One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Grand National—

1887 Gamecock [4 miles, 1000 yards] — 10 mins 10 1/5 secs
1888 Playfair [4 miles, 880 yards] — 10 mins 12 secs
1889 Frigate [4 miles, 856 yards] — 10 mins 1 1/5 secs

Statistics from the Sheffield Independent, 1st April 1889.

Mathematics is not my strongpoint, so I'll leave it to someone else to work out which was the fastest race.

Happy New Year,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Simon

Did they really measure horse races to one-fifth of a second back then? I'm impressed! Never underestimate the Victorians...

[GUT]

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

For whatever that means.

Unless it's just there is no explanation.

[Iconoclast]

People naturally talk about the weather but they don't talk about horse races over four miles and lasting ten minutes as being fast or slow. To the human eye, all race horses basically gallop at the same speed in every race don't they? So how can anyone say (rightly or wrongly) whether they have witnessed a particularly fast or slow race, especially one over such a long distance?

The newspapers perhaps were not a source of Maybrick's opinion, then. But - and I'm only suggesting here, so don't take it as a literal statement of fact - it may well have been the case that someone at the ground simply noted after the race that "it was the fastest race for nigh on twenty years". They may have timed the race informally or the formal timer of the race may have commented on that fact and any of a number of people may have relayed it until it reached Maybrick's ears. Even in the unlikely event that the originator of this information had added "mind you, this race was a bit shorter than the rest so you're not comparing apples with apples so don't go and relay the first bit without this caveat in case it ends up in an allegedly hoaxed journal of Jack the Ripper in a hundred years" the sad truth of Chinese Whispers is that the interesting bit would have a greater chance of being relayed correctly (if indeed at all). So Maybrick catches wind that he'd just seen a fast race (in absolute terms) and reports it back some days later (or whatever) in his journal.

[Iconoclast]

For whatever that means.

Unless it's just there is no explanation.

It means it is utter Tommy rot, a load of rubbish, a deeply unreliable account, and - my favourite (thank you Scotland) - complete mince.

[Sam Flynn]

It means it is utter Tommy rot, a load of rubbish, a deeply unreliable account, and - my favourite (thank you Scotland) - complete mince.

If it's a Scottish expression, then presumably it should be pronounced something like "munce" - which makes it even funnier in my book

[GUT]

It means it is utter Tommy rot, a load of rubbish, a deeply unreliable account, and - my favourite (thank you Scotland) - complete mince.

But the same bloke made it up, who was incapable of making up the diary.

And the big question why?

Since doing so left him open to the possibility of criminal charges.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Grand National—

1887 Gamecock [4 miles, 1000 yards] — 10 mins 10 1/5 secs
1888 Playfair [4 miles, 880 yards] — 10 mins 12 secs
1889 Frigate [4 miles, 856 yards] — 10 mins 1 1/5 secs

Statistics from the Sheffield Independent, 1st April 1889.

Mathematics is not my strongpoint, so I'll leave it to someone else to work out which was the fastest race.

I already did it!

"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. "

[David Orsam]

The newspapers perhaps were not a source of Maybrick's opinion, then. But - and I'm only suggesting here, so don't take it as a literal statement of fact - it may well have been the case that someone at the ground simply noted after the race that "it was the fastest race for nigh on twenty years". They may have timed the race informally or the formal timer of the race may have commented on that fact and any of a number of people may have relayed it until it reached Maybrick's ears. Even in the unlikely event that the originator of this information had added "mind you, this race was a bit shorter than the rest so you're not comparing apples with apples so don't go and relay the first bit without this caveat in case it ends up in an allegedly hoaxed journal of Jack the Ripper in a hundred years" the sad truth of Chinese Whispers is that the interesting bit would have a greater chance of being relayed correctly (if indeed at all). So Maybrick catches wind that he'd just seen a fast race (in absolute terms) and reports it back some days later (or whatever) in his journal.

But no-one would have said to Maybrick that it was the fastest race for twenty years because it wasn't.

You do understand that don't you?

It was the race completed in the shortest amount of time in nearly 20 years, that's all.

[Iconoclast]

But no-one would have said to Maybrick that it was the fastest race for twenty years because it wasn't.

You do understand that don't you?

It was the race completed in the shortest amount of time in nearly 20 years, that's all.

But someone could have said to Maybrick that it was the fastest race for twenty years because it was as they experienced it - in terms of simple time.

You do understand that don't you?

It was the race completed in the shortest amount of time in nearly 20 years, that's all. There you go, you answered your own dilemma!

The good news for the rest of the human race is that we can get by just fine without having to observe some form of perpetual and highly literal fundamental truth.

[Iconoclast]

But no-one would have said to Maybrick that it was the fastest race for twenty years because it wasn't.

You do understand that don't you?

It was the race completed in the shortest amount of time in nearly 20 years, that's all.

If I consume my tea in 15 minutes rather than my usual 20 minutes, it will feel like I have eaten my tea very fast even though I may have only had 75% of my usual plateful as Mrs Iconoclast has me on a diet.

I'll still report in my journal that "true, it was the fastest tea I've ever had".

[David Orsam]

But someone could have said to Maybrick that it was the fastest race for twenty years because it was as they experienced it - in terms of simple time.

You've gone from the notion that someone "may have timed the race informally or the formal timer of the race may have commented" to someone now experiencing the race (wrongly) as the fastest in twenty years.

I mean, if you have a 1 mile race where the winning horse crosses the line after 9 minutes and a 4 mile race where the winning horse crosses the line after 10 minutes, you are not seriously telling me that anyone would say that the 1 mile race was the fastest race of the two are you?

It's the shortest one yes, but not the fastest. See the difference?

[John G]

Hi All,

Grand National—

1887 Gamecock [4 miles, 1000 yards] — 10 mins 10 1/5 secs
1888 Playfair [4 miles, 880 yards] — 10 mins 12 secs
1889 Frigate [4 miles, 856 yards] — 10 mins 1 1/5 secs

Statistics from the Sheffield Independent, 1st April 1889.

Mathematics is not my strongpoint, so I'll leave it to someone else to work out which was the fastest race.

Happy New Year,

Simon

Well, as I see it, they're all records as they're over different distances!

[Sam Flynn]

But someone could have said to Maybrick that it was the fastest race for twenty years because it was as they experienced it - in terms of simple time.

I doubt that even the most attentive person would notice that a long-distance horse-race held this year took 10½ seconds less than the equivalent race last year, never mind 20 years ago. It's just not the sort of thing you "feel"; more the sort of thing you'd have to look up.

[David Orsam]

Well, as I see it, they're all records as they're over different distances!

That's absolutely right John. You can mathematically work out the speed of the winning horses over the relevant distances to calculate which horse galloped round the course at the highest speed but that's mathematics. No-one at Aintree would have given consideration to which race was the fastest. They would talk of whether it was an exciting race or a dull one to be sure, but not a fast one or a slow one. It's just not how people think of them, either then or now.

What has clearly happened is that someone who has looked at the bare statistics has mistakenly believed that the course distance was the same every year so that the 1889 race was the fastest since 1871. He has thus had his Maybrick character comment on seeing his fastest race in the fake Diary. A clever touch, the forger no doubt thought, but it's just more evidence of fakery.