One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

I'm sorry that people feel this strongly. The only thing that makes me ever feel like abandoning a debate is when people say virtually: look it's a forgery. Stop trying to look at both sides.

Herlock

But it doesn't need to be a forgery to not be by JM does it?

Or is, let's say, a novel bested on the life of a real person a forgery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it doesn't need to be a forgery to not be by JM does it?

Or is, let's say, a novel bested on the life of a real person a forgery.

I agree GUT. I've said before that it could have been written by Maybrick as some kind of sick fantasy where he exacts 'revenge' on his wife. Maybe the fact that it isn't in his known handwriting was in case anyone found it while he was still alive; it allowed him to say "well I didn't right it. It's not even in my handwriting."
Equally it could have been written by someone trying to defame James Maybrick. It would help if we knew, if it is genuinely Victorian, where it was kept and where it's been all these years.
One question that we have no answer to is, of course, if someone had possessed the diary of Jack the Ripper over the proceeding 100 years why didn't they come forward with it at any point. Family shame I'd suspect a pro-diary would be. An anti- position would obviously be that it didn't exist until the 90's.

But you're right. The diary could have other explanations apart from Maybrick Jack or not.

Regards

Herlock

[John G]

If we knew that Victorian prostitues in a certain area of London used a phrase that was 'based' on a phrase in general usage but had an added word. And then we searched and found no written example of it would we be justified in saying that the phrase was never in use?
If 'one off' can be added to other words and we can find them in writing just a few years later why is it impossible that 'one off instance'
could have been used at the time and possibly only by a few people who were aware of the origin but there's just no extant written examples. I can't see how it's impossible.

Regards
Herlock

But the problem with that argument is that you could apply it to any JtR candidate. For instance,what about the Duke of Clarence? What incontrovertible fact proves he wasn't the Ripper? Okay, you could refer to Court and Royal records which demonstrate that he wasn't even in London at the time of some of the murder dates. However, this can easily be countered by arguing that the records could have been fabricated as part of an establishment cover up. I mean, how can you incontrovertibly prove that didn't happen?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree when you put it like that John. I'd then have to say that unless someone could prove a fabrication and a cover-up I would have to accept the court circulars to be overwhelmingly likely to be true especially when you consider how far ranging that kind of conspiracy would need to be.
As far as the phrase in question here is concerned. It's been shown that it has been used in a letter, in 1882, to describe a person as a 'one-off'. A few years later we've seen that it was used in writing in conjunction with other words. Surely it's not too great a leap to propose that it could have been used in 1888 in conjunction with the word 'instance.' That fact that no letters in the public domain show the exact phrase can't be used to prove it impossible. I'm sure that there are a few colloquial phrases that don't appear in letters from that time.
It's just my personal view, and the diary could still be a forgery, that 'one off instance,' doesn't disprove the diary.

I know nothing about forgeries but I did think of asking this question about the diary. And I'm not directing this at anyone in particular except maybe someone who has a knowledge of forgeries.

Is this forgery the only forgery in the history of forgeries where the forger hasn't even attempted to forge the handwriting? It may not be. But if it is, isn't that fact singular and possibly suggestive?

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

There in lies the issue, those who reject the diary are accused of being closed minded, but something like getting the breasts in the wrong place was because he was agitated, the handwriting was because he had dual personalities, of course no proof of either of those things.

No wonder I try to stay out of diary threads.

GUT, I apologise for using the phrase 'closed minded.' It does sound insulting and that wasn't my intention. I just wanted to convey the fact that I just wished that people could accept the possibility that the diary 'could' be genuine. This could also include the idea that Maybrick was the author but not the ripper. I'm genuinely undecided on the diary.

Regards
Herlock

[caz]

Hi Iconoclast,

Me, naughty?

“I had a key
“And with it I did flee.”

Regards,

Simon

I suppose the question for me is why anyone would rely on a serial killer only writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his personal diary, and not expressing his amusement at what others - the papers, the police, the public - were claiming for him.

Our hoaxer could have kindly added:

"Oh really?
Not likely!"

for those with little imagination, but he was much too naughty for that.

Love,

Naughty Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

A good point Caz.

Like, why when Mike Barrett claimed the diary was genuine he was an obvious liar? Yet when he rejected it he was obviously truthful?

Regards
Herlock

[caz]

But the problem with that argument is that you could apply it to any JtR candidate. For instance,what about the Duke of Clarence? What incontrovertible fact proves he wasn't the Ripper? Okay, you could refer to Court and Royal records which demonstrate that he wasn't even in London at the time of some of the murder dates. However, this can easily be countered by arguing that the records could have been fabricated as part of an establishment cover up. I mean, how can you incontrovertibly prove that didn't happen?

Hi John,

I thought the relevant record showing the whereabouts of PAV on a murder night was published in advance of the date in question, in which case an establishment cover up would have had to consist of knowing when his royal naughtiness was going to commit the crime, but instead of trying to prevent him, preparing the ground with the news that he was going to be in Scotland or wherever on that particular date. And once everyone knew that, how would the establishment have got round the fact that he was a no-show?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Is this forgery the only forgery in the history of forgeries where the forger hasn't even attempted to forge the handwriting? It may not be. But if it is, isn't that fact singular and possibly suggestive?

Regards
Herlock

Hi HS,

The usual argument is that we are talking about Mike Barrett here (in any modern forgery scenario) and he was not smart enough to consider that examples of Maybrick's handwriting may have survived, or would inevitably be sought out and compared with his own handiwork.

Either that or he was too smart to go looking for them and leave a trail of his efforts.

Mike was always as bright or as dim as he was needed to be to suit each aspect of one's favoured modern hoax theory.

Same with his memory for dates and times: sharp as a tack when called upon to remember the precise number of days it took him and Anne to pen the diary; understandably as foggy as it's possible for anyone to be over the number of years that had passed since that penning took place.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz

I'd say that anyone who, when considering creating a forged diary of a well-to-do businessman who was part of a famous case (one that involved a will), doesn't even consider the possibility of surviving examples of handwriting, can only be describe, I would have thought, as 'monumentally dim.'
From what I can recall reading, Ann always came across as a pretty common sense sort of person? I can't really envision this conversation as they sat down to forge the diary:

Ann: Mike, even if we had a copy of Maybricks handwriting I'm no good at forging. And we don't have any samples. What should I do?

Mike: Just use your own handwriting.

Ann: Wont someone notice and we'll be revealed as forgers and then probably get arrested?

Mike: Nah, these Ripperologist blokes never check these things. We're safe. Ready then?

I'm sorry to go on about this but i find it 'almost' impossible to believe that anyone could be so stupid. Especially when they've gone to the trouble of getting a book,the ink and the nibs from the period and read however many books it would take on the ripper and the Maybrick poisoning case and manufactured any family links that were suggested in Feldman's book and insured that there aren't any obvious 'howlers' in the diary.

Do people consider the watch a fake too? I'm behind here but from what I can recall the scientific assessment seemed pretty positive that the scratches were 'more than tens of years old.' Do we have a forged diary but a genuine watch?
The fact that it's still being discussed at the very least should proclude the word 'amateurish.'

Regards
Herlock

[David Orsam]

I've just seen a posting on the forum from 2016 where someone has found and pasted a cutting from the British Bee Journal of 1882 where someone says something like " yes I remember Paddy. He was a one-off."
I suppose the cutting was a forgery.

Not a forgery actually but a mistake. The "cutting" was, in fact, from the British Bee Journal of 1975.

I know, it's embarrassing.

[David Orsam]

As I said in #2240 in response to the Bee Journal error:

There is a linear and traceable progression of the expression 'one off' whereby it evolves through three distinct phases. Phase 1 being a mere and unremarkable quantity of an item off a stocklist for a manufacturing or engineering project, phase two being a unique manufactured or engineered product or design (a one off job) and Phase 3 being the wider and more general use to mean unique people or occasions (or instances). Phase 1 is nineteenth century, Phase 2 is early twentieth century (certainly after 1888) and Phase 3 is later twentieth century. Phase 3 cannot, and never will be found to, come before Phase 2.

Consequently the occurrence of this expression to mean a unique person in 1882 – or to mean a unique occurrence - would be unhistorical and anachronistic and, therefore, impossible.

[David Orsam]

'One off instance' is still not a proof. One off was used. Is it so unbelievable that someone added instance and that no one has found a letter with it in. I don't think so.

What do you mean by "One off was used"? No recorded and confirmed example of "one off" being used in the nineteenth century has, so far, been found. If it was used in obscure engineering plans (and I think it probably was), this is something that can only be assumed by inference and would have meant nothing more than a singular item, it's origin apparently being "one off the stocklist", so that we find "one off, two off, three off etc". Nothing unique in other words. Yes a "one off job" means a unique job but we don't find it used to mean that in the nineteenth century.

Is it so unbelievable that someone added instance and that no one has found a letter with it in?

Yes it is unbelievable.

What was required was for someone to use the concept of a unique manufactured item (assuming that "one off" actually meant this in 1888, for which there is no evidence) and apply it, as a metaphor, to an event, such as hitting someone. If the Diary were genuine it would mean that the author of the Diary was not only the first known person ever in the history of the world to do this but also that no-one else in the world is known to have done it during the next fifty years

That's why it is so utterly unbelievable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With sincerest apologies for disagreeing....

David, I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed by the 'bee journal' thing. In a short space of time I flicked over to the JTR Forum and saw it and assumed the post was correct (you should never assume, I know.)
What I am slightly bothered about is the patronising 'I know, it's embarrassing.' This appears to be your default position when someone dares to question a pronouncement of yours. I do apologise.

A couple of points from someone as unworthy as myself.

In post 2253 You said that by adding one to off to get the phrase 'one off,' was indicative of 'one off the stock.' I quote " There was no meaning there at all of unique." Obvious;y the phrases are still in use and I can see no reason why they should have different meanings then compared to now. From personal experience in the industry the phrase 'one off,' means, in the vast majority of cases, a unique item. The customer pays for the pattern. The pattern creates a sand mould into which molten metal is poured to create the casting. The mould is destroyed to retrieve the casting and the wooden pattern is the property of the customer because it's highly unlikely ever to be used again. Because it's unique. A one off in fact.

You also say that no example of the phrase has been found that early but you agree that it must have existed but it was " very obscure and understood as a notation of quantity by engineers, foundrymen and pattern makers etc." You also say, and as an ex- Foundryman I could also take this as an insult :"Normal human beings would not have had a clue in the 19th century that one off meant one." Nice. I actually consider foundrymen, engineers and pattern makers as normal people but I guess you don't move in those circles? So, this gives us, literally thousands of 'normal' people aware of this phrase and it's meaning. I.e. Something unique.
As a Cotton Merchant, visiting manufacturing plants, it is not impossible, indeed it's likely, that Maybrick would have met a very 'normal' engineer or three. He may even have spoken to them. He may even have used the phrase 'one off shipment.'
If only a small percentage of the population were aware of the phrase only a percentage of that percentage would have been able or likely to use it in written correspondence. Correspondence that would have been read and then binned. Not preserved for future researchers.
Surely not being able to find something is not proof of its non existence. Especially when it might only have been used by a relatively tiny amount of people who's correspondence wouldn't have been important enough to preserve.

Finally, is Shirley Harrison definately being untruthful? She said she saw, or at least had information about Traynors using the phrase in the 1860s. Maybe she didn't but I'm reluctant to believe that a researcher would just make that up. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe researchers aren't always perfect.

Herlock

[Iconoclast]

What I am slightly bothered about is the patronising 'I know, it's embarrassing.' T
Herlock

Hi Herlock,

Honestly, I'm no apologist for Mr Orsam (the irony of my being so would crack a techtonic plate) and I have no idea what the two of you are talking about bee-journalwise, but when I read his comment ("I know, it's embarrassing"), I took that to mean that it was embarrassing that someone had posted such an error on the JtR Forum rather than that you - or anyone else - had taken it at face value and quoted it.

By the way, was the 1975 version simply an historical reprinting of an 1888 version??? We can live in hope ...

Ike