Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[caz]

If you can’t even detect the “Barrett speak” then I doubt it.

The "Barrett speak" where, Abby? In your posts or the diary?

If you mean the diary, could you direct me to something composed by Mike - anything in fact - that can be compared with the diary text, so we can all see if it resembles "Barrett speak" in any way, shape or form?

Thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I am no expert on Maybrick but i believe it has been suggested that he was a hypochondriac, perhaps even of failing health . If that is the case would he travel, [and i assume stay] to the slums of the East End on a regular basis to kill, where he could pick up any number of diseases, such as Cholera and Tuberculosis ? Which where less understood in the Victorian era, as in how people got infected etc. Coupled with the fact that most possibly Jack lived in the area, was of the same class and was probably in his Twenties or Thirties, and committed offenses leading up to first murder. Again i am no expert on Maybrick but none of this seems to fit him at all

Your right Darryl
The only thing similar was that he was an English gentile imho.

[caz]

I'm sure that the diarist imagined James Maybrick thinking about travelling down from Liverpool to pop into Windsor Castle

Exactly. It's a bleedin' obvious fantasy, isn't it? And that, as far as I can see, is all it was ever meant to be. "Sir Jim" the fantasist, who thought he could do everything, from chatting up Her Majesty and spreading his unique brand of mayhem - mutilating penniless drabs across the Whitechapel map - throughout the land, to writing about it in prose and poetry that would stun the world and even his brother Michael with its quality.

My point relates not to the possibility of a few private individuals owning a telephone in the LVP, but to when the phrase "give him/her a call" became a widespread term for communicating by telephone, as opposed to "dialling", "telephoning" or "ringing" them.

And you still think your late 1980s hoaxer would have used the phrase in the sense of telephoning Queen Victoria, rather than calling on her in person, without thinking this might ring alarm bells for the average modern reader? Disappointing, Gareth.

If it had been used in the sense of telephoning, I'd have expected the hoaxer to have done that either in the knowledge that JM had a telephone, or in keeping with a character who would have fancied himself as one of the few with access to this new-fangled bit of kit. Either way, this would have been more for the discerning reader of yesteryear, and suggestive of a hoax created prior to 1970, when many homes were yet to boast a 'telling bone'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

I am no expert on Maybrick but i believe it has been suggested that he was a hypochondriac, perhaps even of failing health . If that is the case would he travel, [and i assume stay] to the slums of the East End on a regular basis to kill, where he could pick up any number of diseases, such as Cholera and Tuberculosis ? Which where less understood in the Victorian era, as in how people got infected etc. Coupled with the fact that most possibly Jack lived in the area, was of the same class and was probably in his Twenties or Thirties, and committed offenses leading up to first murder. Again i am no expert on Maybrick but none of this seems to fit him at all

[Abby Normal]

No way, Abby. If you were to fake a Victorian diary I would detect your barely decipherable 'text-speak' in seconds.

Love,

Caz
X

If you can’t even detect the “Barrett speak” then I doubt it.

[caz]

If the elementary errors had been ironed out, the whole thing would make for a more lively read; personally, I get worn out after reading only a few pages because of all the clunkers they contain. It's like trying to sprint barefoot over jagged rocks.

You were looking for 'a more lively read' in a diary you believe was intended to frame nobody Jim Maybrick for the horrific murders of a handful of penniless drabs? No wonder we are poles apart on this one, Gareth.

My ex once gave me that book written by Ian Brady, which I never could bring myself to read, and which ended up in some unfortunate charity shop in Croydon. Now I would have expected that one to wear me out and be like 'trying to sprint barefoot over jagged rocks'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And you would still think it was an old hoax.

No way, Abby. If you were to fake a Victorian diary I would detect your barely decipherable 'text-speak' in seconds.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Right, so you still imagine your Mr/Mrs Ordinary used the phrase in the sense of their ripper chuckling to himself at the thought of telephoning Queen Victoria to brag about his cleverness, even though Gary Barnett found several thousand examples from the right period, and before, of people 'giving someone a call' in the traditional sense of paying them a visit?

I'm sure that the diarist imagined James Maybrick thinking about travelling down from Liverpool to pop into Windsor Castle

And were your Mr/Mrs Ordinary aware that the real James Maybrick did have easy access to his own telephone in any case?

My point relates not to the possibility of a few private individuals owning a telephone in the LVP, but to when the phrase "give him/her a call" became a widespread term for communicating by telephone, as opposed to "dialling", "telephoning" or "ringing" them.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz

Let me ask you something. Are you still labouring under the possible misapprehension that the diarist should have displayed much better spelling and grammar

All I can say is that the diarist displays neither good spelling nor grammar, despite obvious and repeated attempts at grandiloquence and sophistication. A half-competent writer really wouldn't - or shouldn't - have done this.

and isn't it faintly arrogant to presume what their intention was and then conclude that it failed miserably?

I don't think it arrogant to suggest that the diarist(s) repeatedly failed in their attempts at affecting a "Victorian" voice, when the distinct impression I get from the diary is that the writer(s) tried for a moon-shot but ended up hitting the garden fence.

So - was this really a serious attempt in your view to frame the real James Maybrick for the crimes?

That is by far the more likely scenario, I'd suggest.

Or is it more probable that the intention all along was to create a spoof interweaving the two cases, which necessarily involved combining JM with JtR, to produce a caricature of the real person, who called himself "Sir Jim"?

I can't see why anyone, other than someone in the immediate circle of James and/or Florence Maybrick, would have been motivated to do so.

was the diarist making a huge error of judgement in your opinion by not employing someone who could have tidied up the spelling and grammar to perfection and polished up the funny little rhymes

Perhaps, within the limits of their judgement, they didn't see - or SEEN - that there was much wrong with it.

until the whole effort shone with literary ability and creative talent?

I'm not suggesting that it should have shone with literary merit or talent, only that one would expect a half-competent forger (or Maybrick-caricaturist, for that matter) to have produced something a little less shambolic.

Would that not have sucked the impure soul out of the diary and left it sterile?

Quite the opposite. If the elementary errors had been ironed out, the whole thing would make for a more lively read; personally, I get worn out after reading only a few pages because of all the clunkers they contain. It's like trying to sprint barefoot over jagged rocks.

Did you, as a younger lad, long to take your red pen to James Joyce?

Never, not least because Joyce's language and imagery is so vivid. I suspect, however, that if the diarist had decided to forge a Joycean novel, the result would have been more Finnegan's Wack than Finnegan's Wake

[Abby Normal]

Oh grow up, Abby, and do try to write a coherent sentence in decent English occasionally, or Gareth will think you wrote the diary yourself.

Love,

Caz
X

And you would still think it was an old hoax.

[caz]

Hi Gareth,

Let me ask you something. Are you still labouring under the possible misapprehension that the diarist should have displayed much better spelling and grammar, and isn't it faintly arrogant to presume what their intention was and then conclude that it failed miserably?

Florence is the real villain of the piece. It is her promiscuity which has generated gentleman Jim's blood lust and given him the motive to become a monster. In a fitting climax, she is the one charged with killing the beast, using poison – the woman's weapon – and ironically becomes the most reviled woman in England in 1889 as a result of snuffing out the most reviled character of 1888 – none other than Jack the Ripper.

So - was this really a serious attempt in your view to frame the real James Maybrick for the crimes? Or is it more probable that the intention all along was to create a spoof interweaving the two cases, which necessarily involved combining JM with JtR, to produce a caricature of the real person, who called himself "Sir Jim"?

In using the first person singular, to give this fictional character a free hand to create his own private, rambling narrative, as a sad, none too bright nobody, who thinks he deserves to be elevated to the peerage for snuffing out a handful of penniless drabs, was the diarist making a huge error of judgement in your opinion by not employing someone who could have tidied up the spelling and grammar to perfection, and polished up the funny little rhymes, until the whole effort shone with literary ability and creative talent? Would that not have sucked the impure soul out of the diary and left it sterile?

Did you, as a younger lad, long to take your red pen to James Joyce? And no, I'm not even beginning to compare the diarist's literary and creative abilities with Joyce's, because we don't know what they were, as the character drawn is of - 'a sad, none too bright nobody, who thinks he deserves to be elevated to the peerage for snuffing out a handful of penniless drabs'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Sam

I'm not sure if I was the one who initially picked up on this one, but I did mention it at one time, and I totally agree with you on it.

"call on her", "give her a visit" perhaps, but "give her a call"?? no.

You are quite simply wrong about this one, Abby. Give it up.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

lets see here. not by maybrick, so maybe its a Victorian hoax. oops, not a Victorian hoax, but its still an old hoax. old hoax defined by "before the late 80s". lol.

at least your getting warmer.

Oh grow up, Abby, and do try to write a coherent sentence in decent English occasionally, or Gareth will think you wrote the diary yourself.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wasn't exactly "wrong" about either, Caz, in that the point I've made relates to when these phrases would have penetrated into routine parlance such that they could be deployed in the throwaway manner in which they are used in the diary.

For example, when would "top myself" have passed into everyday use such that Mr/Mrs Ordinary would use it to refer to suicide in general, as opposed its being a slang term used by a criminal to refer to hanging himself?

Not sure I follow your logic here, Gareth. The diarist was not claiming to be Mr/Mrs Ordinary [and you don't know his/her real identity in any case], but one of the worst criminals in history, mingling with all those low, semi-vicious denizens of the East End, and absolutely referring to hanging himself and saving the hangman a job!

The phrase "give her a call" wasn't initially picked up by me, incidentally, but I still believe it significant in that the casual usage of the phrase "giving someone a call" most likely attained prevalence in the everyday lexicon only when easy access to telephones had become the norm.

Right, so you still imagine your Mr/Mrs Ordinary used the phrase in the sense of their ripper chuckling to himself at the thought of telephoning Queen Victoria to brag about his cleverness, even though Gary Barnett found several thousand examples from the right period, and before, of people 'giving someone a call' in the traditional sense of paying them a visit? And were your Mr/Mrs Ordinary aware that the real James Maybrick did have easy access to his own telephone in any case?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not sure if I was the one who initially picked up on this one.

You may well have been, Abby, and I still think it's a valid suggestion.