One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Sam Flynn]

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

It's not a question of spawning, Caz, but using instances of certain expressions (used in a specific sense) as an indicator of when those expressions had passed into common parlance.

[Iconoclast]

It's not a question of spawning, Caz, but using instances of certain expressions (used in a specific sense) as an indicator of when those expressions had passed into common parlance.

I'm sure that David has already answered this, but I read Caz's comment as meaning that a one-off instance of 'one-off instance' in 1981 which is then followed-up by anything but a plethora of such instances after this use potentially implies that a term can be used extremely occasionally without necessarily going on to become common parlance. Thus, such a term used in 1888 may not necessarily be unusual and may not have necessarily spawned common use in the language and yet still have been used.

I'm not saying that this is what did happen, but it certainly provokes the thought at very least ...

[ChrisGeorge]

I'm sure that David has already answered this, but I read Caz's comment as meaning that a one-off instance of 'one-off instance' in 1981 which is then followed-up by anything but a plethora of such instances after this use potentially implies that a term can be used extremely occasionally without necessarily going on to become common parlance. Thus, such a term used in 1888 may not necessarily be unusual and may not have necessarily spawned common use in the language and yet still have been used.

I'm not saying that this is what did happen, but it certainly provokes the thought at very least ...

I spent some time this morning testing whether "one-off" might have been an expression used in the cotton industry in the United States that James Maybrick could have picked up during his time Stateside in the early 1880's. I can accept that there may have been occurrences of the expression "one-off" in certain manufacturing activities late, as cited already here.

We do have the example, at least later on, of "one-off versus multiple" processes or patterns or whatever. However, I couldn't find anything in Google books. I was searching specifically for books that dealt with the U.S. cotton industry or contemporary letters talking about cotton manufacturing that might support such usage in the 19th century. But of course that is not to say that more extensive search in 19th century sources than I was able to do this morning might not turn up such examples.

Best regards

Chris (long-time skeptic about the authenticity of the Maybrick document)

[caz]

You do realise that you are suggesting here that Barrett was intending to present Doreen with a forged 1888 diary written by Maybrick?

No I wasn't actually, David.

If he had simply wanted to show Doreen the text he could have just copied it out into a modern exercise book or produced a typed version for her.

But that's not what I was suggesting.

Clearly, if Mike did have a hand in creating the diary (and the 'secret' Battlecrease evidence didn't exist), you'd have a point that everything he said or did could oh so easily be viewed as suspicious. But that's a no-brainer, isn't it?

So if you could just set to one side, for the sake of argument, your personal conviction that (despite the 'secret' Battlecrease evidence of which you are entirely ignorant) Mike was as guilty as sin, and try to imagine him acquiring the thing already penned (at some point between, say, early 1991 and early 1992?) and being left to work out what it was all about, and what he should do with it, maybe even you could come up with an idea or two as to why he tried to order an authentic Victorian diary with some blank pages after his first telephone conversation with literary agent Doreen Montgomery.

I mean, she presumably asked him a few questions about the physical book, supposedly signed Jack the Ripper in May 1889, and his reactions would have been guided accordingly. He'd have been able to describe the book itself (which he couldn't have done if he didn't yet have it, and then he would have needed some excuse for refusing), and from there Doreen could have ascertained if he was talking about an actual diary, with dated entries, or something else. You'd need to imagine the conversation, but I hardly think Doreen would have been impressed if he could tell her bugger all beyond "I've got Jack the Ripper's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?", because he hadn't yet got the foggiest if he would find anything suitable for creating it, never mind what it might look like if and when he managed to track something down. There would also have been a very real risk that anyone supplying him with whatever he turned into 'the' diary would recognise it the moment it went public and Mike (and Anne if she knew about it or had a hand in it) would instantly be exposed as a hoaxer.

Luckily for the Barretts, nobody at Outhwaite & Litherland recognised the book or remembered anything like it, although of course they wouldn't if Mike had come by it via a different source.

"Okay, Mr. Williams, I'm interested, why don't you bring your diary to my office in London?"

"The fact is, it doesn't really look like a diary. It's just a lot of pages with writing on and it's signed at the end by Jack the Ripper. Will it be worth a fortune, do you think? I'm not giving it away for peanuts."

"No, I understand that, Mr. Williams, but I would obviously need to see it and show it to people who are better placed than me to judge if it has any value or not. Can you tell me how old it looks? Have you anything you could compare it with before you make a possibly wasted trip to London? Could you read out some of the content?"

[Hmmm, Mike thinks to himself, now what do I do? I have no idea if this is anything like a real person's diary and I don't want anyone reading the whole thing until I know more about it myself.]

Just a for instance, but there has to be an explanation - plausible or not - if the bloody thing came into Mike's hands after emerging at some point from Maybrick's house. It's the law of physics.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

It's not a question of spawning, Caz, but using instances of certain expressions (used in a specific sense) as an indicator of when those expressions had passed into common parlance.

Hi,

Did people say "I think not", did they say "bitch" about anything else than a dog, did they "think long and hard" and was there "an overwhelming compulsion" in 1889?

Regards, Pierre

[caz]

It would have been insane would it not for Barrett to have presented Doreen with a fake Victorian Diary which he had written out in order to show her what the real diary looked like?

Hi David,

If his intention had been to pen a few passages into the blank pages of a genuine Victorian diary and try to pass them off to Doreen as the work of James Maybrick, before showing her the guard book and all its 63 filled pages, I would agree with you that it would have been one of Mike's more insane ideas. But I don't think anyone has suggested this as a realistic option, have they? It's certainly not one I had ever considered.

The possibility remains, however, that not really knowing what the heck he had, something Doreen said or asked him on the phone set him wondering what a typical Victorian diary should look like and if the one he had would be anything like Doreen was expecting to see. We can only guess why he specified (from memory) a diary dating from 1880-1890 (??) with some blank pages (although not nearly enough to take the whole text, assuming he knew by then how much text there was and the 'from' and 'to' dates) but without mentioning anything about the dimensions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

But if Maybrick wrote the diary he would have been the first person in recorded history to use the term "one off". In fact, as Gareth pointed out, there's not another example until 1934, and even then its application was restricted to a strictly technical usage, i.e. in the engineering industry.

Would you therefore at least concede that the probability of Maybrick having used the phrase as early as the 1880s is infinitesimally small?

Hi John,

I don't think there is the least probability that Maybrick was the wag who used this or any of the other phrases as seen in the diary.

Will that do?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, that is what I am telling you. Having done a search of the word "sidelined" in this thread, the first time it was mentioned by anyone was today (by you). And I haven't posted in any other Maybrick threads.

Are you serious? You actually did a search? I was making a general observation - albeit on this thread - about the watch being sidelined (as in ignored, disregarded, forgotten, not mentioned) on most Maybrick threads not specifically watch related. I wasn't claiming that the word 'sidelined' had been used by anyone else, on this or any other thread. Clearly, if most posters on most Maybrick threads prefer to put the watch to one side and forget about it while discussing the diary, the word 'sidelined' is not going to be used an awful lot, is it?

Are we done here now, David, or do you want to bring the sidelined watch up yet again on this thread?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...it must be obvious that if you or anyone asked O&L if they sold a Victorian scrapbook in 1990 (which is when Barrett dated the purchase in his affidavit) you would not have obtained a useful answer if the scrapbook had actually been acquired in 1992.

That's the point. What I hope you now understand is that you can't say that Barrett's affidavit is "demonstrably untrue" in this respect, albeit that it might be mistaken as to the chronology of events.

So you think we only asked O&L about the year 1990, do you? We trusted Mike that much, by the early 2000s, that we went by one of the dodgy dates he had come up with over the years and didn't think to ask the kind of questions that would have given us a definitive answer as to whether Mike's version of events could have taken place at O&L - ever?

I'm afraid you really must think everyone but Mike was incompetent then.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But by the same token why didn't Kujau realise that he would be exposed after "five minutes" and go to prison? That's just how criminals operate Caz. It's called optimism.

I trust you are not suggesting Anne is a criminal, who was optimistic enough to think that she and her husband (yes, Mike Barrett) could pull off what Kujau had so recently failed to do, without the risk of her young daughter Caroline having to bake a cake with a nail file in when she visited her mum and dad in prison?

One could say he has only fooled those who want to be fooled Caz.

Oh indeed, David. I have said as much on scores of occasions. Our Mike has been able to fool countless otherwise intelligent people into believing he had it in him to research and write the diary - and all because they wanted to be so fooled. If it's a late 20th century hoax they want, it comes with Mike Barrett attached and still pulling the strings. There's nothing to be done about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This line of discussion is getting a bit silly. The cover story as to how the Hitler Diaries were acquired was rather different to the Maybrick Diary. No-one would have believed the Hitler Diaries came from "a dead mate". Why anyone believed it in the case of the Maybrick Diary I have no idea but the Sunday Times clearly didn't believe it (whereas they did believe the Hitler Diaries cover story).

I agree that Mike's "dead mate" story was always going to be hopeless. How did he and Anne manage to come up with the idea of this diary and get it written, only to be stuck with such a lame explanation for how it reached Mike's hands?

Naturally the Sunday Times were in 'once bitten...' mode following their public humiliation over the Hitler Diaries, so it's hardly a shock that they were not going to risk being 'fooled again'. They only had to shout 'fake' and sit back - forever - while others tried and inevitably failed to authenticate it. It was the only sane default position.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But what I asked you do was this:

"you might also want to consider my #1929 and let me know if any of the 10 points I listed in that post are demonstrably untrue and demonstrate the untruthfulness of them."

Far from doing this, you responded on the basis of whether the points listed were "fundamentally incorrect in every respect" as if I believed this was something you had said.

I only wanted to know if you thought the 10 points were "demonstrably untrue" or not (and, if so, to demonstrate the untruthfulness).

To save me the considerable bother of going over all the 10 points again, when my original observation was along the lines of nothing in Mike's statement being able to prove he had any involvement or knowledge of the diary's creation and some of it being demonstrably untrue, I'll refer you to another post of mine which I'm not sure you addressed:

Confused or not, it must have been untrue that Mike obtained the guard book in 1990 unless it was untrue that he bought the 1891 diary first. Demonstrable untruth in there somewhere, surely?

Just to be clear, he claimed that he obtained the guard book after the tiny 1891 diary.

He obtained the latter in March 1992.

He claimed he obtained the former in 1990.

Now since the above is an impossibility, it must contain at least one demonstrable untruth. It was either an untruth to claim he obtained the guard book in 1990, or it was an untruth to claim he obtained it after the 1891 diary. Whether he got himself thoroughly confused over his dates or was just demonstrating an inability to keep a straight story to save his life, there it was, a demonstrable untruth.

If you believe it was the truth that he obtained the guard book before it contained the diary, that's entirely up to you, but it will never be a demonstrable truth.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He could read and write English couldn't he? Sufficient qualifications surely?

And how many people who offer their opinion about Barrett knew him in March 1992?

Hi again David,

How many out of all the people who would have known Mike long before, shortly before and after 1992 have ever come forward to express the opinion that he had 'sufficient qualifications' to produce the diary - in any other sense than to hand it over for inspection?

I can't recall a single person, can you? Was he so popular that nobody who knew him was disloyal enough to say he would have been capable? Or did he use his royalties to bribe them to keep it buttoned or pretend he couldn't have forged a sick note?

Most diary commentators will no doubt have read my little anecdote about a rude riddle Mike once tried to get published. It was one of those 'my first is in orange but not in apple' type of word puzzles, where the reader has to use the clues in each line to spell out a one-word solution. But Mike's words were all much naughtier than oranges and apples and the solution was not quite what he had had in mind because he couldn't spell it. There were eight lines of clues instead of six because he thought the rude word he was striving for was spelled 'o r g a n i s m'.

While I'm at it, I'm sure Robert Smith won't mind me telling you about another, more recent attempt by Mike to get something published. He wanted to write a novel around the 'coincidence' of Mary Kelly's murder happening on the same date as the destruction of the Twin Towers - 9/11.

Now I don't know whether he thought MJK died on September 11th, or the Twin Towers fell on November 9th, or whether he didn't think at all, but it's not a good look, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Did people say "I think not", did they say "bitch" about anything else than a dog, did they "think long and hard" and was there "an overwhelming compulsion" in 1889?

A good effort from Pierre – what else would one expect? – but he is obviously unaware that language experts have already crawled all over the Diary.

The use of "bitch" to insultingly describe a woman goes back to the sixteenth century according to the OED.

The other expressions he lists can all be found in nineteenth century texts from a simple Google books search.

[David Orsam]

I spent some time this morning testing whether "one-off" might have been an expression used in the cotton industry in the United States that James Maybrick could have picked up during his time Stateside in the early 1880's. I can accept that there may have been occurrences of the expression "one-off" in certain manufacturing activities late, as cited already here.

We do have the example, at least later on, of "one-off versus multiple" processes or patterns or whatever. However, I couldn't find anything in Google books. I was searching specifically for books that dealt with the U.S. cotton industry or contemporary letters talking about cotton manufacturing that might support such usage in the 19th century. But of course that is not to say that more extensive search in 19th century sources than I was able to do this morning might not turn up such examples.

I would add to this, Chris, by saying that it wouldn't actually matter if it was used in the cotton industry to mean a single item unless it can be shown that there was also a metaphorical usage whereby a single or unique item was viewed as being similar to hitting someone once (or similar).

The expression, in other words, has to go through two phases. From relating to a single made item, that item it has to first acquire an element of being unique or special and then it has to be regarded as comparable to a person or happening in a metaphorical way.

So if "one off" meant (say) a single piece of cotton in the 19th century (for which, of course, there is no evidence) that in itself would come nowhere near showing that the expression "one off instance" or similar had entered the English language.