It's worth noting that "Poste haste" is also spelt wrongly in the diary. The forger certainly had a problem with the very simple word "post".
Maybrick, of course, would have had no such difficulties. He was an educated man and almost certainly attended Liverpool Collegiate Institution, a fee paying school where William Gladstone, who would later become prime minister, gave a speech at the opening ceremony: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ybrick&f=false
For me, the "e" is a give-away. I think the "e" added to "post haste" was a subconscious error on the part of the writer, after having to purposefully use it in "Poste House". That implies that adding the "e" was not common for the writer, which it wouldn't be.
It's an error on the part of a person attempting to write in a certain manner.
That's an easy one, Graham. Maybrick was, of course, a psychic! Why not? He drank in futuristic pubs, invented phrases, evaded the police as the world's most infamous killer, could mask his handwriting whenever he wanted... Did I miss anything?
Ahhhh, right. I did wonder.........
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Many a Public House in the late 1800's was referred to by locals as the 'Post House', as prior to the setting up of the Royal mail many of them acted as collection and drop off points for a basic postal system.
That's interesting, Spider - but I'm not sure about the connection to the postal service. According to the OED, an archaic/obsolete definition of post-house is given as "An inn or other house where horses are kept for the use of travellers: a posting house". This seems to imply that the "post" bit might have referred to the posts where the horses were tethered. The term dates back to the 1600s, which pre-dates any sort of organised mail system by a couple of hundred years. Examples:
"We repos'd this night at Piperno, in the Post-house without the towne" (John Evelyn's Diary, 1645)
"He alighted at the Post-house to change Horses" (London Gazette, 1712)
"They are a sort of post-house, where the Fates change horses" (Byron, Don Juan, 1819)
It is argued that large coaching inns might have been known as post houses. This could never have applied to the pub in Cumberland Street, as it was too small to have been a coaching inn, as Caz pointed out many, many years ago-okay, maybe not that many years, it was still the twenty-first century, after all. Sorry, Caz! http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/12049.html
Large coaching inns might have been known as post houses. This could never have applied to the pub in Cumberland Street, as it was too small to have been a coaching inn, as Caz pointed out many years ago-okay, maybe not that many years, it was still the twenty-first century, after all! http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/12049.html
Reading that thread, I notice the same disingenuous error being handed out that the Old Post office Tavern was likely known as "the Poste House", when no such evidence exists.
This random man from Rigby's is said to have labelled that pub as bearing that name, which is entirely false.
It amazes me that there doesn't exist one iota of information to support this assumed name.
The argument against a forger naming an erroneous title seems to be that they surely wouldn't be that careless, yet in reality, we can plainly see that many things about this diary are very careless.
Careless provenances that vary greatly, careless inclusion of out-of-date phrases, careless inclusion of lines from books not yet published, careless attention to handwriting, careless attention to spelling, careless attention to content; such as mentioning odd things like Maybrick not wanting to get blood on him, when we know the Ripper went inside his victims' bodies. There's so many careless details in the diary that it really is astounding how anyone can believe in it.
Hoaxers are not above error. Nobody is above error. A person writing a true account is generally not so repeatedly careless.