One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

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.

I have heard mention of a race being the fastest time in history, or the fastest since the length was changed, but only if it is a new record and even then only with a major race.

The Melbourne Cup springs to mind, it has only been over two distances I think, two miles and then 3200 metres (pretty close to the same thing).

[Iconoclast]

Just if you're wondering, the Iconoclast clan are settling down to watch that other brilliant sleuth, Sherlock. Normal service will be resumed thereafter ...

[GUT]

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?

So if this Occam bloke had a razor maybe he was Jack, probably as much chance as Maybrick.

[ChrisGeorge]

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!)

The statement is in the Diary because whomever wrote the Diary thought it lent authenticity to the narrative. For the reasons we have been discussing, it doesn't at all lend authenticity to the story but instead sounds yet another duff note in a very dubious document.

[harry]

The weather on the actual day of the race would matter little,if preceeding days had been wet,and according to one poster above,the weather had taken a dramatic change,from bad to good.So,on that assumption,a wet track and slower times.

[John G]

To describe an important race such as the Grand National as the fastest in history, or the fastest in living memory, the relevant statistic must have greatly impressed the author. And, realistically, for that to be the case it must have been a celebrated race, thereby attracting lots of press coverage referring to the pertinent fact, or assumption. But, of course, that wasn't remotely the case.

[Iconoclast]

To describe an important race such as the Grand National as the fastest in history, or the fastest in living memory, the relevant statistic must have greatly impressed the author. And, realistically, for that to be the case it must have been a celebrated race, thereby attracting lots of press coverage referring to the pertinent fact, or assumption. But, of course, that wasn't remotely the case.

Your argument works for both pro- and anti-journalists John G. Could you clarify if you are saying only a modern-day forger could have read those reports or whether you are saying that Maybrick could have benefited in a similar fashion the day after the race, please?

[Henry Flower]

Just if you're wondering, the Iconoclast clan are settling down to watch that other brilliant sleuth, Sherlock. Normal service will be resumed thereafter ...

How was it, Ike? I've heard bad things about it.

[Iconoclast]

How was it, Ike? I've heard bad things about it.

Hi Henry,

As predicted in the press, it was edgier and 'darker' than the previous series, and Mrs Iconoclast and I were not as comfortable as previously. It's definitely not 'comfort' TV, and I'm not sure if it's trying to cross genres to impress or even broaden its audience.

No spoilers here (I hope), but John Watson's behaviour needs to be explained quickly or else we (Mrs I and I) will find it hard to believe his character anymore.

Definitely watch it. You'll be impressed with the writing. Not the stuff of cosy cocoa before bed, though. I'd crack open a bottle of something if I were you. We should have opened two (Mrs I can knock it back once she gets going).

Hope this helps.

Ike

[Observer]

Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies apparently, so he would have believed in the Diaries authenticity one hundred per cent.

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,

As predicted in the press, it was edgier and 'darker' than the previous series, and Mrs Iconoclast and I were not as comfortable as previously. It's definitely not 'comfort' TV, and I'm not sure if it's trying to cross genres to impress or even broaden its audience.

No spoilers here (I hope), but John Watson's behaviour needs to be explained quickly or else we (Mrs I and I) will find it hard to believe his character anymore.

Definitely watch it. You'll be impressed with the writing. Not the stuff of cosy cocoa before bed, though. I'd crack open a bottle of something if I were you. We should have opened two (Mrs I can knock it back once she gets going).

Hope this helps.

Ike

Thanks Ike, sounds like people were bemused that something they liked actually evolved somewhat without asking permission. I'll give it a go.

Best

HF

[John G]

Your argument works for both pro- and anti-journalists John G. Could you clarify if you are saying only a modern-day forger could have read those reports or whether you are saying that Maybrick could have benefited in a similar fashion the day after the race, please?

Hello Ike,

Well you make an interesting point but I can't agree with it. Thus, Maybrick supposedly attended the race, and may subsequently have read the press reports. However, neither experience would have entitled him to conclude that it was the fastest Grand National ever. On the hand, a modern forger may simply have wrongly interpreted their research into Grand National races, or carried out no research whatsoever and simply hoped that the comment wouldn't be investigated.

Of course, Maybrick could have researched earlier press reports on previous Grand Nationals and, mistakenly, and subjectively, concluded that this was the fastest race, but I somehow doubt it!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If, without taking into account the racecourse length, our Diary hoaxer simply looked at a list of Grand National winners from 1880 to 1889 he would have to conclude that 1889 was the fastest race.



And he would have had to go back to 1871 to find a faster race.



Eighteen years.

Here is the only time the speed of the race was mentioned.

York Herald, 12th March 1864—

"This race was one of the fastest Grand Nationals we ever saw."

The Diary is a dud.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

What shortcomings?

I gave you Baxendale's shortcomings in the same post as I referred to them! Very briefly, he found none of the iron that is in the diary ink and he was out by several decades about when nigrosine was first used in ink. That makes anything else he claimed in his report less than 100% reliable without any independent confirmation for it.

An ink solubility test is, I believe, very simple for an experienced document examiner. Are you saying there were shortcomings with this test?

All I was saying was that no subsequent analyses (Eastaugh, Leeds et al) confirmed Baxendale's initial position that the ink's solubility indicated it had gone on paper recently, and in fact those analyses found nothing inconsistent with pen meeting paper much longer ago. Even the Rendell team, who were expecting to prove the thing 'recent' were unable to date the writing scientifically any closer than a vague 'prior to 1970'.

I can't comment on the solubility test itself, but it seems from Eastaugh's observations, using Victorian and modern reference materials for comparison purposes, that it came down to personal interpretation. Do you know what controls Baxendale used to help him compare the solubility of similar inks known to have been placed on paper, say, in the 1880s, the 1980s and as late as 1992? He did later add that the results of his examinations were all in keeping with the book itself being manufactured in the late 19th century, and he only 'would have expected' an ink applied about a hundred years ago to be 'far less soluble'. He conceded that if such a document were found to have a similar solubility, 'there would appear to be nothing in the chemical properties of the ink in the Diary to preclude it being of similar age'. And Eastaugh did confirm that it was 'clear' that the solubility of the diary ink was 'similar' to his Victorian reference material and 'unlike' his modern inks dried out for reference.

I'm not saying Baxendale misinterpreted his findings and Eastaugh didn't, because I'm not a scientist and wasn't present when appropriate comparisons were - or were not - made. But if we are seen to brush under the carpet the results we don't like and put all our faith in those we do like, we are not going to appear very objective, are we? And isn't that precisely what you were accusing others of doing, by not publishing Baxendale?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It was from an Official Report of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons saying that a legal decision "was not a one-off instance of guidance from the court".

After having found one from a certain year I tended not to look forward in time, only backwards, but I'm sure there were plenty of others after this. As I've already said, by 1992 the expression was in common usage and there is no mystery as to how anyone in England at that time would have known it.

Sorry, David, forgive me if you have since clarified what you meant here, but on the surface it looks like you were saying you were 'sure' there were 'plenty' more examples following this one from 1981 (but you didn't actually know because you didn't look for any), yet you somehow knew the expression was in 'common usage' by 1992. Is this what you meant and, if so, how did you come by a familiarity - shared with the diarist - with the phrase 'one-off instance' by 1992? In conversation perhaps?

I mean, that earliest (and only) written example you found from 1981 doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence that it would, by itself, have spawned thousands of written and spoken imitations over the next 11 years, any more than the image of Mike penning the last page of the diary after 11 days and giving it straight to Doreen to show goodness knows how many specialists in handwritten Victorian documents she could have invited along to the party for all he knew.

Love,

Caz
X