One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Abby Normal]

Thanks David
For posting all your research and what you have found. Looks like its pretty much impossible that it could be an old hoax from around 1888.

[drstrange169]

>>...some details in the journal which tally with Maybrick's life without being necessarily easily accessible to a hoaxer

• The reference to Gladys being ill again
  
  The knowledge that Maybrick's source of arsenic expanded unexpectedly due to his business dealings with someone who had a ready supply
  Maybrick's reference to his brother Edwin being away in America until not long before Maybrick himself died<<

All these details can be found in "The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick", Bernard Ryan, 1977. Some are repeated in "The Friendless Lady"' Nigel Moreland, 1957.

These two are arguably the most recognized, pre-diary, books on the subject.

Interestingly, Moreland's 1957 book notes a time comparison with the ripper murders.

Both good sources for possible forging fodder.

[Purkis]

I don't think it's implausible that a phrase might have been in use informally or colloquially 24 years before its first known appearance in print.

[David Orsam]

Thanks David
For posting all your research and what you have found. Looks like its pretty much impossible that it could be an old hoax from around 1888.

I agree, I'm sure it's the mistake that exposes the whole thing as bogus.

[David Orsam]

I don't think it's implausible that a phrase might have been in use informally or colloquially 24 years before its first known appearance in print.

The phrase in the diary, Purkis, as I keep repeating, is "one off instance". No-one in 1888 would have understood what that meant which is why a diary writer would not have included it (or thought of it). So far I have not found that exact phrase in existence over 90 years after the diary was supposed to have been written but am happy to call it 50 years on the basis that some similar expressions can be found after the Second World War. Given that no author of either fiction or non fiction books, no other known diarist, no writer of any surviving private letters, no author of any surviving official reports, no journalist in any newspaper in the English speaking world wrote anything similar to the expression 'one off instance' in over 50 years after 1888 it is indeed utterly implausible to think that Maybrick included this expression in the diary.

[caz]

Hi All,

I haven't read the latest posts yet but am now up to page 177, where people were asking about Soothsayer.

Check these out:

http://forum.casebook.org/search.php...&pp=25&page=11 (scroll to the date at the bottom of the page)

http://forum.casebook.org/member.php?u=807 (see last activity date top right)

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

The phrase in the diary, Purkis, as I keep repeating, is "one off instance". No-one in 1888 would have understood what that meant which is why a diary writer would not have included it (or thought of it). So far I have not found that exact phrase in existence over 90 years after the diary was supposed to have been written but am happy to call it 50 years on the basis that some similar expressions can be found after the Second World War. Given that no author of either fiction or non fiction books, no other known diarist, no writer of any surviving private letters, no author of any surviving official reports, no journalist in any newspaper in the English speaking world wrote anything similar to the expression 'one off instance' in over 50 years after 1888 it is indeed utterly implausible to think that Maybrick included this expression in the diary.

Ike, comment?

[Iconoclast]

Hi All,

I haven't read the latest posts yet but am now up to page 177, where people were asking about Soothsayer.

Check these out:

http://forum.casebook.org/search.php...&pp=25&page=11 (scroll to the date at the bottom of the page)

http://forum.casebook.org/member.php?u=807 (see last activity date top right)

Love,

Caz
X

A tragic loss to soothsayering on this site ...

[paul g]

Thread title

A really enjoyable thread with some excellent points put across both for and against and more importantly without the sniping and cat calling sometimes evident on threads on here.
I have always kept a open mind regarding anything jack related and put honestly I rely on the more dedicated and educated on here to disprove theory's and things that come to light through the years. The shawl is a classic example where I was open to belief until the clever people proved it wrong.
The diary has fascinated me as has Bury as a suspect and there was/is a similarity between the two.
Both diary and Bury have positives and negatives but it seems very hard to disprove or prove any of the facts.

Regarding the diary the original poster ask for one incontrovetable,unequivocal fact to dispute the authenticity of the diary.

Without conclusive evidence on any part surrounding the ink the paper carbon dating etc we are left with two points one being the phrase written in the diary and the other the handwriting not matching And known examples of Maybricks.

I think that David has put a major stumbling block that would have to be proved wrong for anyone to continue to believe the diary is indeed by Maybrick.
For me to believe that the diary is authentic I would have to accept that Maybrick used a phrase that was not in use in 1888 (or be the first to use it,but knowing no one else would know what it meant). This I find hard to accept.

Quite amazing that scientists ink specialists carbon dating people and all other experts can't prove or disprove authenticity but the diary could fall on three little words.
Once again thank you for a very enjoyable thread.

[Iconoclast]

Quite amazing that scientists ink specialists carbon dating people and all other experts can't prove or disprove authenticity but the diary could fall on three little words.
Once again thank you for a very enjoyable thread.

Ho ho ho, paul g, the journal won't be falling on those three words any day soon!

Seriously, if the expression 'one-off' was reasonably common parlance in 1912 (albeit in an industrial sense), then I am not struggling to imagine it was used earlier than this in a number of related circumstances.

To suggest that 'one-off instance' is materially different to any other use of 'one-off' in 1888 is genuinely stretching the point. To suggest further that the expression 'one-off instance' could be written in a journal and the entire world of literature collapse under the weight of its uniqueness or its anachonistic nature is not happening for me. May be for you. Certainly is for the ungrateful guy.

The expression is perfectly obvious if 'one-off' is obvious. The fact that the ungrateful guy hasn't found those three words used anywhere else in 1888 or later (I think 1981 was his first observation) worries me little if at all. I just can't believe he or anyone else has read that much. If you're unsure how much literature has passed under the figurative bridge since 1888, I can confirm that it is an awful lot.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Seriously, if the expression 'one-off' was reasonably common parlance in 1912 (albeit in an industrial sense), then I am not struggling to imagine it was used earlier than this in a number of related circumstances.

Not 'reasonably common parlance' at all. Found in obscure engineering trade journals only and specifically only in the context of manufacturing or design of products i.e. a 'one off job'.

To suggest that 'one-off instance' is materially different to any other use of 'one-off' in 1888 is genuinely stretching the point.

It's not stretching anything. It is how the language evolved. From a notation meaning quantity, to a unique manufacturing or design job to a more general usage of something or someone being unique. The latter simply did not exist in the nineteenth century.

To suggest further that the expression 'one-off instance' could be written in a journal and the entire world of literature collapse under the weight of its uniqueness or its anachonistic nature is not happening for me. May be for you. Certainly is for the ungrateful guy.

That is not the suggestion. The suggestion is that is impossible for 'one off instance' to have been written in 1888.

'ungrateful guy' is childish, incidentally, considering you never did anything for me.

The expression is perfectly obvious if 'one-off' is obvious. The fact that the ungrateful guy hasn't found those three words used anywhere else in 1888 or later (I think 1981 was his first observation) worries me little if at all. I just can't believe he or anyone else has read that much. If you're unsure how much literature has passed under the figurative bridge since 1888, I can confirm that it is an awful lot.

You may not be aware of this but quite a lot of literature has been digitized and is searchable. As have quite a lot of newspapers. But you don't need to rely on me. I write with the full authority of the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters. It is the business of the compilers of these dictionaries to have trawled through all known literature to trace the development of the English language. THEY have not managed to find a single written example of the use of the expression 'one off instance' or anything remotely similar in the nineteenth century.

Not one.

The conclusion is unavoidable, incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable.

[paul g]

Hi Ike and thanks for the reply. Though I can see where your coming from with the above post it remains a major obstacle to overcome . The three words in question is a counter argument that will and is a sticking point
While you may be correct and David wrong or vica Verca the obstacle could be removed if evidence was produced to contradict that the three words were in use or had been used at the time or previously.

Not sure how to put things into words but my thinking regarding the three words. I am questioning and trying to reason that even "one off" was not in common use in 1888.
Regards
Paul .

[Purkis]

The phrase in the diary, Purkis, as I keep repeating, is "one off instance". No-one in 1888 would have understood what that meant which is why a diary writer would not have included it (or thought of it). So far I have not found that exact phrase in existence over 90 years after the diary was supposed to have been written but am happy to call it 50 years on the basis that some similar expressions can be found after the Second World War. Given that no author of either fiction or non fiction books, no other known diarist, no writer of any surviving private letters, no author of any surviving official reports, no journalist in any newspaper in the English speaking world wrote anything similar to the expression 'one off instance' in over 50 years after 1888 it is indeed utterly implausible to think that Maybrick included this expression in the diary.

I'm really struggling to understand why you think the addition of the word 'instance' to the phrase 'one-off' would make the whole thing incomprehensible. Surely anyone who was familiar with the fact that 'one-off' meant happening once and 'instance,' meant occurrence would have been able to get their head round this strange new phrase, or even have been the first to use it. That's the way language works and evolves.

[John G]

Ho ho ho, paul g, the journal won't be falling on those three words any day soon!

Seriously, if the expression 'one-off' was reasonably common parlance in 1912 (albeit in an industrial sense), then I am not struggling to imagine it was used earlier than this in a number of related circumstances.

To suggest that 'one-off instance' is materially different to any other use of 'one-off' in 1888 is genuinely stretching the point. To suggest further that the expression 'one-off instance' could be written in a journal and the entire world of literature collapse under the weight of its uniqueness or its anachonistic nature is not happening for me. May be for you. Certainly is for the ungrateful guy.

The expression is perfectly obvious if 'one-off' is obvious. The fact that the ungrateful guy hasn't found those three words used anywhere else in 1888 or later (I think 1981 was his first observation) worries me little if at all. I just can't believe he or anyone else has read that much. If you're unsure how much literature has passed under the figurative bridge since 1888, I can confirm that it is an awful lot.

Ike

How on earth could "one off" be reasonably common parlance in 1912 if it's only usage was in a strictly technical, I.e. industrial, sense? I think that's what's called an oxymoron!

And considering that there's not a single example of its usage in 1888, it can hardly have been in common usage at that time either, could it?

[John G]

I'm really struggling to understand why you think the addition of the word 'instance' to the phrase 'one-off' would make the whole thing incomprehensible. Surely anyone who was familiar with the fact that 'one-off' meant happening once and 'instance,' meant occurrence would have been able to get their head round this strange new phrase, or even have been the first to use it. That's the way language works and evolves.

Are you seriously suggesting that Maybrick was the first person in history to have used the phrase?