluctant to give.

The conversation turns back to Sarah for a moment.  Since it appeared that Noah Casto had actually died in 1843, not 1842, Sarah could have been his daughter, depending on the timing.  The article in the Barry County book also mentions that Martha was only the second female inmate in the state penitentiary (not a great way to make a name for yourself in history).

Nixon wonders why Martha would have killed her husband and asks if the story might have been in the newspaper.  (Duh!  If it bleeds, it leads!  The story about Noah Casto's murder was actually carried as far away as the Bridgeport, Connecticut Republican Farmer of August 1, 1843.)  Schuele tells her that newspapers and personal records might be available at the state historical society and suggests she go there next.  Before Nixon leaves, the two women return to the subject of Sarah.  If Noah Casto was murdered in 1843, did Martha give birth to Sarah while she was in the penitentiary?  Did she kill Casto while she was pregnant?

Nixon seems a little disconcerted by this round of information.  She talks about how it’s hard to reconcile the idea of killing someone close to you.  (I guess she doesn’t know that the vast majority of people are killed by someone close to them?)

Our next location is the State Historical Society of Missouri, in Columbia.  Wendy Gamber, a professor of history at Indiana University (isn't there anyone in Missouri who specializes in Missouri history?), has found an index card that mentions Martha’s name as appearing in the Jefferson Inquirer in July 1843.  She helps Nixon maneuver microfilm of the newspaper (which does not appear to be available online, or at least not on Newspaper Archive, GenealogyBank, Chronicling America, Newspapers.com, or any link from the Wikipedia newspaper archives page).  The murder occurred on July 10, so Nixon scrolls forward from there a couple of issues (it was the weekly paper) and in the July 20 issue finds a story with a lead-in of "Horrible!" right before they cut to a commercial.  When we return to the episode, Nixon begins reading the article.  Particularly pertinent are the information that Casto was in the “habit of treating his wife in a manner too brutal and too shocking to think of” and a description of him as an “unnatural husband.”  Gamber says that these descriptions might be somewhat coded ways to say that Casto could have been a sexual deviant or tortured his wife, as these types of things were not openly discussed in the mid-19th century.  (On the other hand, they might not be coded; we'll probably never know.)  Whatever he was doing, Casto does not seem to have been a very nice guy.  After she had killed Casto, Martha told a neighbor what she had done and said that he had threatened to kill her, which she was certain he would have.  The article also mentions that Martha had two children.

The narrator then gave us a short piece about couverture.  Married women in the United States were essentially stripped of their rights and became extensions of their husbands.  Anything a woman owned when she married became her husband's; he had the legal right to punish his wife physically.

Nixon now wants to know if there are prison records that could tell her more about Martha and Sarah.  Gamber tells her she should visit the Missouri State Penitentiary, which closed in 2004, and that somebody there might be able to help her.

As she departs the historical society, Nixon talks about how awful it was for Martha to endure everything that happened to her and that this story did not have a happy ending.  Martha must have felt that it was better to kill Casto and that his behavior was unforgivable.  Personally, I think they indicted Casto a little too quickly based on the information they shared with the viewing audience, but as I always say, I have to hope that all the research that wasn’t “sexy” enough to make it on air justified the way they described him.

Back in Jefferson City, Nixon now goes to the Missouri State Penitentiary.  It definitely looks closed and disused.  Unlike Alcatraz, which is open as a national park for visitors, the penitentiary looks like no one goes there, but it apparently does offer regular tours.  On site to speak with Nixon is Patricia Cohen, a 19th-century women’s history professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  Nixon asks first what daily life would have been like for Martha as the only woman in the penitentiary and how she would have been dealt with.  Cohen tells her Martha would have been in the same cell block as the men but would have been segregated and spent most of her time alone in her cell.  She also mentions that the penitentiary was a contract prison and was run as a business.

Nixon (oh so disingenuously) asks if there is any way to learn more about Martha’s time in the penitentiary.  (Of course there is; haven't they found answers for all of her previous inquiries?  Otherwise that question wouldn’t have been scripted, now, would it?)  Gamber tells her about a book called Prison Life and Reflections:  Or, a Narrative of the Arrest, Trial, Conviction, Imprisonment, Treatment, Observations, Reflections, and Deliverance of Work, Burr, and Thompson, by George Thompson, published in 1848.  (What Gamber didn’t mention was the rest of the title:  Who Suffered an Unjust and Cruel Imprisonment in Missouri Penitentiary, for Attempting to Aid Some Slaves to Liberty, which actually makes the book sound much more interesting.  She also didn't mention the book is available for free on Google Books.  But the program did find a hard copy, which is very cool.)  Thompson mentioned Martha, though not by name, in a short passage in the book:

“M., a woman, killed her husband with an axe—was sent here for five years—staid about half of it and was pardoned by Governor Edwards.” (page 347)

Nixon also reads that Martha became the mother of a daughter born in the fall of 1844 (page 287).  Since Noah Casto died in July 1843, it was impossible for Sarah to have been his child.  The primary candidates for Sarah’s father would have been the wardens, overseer, and guards.  (This looks like a great situation to try DNA testing, but nothing was discussed about any descendants Sarah had.)  Mrs. Brown, the wife of Judge Brown, wouldn’t allow anyone to help Martha with the baby (which to me suggests she might have thought her husband was the father).  Martha was not allowed to have a fire in her cell to keep her warm; it certainly seems the idea was to make it difficult for the baby to survive.  But Martha and Sarah were very strong, and they made it.  Martha was pardoned almost two years after her arrival.  Gamber suggests that if Nixon can find the pardon, things might become clearer.  (Might?  Get real.  We all know that you guys have already found the pardon.)

In this interlude, Nixon talks about how Martha must have felt that nothing could be worse than life with her husband.  Maybe her baby daughter gave her something to fight for while she was in prison.  She wonders if Martha was raped in prison or how she became pregnant.

And back Nixon goes to the Missouri State Archives.  This time she meets with Gary R. Kremer, a historian and the executive director of the State Historical Society of Missouri.  Nixon is “hoping” the pardon will shed more light on what happened to Martha.  Kremer has Nixon take out a folder with a yellowed parchment.  It is a petition dated November 28, 1844, when Martha was about 32 years old.   She apparently was pardoned primarily due to this petition, which was signed by many people, including some prominent political figures (e.g., W. P. Hall, a U.S. Congressman and later Missouri governor, and Lilburn W. Boggs, a former Missouri governor).  The petition mentions her suffering, that she had a child, and the chance of her freezing in the cold winter months.  So the word had gotten out about Martha’s daughter, and there was definitely possible embarrassment for the authorities if the child died.  Governor John Edwards signed Martha’s pardon on December 17,  1844.

Kremer says that Martha's time in prison became a turning point in penal practice and was the beginning of a change for the better.  Women could no longer be incarcerated with men.  He did not give any specific references to later government actions or even articles that referenced Martha’s case as being a reason for new procedures being established, though.

Nixon then asks Kremer if he knows when Martha died.  Kremer directs her to FindAGrave.com (conveniently owned by Ancestry.com) and has her search for Martha Curnutt.  Martha is listed (are you surprised?).  She died in 1877 and is buried in Avery Cemetery.  (Martha's entry has much more information now than it did when the episode was filmed.)

Before she visits the cemetery, Nixon talks about how glad she is that someone came to Martha’s rescue.  Martha “endured so much” and went through all that “tumult” and “horror.”

The last segment is Nixon’s visit to Martha’s grave.  It is in a remote cemetery that looks to be in somewhat poor condition.  It is fenced in, and scattered tombstones are in small groups.  Nixon wonders whether any other relatives might be buried there also (of course there are).  There don’t appear to be any marked rows or plots, yet Nixon unerringly goes straight to Martha’s grave:  Martha Curnutt, no birth date, died April 4, 1877.  Buried near her are Mary M. Nixon and Samuel J. Nixon, Cynthia Nixon’s great-great-grandparents.  Nixon lays flowers at Martha’s grave.  She looks around at the “pretty, pretty setting” and tells Martha, “I’m glad I found you.”

In the outro, Nixon talks about how Martha encountered a lot of tragedy, death, and violence in her life and that she must have wanted to give up many times, but that she didn’t accept things and that sometimes people can defy the odds.  This seems a little (just a little) melodramatic to me, but Martha definitely was not the “average” woman for the time.  Nixon thinks of herself as a strong person, but I’m not sure she thinks she could have done what Martha did.  She says that Martha made history, but something good came out of it, because she started a change regarding laws about incarcerating women with men.  She also figures that her family members will think it interesting that they have an axe murderer in the family, so I guess that’s kind of putting a good spin on things.

I found it intriguing that the teaser for the next episode, which will focus on Jesse Tyler Ferguson, also mentioned a murder.  Maybe that will be a unifying them for this season’s celebrities?

Ancestry.com Closing Expert Connect

Word has quickly been circulating that Ancestry.com is shutting down its Expert Connect research service.  This service, started in 2009, allowed people who wanted research done to post their questions and solicit bids from professional genealogists.  Ancestry.com took a percentage of the total paid for a job.  I had signed up for the service as a researcher but had not been very active.  Yesterday I received an announcement from Ancestry.com saying that it will no longer offer Expert Connect as of March 18, 2011.

Coincidentally, Ancestry.com acquired ProGenealogists, a professional genealogical research company, in late 2010.  Many people are hypothesizing that Ancestry.com decided that since it now had its own in-house researchers, there was no need to make space at the table for outside researchers.  Two particularly good posts on the subject have been made by Randy Seaver of Genea-Musings
(http://www.geneamusings.com/2011/01/progenealogists-has-makeover.html) and Thomas MacEntee of High-Definition Genealogy (http://hidefgen.com/expert-disconnect-ancestrycoms-move/).

If you were a customer of Expert Connect, what should you do now?  If you have already made contact with a professional researcher and you're happy with that person, stay with him.  If you have not hooked up with a researcher yet, visit the Association of Professional Genealogists Web site (http://www.apgen.org/).  You can search there for a researcher based on location or research specialty.