One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

If only a few people were aware of the phrase and they did use it in private correspondence why is it impossible that none of this private correspondence has survived? What reason would they have for keeping private letters

What are you talking about?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it impossible with a phrase like 'one off,' a phrase that only a few would have been aware of through a connection to certain forms of industry, that some ,only a few, could have used it in conjunction with other words in conversation and therefore possibly in private correspondence. And that those few items of correspondence have not survived.

[David Orsam]

Why is it impossible with a phrase like 'one off,' a phrase that only a few would have been aware of through a connection to certain forms of industry, that some ,only a few, could have used it in conjunction with other words in conversation and therefore possibly in private correspondence. And that those few items of correspondence have not survived.

A sort of secret nineteenth century expression that has disappeared from existence and been lost to history and only miraculously survives in the Diary?

I've seen some desperate arguments in my time but that must beat the lot.

And don't be coy. When you say "used in conjunction with other words" you mean used as a metaphor to mean something other than a one off manufactured item some sixty or seventy years before this became a common usage in the English language.

So when someone found Maybrick's Diary after his death and read it in 1889, if they weren't in on the secret language, they would not have had a clue what a "one off instance" actually was!

That's not how language works and evolves I'm afraid. But if you want to go to such extreme and fanciful lengths to try and argue the "possible" then it's really no wonder that you think there has never been an incontrovertible fact which refutes the diary because you ask for a standard of proof that is itself impossible to satisfy. I mean, it's possible that the sun won't rise in the east tomorrow. I can't actually prove it either way but I would suggest that an argument that it might not would not be very credible, to say the least.

And hey, it's "possible" that no prostitutes were ever murdered and mutilated in 1888 and the whole thing was a huge conspiracy to scare the general public, with faked photographs inserted in the police files.

Does that mean there is no incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which proves that the Whitechapel murders even took place? You will have to tell me.

[Sam Flynn]

If only a few people were aware of the phrase...

A lot more people were aware of the phrase "one-off" in the latter quarter of the 20th century, when it had passed into the vernacular.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A sort of secret nineteenth century expression that has disappeared from existence and been lost to history and only miraculously survives in the Diary?

I've seen some desperate arguments in my time but that must beat the lot.

And don't be coy. When you say "used in conjunction with other words" you mean used as a metaphor to mean something other than a one off manufactured item some sixty or seventy years before this became a common usage in the English language.

So when someone found Maybrick's Diary after his death and read it in 1889, if they weren't in on the secret language, they would not have had a clue what a "one off instance" actually was!

That's not how language works and evolves I'm afraid. But if you want to go to such extreme and fanciful lengths to try and argue the "possible" then it's really no wonder that you think there has never been an incontrovertible fact which refutes the diary because you ask for a standard of proof that is itself impossible to satisfy. I mean, it's possible that the sun won't rise in the east tomorrow. I can't actually prove it either way but I would suggest that an argument that it might not would not be very credible, to say the least.

And hey, it's "possible" that no prostitutes were ever murdered and mutilated in 1888 and the whole thing was a huge conspiracy to scare the general public, with faked photographs inserted in the police files.

Does that mean there is no incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which proves that the Whitechapel murders even took place? You will have to tell me.

And if you can't even admit of the possibility that a phrase could have been used, within however small a circle, and not survived in written form! Not official documents, but privately written correspondence; of no interest to anyone but the writer and the receiver. There's nothing 'fanciful' about that. It might not be the case. The difference is that I'm prepared to explore possibilities no matter how remote. I'm not always prepared to bow down just because one person, now matter how good a researcher, says 'I've refuted it. End of argument.' Every letter that's ever been written obviously survives on some mega-database at your disposal. Nothing could have escaped the net! I joined the casebook for discussion and debate not just not to listen to someone condescendingly telling me that they can't possibly, under any circumstance, be wrong. And definately not to hear someone imply that I'm just to dim to 'absorb' what I'm told.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm getting tired of this. I'll sign off by saying that I've shown this thread to two friends. Neither have any real interest in the case and so no bias either way. They are both intelligent guys ; both have degrees so I asked their opinion. They both said pretty much the same thing. To the effect; this David bloke is probably right but there surely has to be a possibility however remote that he's not.
An unbiased view.
Not used to that.

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

A new day and a final post on this wearying thread. To be honest it's a thread that should be closed down now as everyone appears to believe that David has applied the final nail to the coffin. Although why he couldn't have done it twenty years ago and saved all those pro-diary people the wasted time and effort I can't think.
I've always said that David could be right; even likely to be right. I'm not pro or anti-diary. I try to remain open and explore possibilities no matter how remote. I've never claimed to always be right.
I still maintain, no matter how much derision is directed my way, that there has to be a possibility, surely, that a phrase used in certain industries could have been used by a few people in conjunction with another word. Eg 'one off instance.' And that just because that phrase or any similar one hasnt survived in correspondence. Not official documentation, just in private letters which would automatically have been disposed of after being read. Now that suggestion could be wrong (David will obviously say that it is). But I don't think that it's ludicrous or far fetched. That's it's absolutely impossible that a phrase or collection of related phrases, colloquial phrases, couldn't possibly have not survived in written correspondence?
I've now shown this thread to 5 people (perhaps just to reassure myself that I'm not insane or even stupid). All intelligent, unbiased people. And non of them can see how my suggestion is absolutely impossible. Wrong, yes obviously. But definately not stupid or far fetched.
That said, I see that there's no point in going around in circles. I'd always heard that diary debate got a little heated and there's no issue with that. It's just a new experience for me to have a pretty moderate viewpoint treated as if I'd suggested that the main component of the moon was Red Leicester. Or that there's one person on the thread that there's no point in debating because he simply cannot be wrong.

Best regards to all
Herlock

I'm off to another thread where I intend to propose Abberline's wife as JTR

[caz]

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?

Hi HS,

Both Barretts would need to have been 'monumentally dim' in the scenario you describe, but the diary is no more in their handwriting than it is in Maybrick's. And if either of them had been able to disguise their hand so well that it could fool the professional handwriting examiners who have pored all over it, they should have gone on Britain's Got Talent.

One can bang on all day about the impossible 'one off instance' of violence dished out from Sir Jim's personal stocklist but that utterly fails to address the question of who on earth did pen the diary and then let Mike Barrett get his paws on it, if it is meant to be a late 20th century fake, posing as the real thing.

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?

Nothing about the scratches made in the watch demonstrates modernity, and the most curious thing about it in my view is that whoever engraved the Maybrick signature was able to produce such a good likeness to the signature on his marriage licence. If both items came from the same stable, one has to wonder why no attempt was made to copy James's handwriting over the 63 pages of his 'confession', while the opposite appears to have been the case with the watch. That might help explain why the diary gets almost all the attention on the Maybrick message boards, while few have much if anything to say about the watch.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Scratching the initials of the canonical five, and the canonical five ONLY, is what I would expect from a hoaxer toeing the party line.

[caz]

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

Hi Ike,

They certainly broke the mould when they made you.

I wonder how far back that saying can be traced? When was the first mould broken deliberately to create a one off?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Scratching the initials of the canonical five, and the canonical five ONLY, is what I would expect from a hoaxer toeing the party line.

Don't get me wrong, Harry. I wasn't suggesting the ripper only killed five, nor that Maybrick scratched those initials. It's the Maybrick signature that intrigues me, and of course by itself that wouldn't be suspicious even if James had put it there himself. The initials and 'I am Jack' could conceivably have been added by whoever was seeking to frame him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

One fact you cry

The Ink
I reply

The only test to date it puts it between 1909 and 1932.

But no that's not undeniable, because people here that don't accept the science deny it.

Hi Gut,

So you are saying the science got it right here about when ink met paper? That was what this particular test was all about, wasn't it? Suits me fine. But wouldn't that imply that 'one off instance' must date back at least as far as 1932, and probably a lot further back, given the sheer improbability that the diary would have contained the first ever example of those three little words being used together in any context?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So when someone found Maybrick's Diary after his death and read it in 1889, if they weren't in on the secret language, they would not have had a clue what a "one off instance" actually was!

Where's that buzzer they use on QI?

How many more times? The diary author left the reader in absolutely no doubt as to what it was, in the very same sentence. Sir Jim regretted hitting Florie and assured her 'it would never happen again'. What was not to understand, whenever those words were used?

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Don't get me wrong, Harry. I wasn't suggesting the ripper only killed five, nor that Maybrick scratched those initials. It's the Maybrick signature that intrigues me, and of course by itself that wouldn't be suspicious even if James had put it there himself. The initials and 'I am Jack' could conceivably have been added by whoever was seeking to frame him.

Wasn't suggesting for a moment that you were, Caz. My comment was a general aside about the whole stopwatch issue. Of course, there's no reason why Jack/Maybrick didn't kill only the canonical five in Whitechapel but it's a little too convenient for my liking. Maybrick neglects to include the prostitute he allegedly strangled in Manchester. Perhaps he never learned her name or he didn't consider her part of the Ripper's legacy.

[David Orsam]

And if you can't even admit of the possibility that a phrase could have been used, within however small a circle, and not survived in written form!

No I can't because I happen to think it's a ridiculous suggestion.