One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

On 27 June 1994 Michael Barrett told the Liverpool Daily Post that he had in fact forged the diary, only to retract his confession.

Affidavit of January 5th, 1995 Giving a great deal of complete mince [Edited by I O'Clast]

Affidavit of January 25th, 1995 Fleshing out the first complete mince with more complete mince [Edited by I O'Clast]

I think that about shows how futile it is to argue that Barrett forged the journal. [Edited by I O'Clast]

But I'm sure someone can explain it all away.

No need to explain it all away. It was complete mince.

[Sam Flynn]

How difficult do you think it would be for someone in Liverpool in 1992 to have discovered that the 1889 Grand National held at Aintree Racecourse in Liverpool was quite a fast one?

"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (Pooh-Bah, The Mikado)

[Iconoclast]

"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (Pooh-Bah, The Mikado)

I knew you'd be at the party ...

[Henry Flower]

I knew you'd be at the party ...

And he's nailed it, too. Give the man a cold drink.

[Sam Flynn]

And he's nailed it, too. Give the man a cold drink.

Cheers, Henry! The next one's on me.

[Henry Flower]

Cheers, Henry! The next one's on me.

They're all on the Orsam apparently! A generous fellow indeed.

[David Orsam]

to make the passing reference to the 1889 Grand National being the fastest Maybrick may have seen

When you think about, this comment in the diary about the 1889 Grand National being the fastest Maybrick had seen is highly suspicious.

In fact, although I've only just done the research, I think I might have found another fact which disproves the diary.

If you ever watch a horse race, how can you tell visually whether it's a fast one or not? I mean, in a race lasting over 10 minutes, how is it possible to know if it was faster than previous years?

Reading the report of the race in the Times of 30 March 1889, absolutely nothing is said about it being a fast race.

The 1889 final was won in just over 10 minutes & 1 second compared to 10 minutes and 12 seconds in 1888 and 10 minutes and 10 seconds in 1887. So when you look in the record books, which simply give the times, it would appear that the 1889 final was a particularly fast one.

HOWEVER, the lengths of the course were different in each of those years.

In 1887 the race was run over 4 miles, 1000 yards
In 1888 it was run over approx. 4 miles, 880 yards (i.e. 4 and half miles)
In 1889 it was run over 4 miles, 856 yards

It is, I suggest, the shorter course which has accounted for the faster time in 1889. The 1887 race which was much longer but faster than the 1888 one also looks to be faster than the 1889 race. Indeed, from some quick calculations, we can see that the 1887 race of 8,040 yards was covered in 610 seconds whereas the 1889 race of 7896 yards was covered in 601 seconds. This makes the 1887 race slightly faster at 13.18 yards per second as opposed to 13.13 yards per second in 1889.

The 1889 race was not, therefore, as everyone would have us believe, the fastest in 18 years, or rather it was only the fastest in 18 years because the course was shorter. It was, it would seem, run at the average speed for these types of races.

There is no way, therefore, that Maybrick would have observed "the race was the fastest I have seen" as he did in the diary. All that has happened is that a modern forger has used a book about the historic Grand Nationals, seen the times, and leapt to a false conclusion that the 1889 race was a particularly fast one.

I've only just done this research within the last hour but if it holds up it is surely another nail in the coffin of the diary.

[Henry Flower]

When you think about, this comment in the diary about the 1889 Grand National being the fastest Maybrick had seen is highly suspicious.

In fact, although I've only just done the research, I think I might have found another fact which disproves the diary.

If you ever watch a horse race, how can you tell visually whether it's a fast one or not? I mean, in a race lasting over 10 minutes, how is it possible to know if it was faster than previous years?

Reading the report of the race in the Times of 30 March 1889, absolutely nothing is said about it being a fast race.

The 1889 final was won in just over 10 minutes & 1 second compared to 10 minutes and 12 seconds in 1888 and 10 minutes and 10 seconds in 1887. So when you look in the record books, which simply give the times, it would appear that the 1889 final was a particularly fast one.

HOWEVER, the lengths of the course were different in each of those years.

In 1887 the race was run over 4 miles, 1000 yards
In 1887 it was run over approx. 4 miles, 880 yards (i.e. 4 and half miles)
In 1888 it was run over 4 miles, 856 yards

It is, I suggest, the shorter course which has accounted for the faster time in 1889. The 1887 race which was much longer but faster than the 1888 one also looks to be faster than the 1889 race. Indeed, from some quick calculations, we can see that the 1887 race of 8,040 yards was covered in 610 seconds whereas the 1889 race of 7896 yards was covered in 601 seconds. This makes the 1887 race slightly faster at 13.18 yards per second as opposed to 13.13 yards per second in 1889.

The 1889 race was not, therefore, as everyone would have us believe, the fastest in 18 years, or rather it was only the fastest in 18 years because the course was shorter. It was, it would seem, run at the average speed for these types of races.

There is no way, therefore, that Maybrick would have observed "the race was the fastest I have seen" as he did in the diary. All that has happened is that a modern forger has used a book about the historic Grand Nationals, seen the times, and leapt to a false conclusion that the 1889 race was a particularly fast one.

I've only just done this research within the last hour but if it holds up it is surely another nail in the coffin of the diary.

Nice nail, David. That coffin lid already looks fairly secure to me.

[David Orsam]

There was a typo in my post muddling up the years of the races which I've now corrected.

Just to be clear the lengths were as follows:

In 1887 the race was run over 4 miles, 1000 yards
In 1888 it was run over approx. 4 miles, 880 yards (i.e. 4 and half miles)
In 1889 it was run over 4 miles, 856 yards

[Iconoclast]

The 1889 final was won in just over 10 minutes & 1 second compared to 10 minutes and 12 seconds in 1888 and 10 minutes and 10 seconds in 1887. So when you look in the record books, which simply give the times, it would appear that the 1889 final was a particularly fast one.

There is no way, therefore, that Maybrick would have observed "the race was the fastest I have seen" as he did in the diary. All that has happened is that a modern forger has used a book about the historic Grand Nationals, seen the times, and leapt to a false conclusion that the 1889 race was a particularly fast one.

David,

Look, great research. Quick sanity check, though. Are you seriously suggesting that an observer of a fast race immediately thinks to double-check "I wonder if the race was shorter this year?" before documenting it?

I can't think of anyone (except, of course, you) who would ever consider such a possibility. This is evidenced by the fact that no-one else has thought of this in 24 long years.

As I say, great research - but relax, have another sherry and a bourbon, and let it go until next year!

Ike

[Sam Flynn]

There is no way, therefore, that Maybrick would have observed "the race was the fastest I have seen" as he did in the diary. All that has happened is that a modern forger has used a book about the historic Grand Nationals, seen the times, and leapt to a false conclusion that the 1889 race was a particularly fast one.

That makes eminent sense. Good work!

Now, if we could find which book of records the forger might have used...

[Iconoclast]

That makes eminent sense. Good work!

Now, if we could find which book of records the forger might have used...

I give it less than 10 minutes and he'll have a theory ...

[David Orsam]

David,

Look, great research. Quick sanity check, though. Are you seriously suggesting that an observer of a fast race immediately thinks to double-check "I wonder if the race was shorter this year?" before documenting it?

No, of course not. What I am saying is that Maybrick could not possibly have believed it to be "a fast race", i.e. "the fastest I have seen" because (a) a person just can't tell visually over a 4 mile plus course, in a race lasting 10 minutes or so, whether a race is fast or not and (b) because the horses did not run particularly fast that year.

Let's face it. No-one goes to a horse race to look at the finishing time. It's not athletics. The time wouldn't even be visible to spectators in the stadium. Everyone is only looking to see which horse won the race. The reports each year in the Times never even state the race times. It's only going to be in the record books of the Grand National where you can find out such information.

So what I am saying is that, even absent the shorter course, it was a very strange and suspicious comment to be recorded in a journal (which is what made me investigate) but when you take the shorter course into consideration it's not something that Maybrick could possibly have said because no-one at Aintree that year saw a particularly fast race.

[Henry Flower]

David,

Look, great research. Quick sanity check, though. Are you seriously suggesting that an observer of a fast race immediately thinks to double-check "I wonder if the race was shorter this year?" before documenting it?

I can't think of anyone (except, of course, you) who would ever consider such a possibility. This is evidenced by the fact that no-one else has thought of this in 24 long years.

As I say, great research - but relax, have another sherry and a bourbon, and let it go until next year!

Ike

But it's a sport in which being first past the post is all that matters, not times, and nobody who watches a ten minute long race goes away with an impression of whether it was historically fast or not. The distance is almost moot. It's an obvious piece of post-hoc historical verisimilitudosity, if that's a word.

[Henry Flower]

Sorry David - you made the same point better while I was typing.