One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Purkis]

That's not quite what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the expression "one off instance" or similar ("one off occasion", "one off occurrence", "one off happening" etc.) did not exist in the nineteenth century so that its appearance in the diary is entirely unhistorical and anachronistic, thus proving the diary was not written in 1888.

The expression 'one-off' existed, as did the word 'instance'. Is it impossible that a literate diarist looking for a suitable phrase would combine the two?

[Iconoclast]

Harrison finds several examples of 'one-off' being used pre- 1888:
It was used in prison slang, it meant 'one only' when ordering building materials, it referred to a unique example or prototype in engineering, and it was an ornamental brick used in Victorian canals.

This is why I replied "Oh dear" to David's original ill-informed question. Once again, ssomeone else was expected to provide the 'research'. Personally, when he was sarcastically asking "Hello? Am I invisible?" I was halfway through Harrison II trying to find the section for him where she discusses these very examples. As it happens, I didn't find it (must have been in Harrison I only), but I sacrificed most of the second-half of Wigan vs Newcastle to answer his question, and his petulent response was not exactly motivating.

It is a very common issue on this brilliant thread - people coming on with very little knowledge, pumped full of myths, and getting wound up when people who know the answers to their questions won't sacrifice their time to answer what they themselves could easily answer if they bothered to read anything about the case. And re-read where necessary.

Ike

[paul g]

So it now seems that there are known examples of the phrase being in existence prior to 1888 which leaves us with the handwriting not matching .

Not sure if I am one of those people who posts on threads with little or no knowledge, hope I am saves a lot of time.

Good result for the toon last night second half was uneventful

[StevenOwl]

So it now seems that there are known examples of the phrase being in existence prior to 1888

As has already been pointed out, Shirley Harrison put that one to bed in 1993.
The 'Poste House' anachronism is a bigger problem, although that seems to be open to interpretation.

[caz]

handwriting dosnt match maybricks-no need to go any farther than that really.

Ha ha, Abby, that's what I have been saying for years. And no expert or sarcastic message board poster was needed for us to know that from the very beginning.

Of course, the handwriting doesn't match Mike or Anne's either, so one wonders what they were thinking if one of them was able to disguise their own writing with such ease, yet didn't even attempt to mimic Maybrick's.

Simple answer would be if the penman (or woman, or small child) never needed or intended the diary to look like Maybrick's own work, because it was meant to be a spoof - a send-up - just for jolly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is why I replied "Oh dear" to David's original ill-informed question. Once again, ssomeone else was expected to provide the 'research'. Personally, when he was sarcastically asking "Hello? Am I invisible?" I was halfway through Harrison II trying to find the section for him where she discusses these very examples. As it happens, I didn't find it (must have been in Harrison I only), but I sacrificed most of the second-half of Wigan vs Newcastle to answer his question, and his petulent response was not exactly motivating.

It is a very common issue on this brilliant thread - people coming on with very little knowledge, pumped full of myths, and getting wound up when people who know the answers to their questions won't sacrifice their time to answer what they themselves could easily answer if they bothered to read anything about the case. And re-read where necessary.

Ike

OMG that could be me talking, Ike. LOL

What with getting the Christmas sprouts on, re-sending my yearly donation to casebook (which has been returned two years running because I addressed it wrongly), wrapping all the pressies, putting up the decs, slurping sherry, doing the housework, washing, shopping and God knows what other domestic distractions, and keeping up with the Wallace, Christie and Hanratty threads, I have STILL not got round to catching up with this thread and seeing if I can help to address any outstanding queries. NAUGHTY WOMAN!!

Mind you, if I find the answers (or the only ones I can supply) can be found in Ripper Diary (which can be snapped up for a penny on Amazon), I shan't be best pleased and might be tempted back to tend my sprouts, to make sure they will be mushy enough for the mother-in-law by Christmas Day.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As has already been pointed out, Shirley Harrison put that one to bed in 1993.
The 'Poste House' anachronism is a bigger problem, although that seems to be open to interpretation.

I've been meaning to pop into the Poste House again so will address this asap. Hic! Cheers

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

It is a very common issue on this brilliant thread - people coming on with very little knowledge, pumped full of myths, and getting wound up when people who know the answers to their questions won't sacrifice their time to answer what they themselves could easily answer if they bothered to read anything about the case. And re-read where necessary

And this, dear old Ike, can equally be applied to at least one other thread on these fine boards......taps nose.

Graham

[Harry D]

So it now seems that there are known examples of the phrase being in existence prior to 1888 which leaves us with the handwriting not matching .

Was this expression in common use or are these just a few isolated examples?

[caz]

Poste House poste haste or posthouse post haste

Robert Smith told me he has two old dictionaries compiled by different authors, one dated 1813, the other 1850, which both define a "posthouse" as a "post office", and as "a place which takes in letters". If one looks up "post office", both dictionaries define it as a "posthouse". By 1850, taverns were no longer taking in letters.

When I visited Liverpool in the noughties, I had the odd drinkipoo in the American Irish bar on Lime Street and met a lovely old boy in his seventies, who danced with me to Beatles records. I took the opportunity to ask him if he knew - or had ever known - of a posthouse locally and he immediately said it was off School Lane. If he knew of The Poste House in Cumberland Street, a turning off Dale Street, he didn't think to mention it. When Robert Smith was on one of his visits to Liverpool he put the same question to the then landlord of Rigby's in Dale Street and got the same answer - The Old Post Office pub off School Lane. No mention of The Poste House just down the road.

Anyway, when I was consulting the relevant trade directories in Liverpool Library, I found some interesting information to add to my previous research into the history of both watering holes. There had been an inn (at one time a coffee house) on the site of the Old Post Office pub, in Old Post Office Place, off School Lane, prior to the earliest Liverpool Post Office (which was there from 1800 to 1839) and adjacent to it. Had this inn taken in letters before 1800, when the first post office opened next door? If so, it would have been referred to as a posthouse.

In 1839, when James Maybrick was a baby, the Liverpool Post Office was relocated to Canning Place, but the inn remained. An 1888 directory calls it simply the Post Office Tavern. It was/is about 50 yards from Maybrick's childhood home in Church Alley, and midway between Whitechapel (where the diary's 'Sir Jim' saw Florie with her lover, and Central Station (where the real James would have caught his train home to Aigburth after work each evening) - both a short stroll from the pub where 'Sir Jim' could have been taking 'refreshment'.

As for The Poste House in Cumberland Street, this is tiny and there is no evidence that it ever took in mail or has any known postal connections before the early 1890s, when Liverpool Post Office was once again on the move. This was opened in nearby Victoria Street in 1894, whereupon the Cumberland Street pub (once known as the Muck Midden and now called The Poste House) was renamed The New Post Office Hotel in its honour, while the Post Office Tavern off School Lane finally became The Old Post Office Hotel.

If the diarist meant the one in Cumberland Street then I would say it is indeed an anachronism, making the diary date from the early 1890s at the very earliest.

Now take a wild guess who will rush to frequent which boozer as their definitive diary posthouse or Poste House.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think I've read the book - I've certainly read something dealing with it - but I don't have it to hand and what I was after was the evidence that Barrett got the auction system wrong. When you say that "the auctioneers denied ever operating such a ticket system", was that in writing? What system did they actually operate in 1990 and what is the evidence for it?

If there are other points which disprove Barrett's statement feel free to set them out but I'm particularly interested in the auction point because obviously no investigation could have been made before 1995 and it can't have been easy to establish what system was in place at an auction house five years earlier so I'm interested to know how it was done.

I've had enough of the bad-tempered and rather puerile bickering on this thread. In the Ripper Diary it is stated that O&L do not issue tickets to attendees at their auctions, as Barrett claimed. At the City Darts Pub in Whitechapel at a meeting of the Cloak & Dagger Club Barrett was 'guest of honour' and there were several prominent Ripperologists in the audience. During a 'debate' about how Barrett obtained the diary book, Keith Skinner asked Barrett if he had the lot receipt (the 'ticket') with him and he said he had. Would he produce it? Skinner asked. Barrett said "No".

Further, when the authors of the Ripper Diary visited O&L they were told that there was no record of the job lot that Barrett had described. Barrett also made no reference in his affidavit of the registration form that all prospective bidders at O&L have to fill in.

That's it - I'm out of here. If you need to know any more, go buy the book.

Graham

Right folks, I'm now up to page 158! The Ripper Diary (one penny from Amazon) page references for the auction farce are as follows:

p154, 163-4, 167-8, 236, 273

Treat yourselves and enjoy!

You're welcome.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Right folks, I'm now up to page 158! The Ripper Diary (one penny from Amazon) page references for the auction farce are as follows:

p154, 163-4, 167-8, 236, 273

Treat yourselves and enjoy!

Caz, you might recall that in my post to you of 29 November (#2051) I said that it would be helpful in any response if you could take my posts #1574 and #1922 into consideration and I drew your attention to these two posts again in my post of 5 December (#2085).

Both these posts were made after the post from Graham that you have cited.

I have already read all the pages you have listed in your above post. What I am looking for is a response which takes into consideration the points I made in #1574 and #1922. As #1922 is on page 193 of this thread, I assume you haven't got that far.

When you do perhaps you can then put forward a solid contradiction of Mike Barrett's claims.

[David Orsam]

Harrison finds several examples of 'one-off' being used pre- 1888:
It was used in prison slang, it meant 'one only' when ordering building materials, it referred to a unique example or prototype in engineering, and it was an ornamental brick used in Victorian canals.

If Harrison said the sky was green would you believe her?

The only thing lacking in your summary of what Harrison "finds" is any mention of where she finds it. No evidence for any of them in other words.

[David Orsam]

As for "one off " I'm sure there are examples that have been found in use back in 1888.

Despite me saying very clearly that it is the expression "one off instance" or similar which did not exist in 1888 you have changed this to "one off" in your response.

In any case, I dispute that any examples of "one off" to mean a special or unique occurrence or instance have been found in use back in 1888

[David Orsam]

Harrison finds several examples of 'one-off' being used pre- 1888:

And ditto by the way. I said 'one off instance' so how does any examples of 'one off' (if they actually exist) negate what I have stated?