One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Oh David Orsam, it really isn't.

Isn't pantomime season over yet?

Simon Wood and Trevor Marriett as the Ugly Sisters. Oh dear.

Caz as Cinderella, obviously!

But who's the pumpkin, everyone???

[David Orsam]

In this regard, I accept that Maybrick was unlikely to have discerned by his own senses that less time had elapsed or that less distance had been run. What I would not exclude, however, is the very reasonable possibility that the less time run was pointed out to him - intentionally or otherwise - and he subsequently inferred that he had seen a faster race when documenting the event in his journal afterwards.

What it really boils down to is something similar to the "one off instance" point.

You are asking us to believe that the Maybrick was the only person alive in 1889 who thought that Aintree had witnessed the fastest Grand National in living memory.

We've been told that Feldman's researcher couldn't find any such thing mentioned in the newspapers.

It's only Feldman himself in 1997, nearly one hundred years later, who is the next person to say such a thing (but that is based on a misunderstanding of the statistics).

Unless there is some kind of independent corroboration that another living human being believed the 1889 Grand National to have been significantly faster than previous races then the conclusion must be that the journal is twaddle and has been written by a modern forger who got himself confused by the bare historical statistics.

[Henry Flower]

If I boil this down for myself:

A race of that length isn't about the time, it's about the result. A spectator doesn't notice the time, because the end of one horse race tends to look like another, and as has been pointed out, it's almost impossible to find reference to the time in the contemporary press.

If he heard it from a third party it wouldn't be a natural part of his comparison of excitements, as David points out, because that comparison is supposed to be a visceral psychotic memory of a feeling in a significant moment. You don't insert sporting stats into that post-hoc.

If the only readily available way of comparing National times is in a modern publication, and to read that year's race as fast you have to fail to notice the difference in race length,

Then

Clear evidence of forgery. Incontrovertible? Maybe not. But very strong in my opinion.

[Iconoclast]

What it really boils down to is something similar to the "one off instance" point.

You are asking us to believe that the Maybrick was the only person alive in 1889 who thought that Aintree had witnessed the fastest Grand National in living memory.

We've been told that Feldman's researcher couldn't find any such thing mentioned in the newspapers.

It's only Feldman himself in 1997, nearly one hundred years later, who is the next person to say such a thing (but that is based on a misunderstanding of the statistics).

Unless there is some kind of independent corroboration that another living human being believed the 1889 Grand National to have been significantly faster than previous races then the conclusion must be that the journal is twaddle and has been written by a modern forger who got himself confused by the bare historical statistics.

It is hard to imagine that Maybrick was the only person in 1889 to think that the race was run in the shortest time for 18 years. It is also not even vaguely difficult to imagine that most (if not all) of those who did made the simple assumption from this that they had seen the fastest race for 18 years. It's just how the brain works: Least time for the same distance must equal fastest. No-one in 1889 would be sweating over the semantics of 'fastest'. I'm staggered anyone is in 2017.

I imagine the moment passed somewhat as follows:

Attendee 1: I say, old boy, did you realise that that race took just over 10 minutes?
Attendee 2: Is that fast?
Attendee 1: Well, it's the fastest time for 18 years!
Attendee 2: When you say 'fastest' time, do you actually mean 'least time elapsed'? Have you simultaneously verified your distances run in order to more clearly understand the relative speed of this race versus previous ones?
Attendee 1: Er, no David, I haven't.
Attendee 2: Ah well, let me explain to you what the word 'fastest' literally means and why it's a potential capital offence to misunderstand it as 'least time elapsed' ...
Attendee 1: I say, is that my Hansom cab driver calling me? Must dash!

I do hope this helps. Obviously I can't be certain of the historical accuracy of this exchange.

Disclaimer: Any similarities to any person alive today whose great-great-grandfather may have been at the race that day are purely coincidental if probably slightly libelous nevertheless.

[David Orsam]

It is hard to imagine that Maybrick was the only person in 1889 to think that the race was run in the shortest time for 18 years. It is also not even vaguely difficult to imagine that most (if not all) of those who did made the simple assumption from this that they had seen the fastest race for 18 years. It's just how the brain works: Least time for the same distance must equal fastest. No-one in 1889 would be sweating over the semantics of 'fastest'. I'm staggered anyone is in 2017.

But that's not how people think of horse races.

I repeat that you are basically saying that Maybrick was the only person in recorded history who thought the 1889 Grand National was especially fast, let alone the fastest in living memory.

[Iconoclast]

If I boil this down for myself:

A race of that length isn't about the time, it's about the result. A spectator doesn't notice the time, because the end of one horse race tends to look like another, and as has been pointed out, it's almost impossible to find reference to the time in the contemporary press.

If he heard it from a third party it wouldn't be a natural part of his comparison of excitements, as David points out, because that comparison is supposed to be a visceral psychotic memory of a feeling in a significant moment. You don't insert sporting stats into that post-hoc.

If the only readily available way of comparing National times is in a modern publication, and to read that year's race as fast you have to fail to notice the difference in race length,

Then

Clear evidence of forgery. Incontrovertible? Maybe not. But very strong in my opinion.

Henry,

Far too many assumptions underpinning your suggestions. For example, 'If the only readily available way of comparing National times is in a modern publication, and to read that year's race as fast you have to fail to notice the difference in race length'. Who said this was the only readily available way? Who says that people in 1889 weren't aware of basic statistics like the timings of races? Who says the race lengths were always given, or - if they were - that people instinctively recalibrated their initial assumptions of 'fastest' on the basis of this new, useful information?

Ike

[David Orsam]

Frankly if you take the Iconoclast approach you could equally argue that Maybrick mistakenly thought it was the slowest race he'd ever seen. Perhaps someone wrongly told it was.

Perhaps he went into the bar for a drink and someone told him there had been a downpour so he was under the impression it had been pouring with rain that day.

It's all entirely unrealistic. Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?

[Iconoclast]

But that's not how people think of horse races.

I repeat that you are basically saying that Maybrick was the only person in recorded history who thought the 1889 Grand National was especially fast, let alone the fastest in living memory.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that amongst those who did, he was one and he wrote his assumption into his journal as an unimportant aside leading into his main point about Florrie and the PoW.

I can't tell you how many other people thought the 1889 GN was especially fast based upon it being the least time passed for 18 years as they may not have written it down for posterity. Shame on them!

[David Orsam]

Henry,

Far too many assumptions underpinning your suggestions.

And the pot calls the kettle black!

[Iconoclast]

But that's not how people think of horse races.

I repeat that you are basically saying that Maybrick was the only person in recorded history who thought the 1889 Grand National was especially fast, let alone the fastest in living memory.

I note that you are repeating yourself, David, however I believe from previous exchanges that that doesn't make your point any more substantial.

[David Orsam]

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that amongst those who did, he was one and he wrote his assumption into his journal as an unimportant aside leading into his main point about Florrie and the PoW.

I can't tell you how many other people thought the 1889 GN was especially fast based upon it being the least time passed for 18 years as they may not have written it down for posterity. Shame on them!

Well the Times reporter for one did not regard it as a particularly fast race, saying nothing about this aspect.

Here are the facts:

1. It was not the fastest race for 18 years.
2. No-one (other than the Maybrick journal) describes it as the fastest race for 18 years or any other period of time.

There is something wrong, therefore, with Maybrick describing it as the fastest race he'd ever seen (and therefore suggesting that it gave him pleasure to have seen it).

[Iconoclast]

Frankly if you take the Iconoclast approach you could equally argue that Maybrick mistakenly thought it was the slowest race he'd ever seen. Perhaps someone wrongly told it was.

Perhaps he went into the bar for a drink and someone told him there had been a downpour so he was under the impression it had been pouring with rain that day.

It's all entirely unrealistic. Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?

I'm honestly starting to think that Maybrick stated in his journal that it had been pouring with rain all day! The power of a repeated message, eh?

[Iconoclast]

Well the Times reporter for one did not regard it as a particularly fast race, saying nothing about this aspect.

Here are the facts:

1. It was not the fastest race for 18 years. It doesn't have to be - Maybrick simply has to think it to be.
2. No-one (other than the Maybrick journal) describes it as the fastest race for 18 years or any other period of time. I can't honestly say that strikes me as terribly pertinent. It's a statistic, true, but a fairly mundane one. Why would anyone print it??? Maybrick scribbled it in his journal and moved on. I doubt he anticipated the drama it would cause!

There is something wrong, therefore, with Maybrick describing it as the fastest race he'd ever seen (and therefore suggesting that it gave him pleasure to have seen it).

Like many of the nags trotting home after Frigate that day, I think your argument is genuinely on its last legs, David.

[Henry Flower]

Henry,

Far too many assumptions underpinning your suggestions. For example, 'If the only readily available way of comparing National times is in a modern publication, and to read that year's race as fast you have to fail to notice the difference in race length'. Who said this was the only readily available way? Who says that people in 1889 weren't aware of basic statistics like the timings of races? Who says the race lengths were always given, or - if they were - that people instinctively recalibrated their initial assumptions of 'fastest' on the basis of this new, useful information?

Ike

Fair point, Ike. I await evidence that those assumptions are incorrect. The fact is, even with today's technology, I don't know a single racegoer who pays the slightest bit of attention to how fast the race time is. Not the slightest bit. Never hear it mentioned. I know a trainer, he is obsessive about time during training, but once the race starts there isn't a stopwatch to be seen.

But it's exactly what we'd expect, exactly, if it were a modern attempt to add verisimilitude. It even seems clunkily out of place in the context of that passage in the diary. It's quite a crass attempt, in fact.

[David Orsam]

1. It was not the fastest race for 18 years. It doesn't have to be - Maybrick simply has to think it to be. I'm aware of that and I'm saying that Maybrick appears to be the only person in history who thought it was. It's wholly unrealistic and implausible to believe that he, and he alone, would have thought it to be the fastest race he'd ever seen.

2. No-one (other than the Maybrick journal) describes it as the fastest race for 18 years or any other period of time. I can't honestly say that strikes me as terribly pertinent. It's a statistic, true, but a fairly mundane one. Why would anyone print it??? Maybrick scribbled it in his journal and moved on. I doubt he anticipated the drama it would cause! Apart from being a "fairly mundane" statistic it was untrue and inaccurate. And being an untrue and inaccurate and mundane factoid it doesn't make any sense that Maybrick records it in his diary and suggests he took pleasure from watching the fastest race he'd ever seen (something which even you admit he could not have perceived while watching it!)