One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Bully for you ! You, yes you, may not have any problem with the phrase "one off" creeping into the language at a much earlier date than is being suggested. You would say say that wouldn't you. However, there's a whole lot of difference between what you believe to be truth and the reality that it was not used in the context as used in the journal until the mid Twentieth Century at the earliest.

Really? So the earliest surviving known recorded usage in a similar context does not appear until after 1950? I must have missed that in the host of posts on the subject, but the earliest surviving known recorded usage is not going to be the earliest ever actual spoken or written usage by a long chalk, is it? Unless I've got this sort of thing totally wrong of course, which is possible. I haven't read the latest posts to this thread yet - mea culpa.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I have now.

[Mike J. G.]

But doesn't everyone use nicknames for their local in conversation or personal jottings, Mike? I refer to mine as 'the Rise', or 'the Rising', but its proper name is The Rising Sun. In 1888, the post house would only have been a generic term for former taverns that had once served as post houses. One wouldn't expect to find these in a directory as 'the Post House', any more than one would see 'the Pub' or 'the Boozer' in the Yellow Pages. The individual tavern was identified by the name over the door at the time, be it the White Hart, the Pig & Whistle, the Post Office Tavern or the Old Post Office. Any former post house under any other name could have been called 'the Post House' by its regulars. And given the misspelling in the diary of 'post haste' as 'poste haste', this one could have been written down as 'the Poste House'.

It is definitely common for local haunts to be given nicknames by the people who frequent them, but my personal gripe with this particular nickname is that I can find no mention of it anywhere, and believe me, I've looked. While that doesn't totally rule it out, for me, it makes it less probable. I can find mention of various pubs and their nicknames in a few places, a good book I have is called Ways and Byeways of Liverpool, by Michael O'Mahoney (1931) as well as the Pubs of Liverpool series, which I think were published in the late 80s and republished in the mid-90s, though I don't have them to hand right now. In there, we see mention of the Wellington pub being referred to as the "Welly", for instance, among other well-known local pubs and their nicknames.

I have just found very little evidence that the Post Office Tavern was locally known as the Poste House, and the archaic spelling of "Poste" makes me think that it is referring to the Poste House as we know it today, since the Post Office Tavern, IIRC, was spelled without the "e". You have to believe me that I've done a fair bit of snooping around before joining here, as I wanted to be sure that I was at least 80% certain before posting. I've visited the central library, home to the brilliant Picton Reading Rooms, and have pestered anyone available as to the name "Poste House" and how it relates to 1888; I couldn't find any mention of it, either with regard to the Muck Midden, or any other establishment. I've also got a project going that isn't related to this subject, but it does involve local pubs and their drinkers, and I've made it a point to have a natter with as many older patrons as possible about various things, and one question I'd asked that was unrelated to my reason for being there, was about the Poste House and whether or not they could recall any mention of an establishment by that name, whether in passing or by direct knowledge, and besides the post (no pun intended!) Muck Midden title for the pub we all know, they had heard of no other pub by that name. Now, I know this isn't concrete by any means, but I have to weigh up the likelihood based on what I do know, and having browsed a fair few papers from the period at the library, I can find no mention of a pub by this name, despite there being several good listings for various pubs of the time being advertised throughout.

If I had to hazard a guess as to the nickname for the Tavern, I'd probably be more inclined to think it would either simply be "the Tavern", "the Tav", or possibly even "the Office". Again, this is speculation on my part, but I find it easier to speculate about those things than I do in accepting that the Tavern was referred to as the Poste house, and again, that archaic spelling gives it away for me. My personal theory is that in thinking up an old pub, the writer of the diary picked a commonly known old pub in the Poste House, but hadn't really anticipated that it was not actually known by that name in the late 1880's. In all probability, the writer had not bothered to check up on it, and had simply assumed it was always known by that name, which makes sense if, like me, we're going with the fact that this diary wasn't really based on much research at all, save a few commonly available books. So for me, the mention of "Poste House" is a bit of a red flag. I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not 100% positive that a pub wasn't known by that name, but I can find no mention of any Poste House pub in the relevant period, despite finding mention of various other pubs and their nicknames. I highly recommend Ways and Byeways of Liverpool by Michael O'Mahoney as a good source for many now ancient taverns in Liverpool, as well as now long-gone districts, lanes and much much more.

Must have gone downhill since I was there, Mike. Live music, Beatles covers, very friendly, young and old alike mixing and dancing our socks off. No trouble on the two occasions we spent an evening there. Would have been 2004 and 2008. Mind you, I don't go looking for trouble and rarely find any.

I don't doubt that it's probably a friendly place, as if I'm honest, even the most notorious pubs around here are full of friendly patrons, but I just recall it being a bit of a dive, lol. I tend to stay away from that row of shops and bars when I'm in town, but mainly due to the lack of good ale, as I'm a bit of an ale-snob! If you like the Beatles, you should take a trip to Woolton, if you've not been already, there's some lovely pubs there, and many near Quarry street, inspiration for the Quarrymen. The Victoria on Quarry street is run by my friend, whose father is actually a bit of a Ripper-buff, and will be attending the conferences with me in September in town, and it usually has some good bands who play a whole host of stuff, including many Beatles tunes.

Two sources, Mike. My informant's initials are TC, but he'd be about 80 by now if he's still with us. Robert Smith's informant was the then landlord of Rigby's, but I can't recall his name if I was ever told it.

What do you mean by a 'correct date' for the pub on School Lane? There has been an inn there from at least as far back as 1800. How far back did you want to go?

I do know Rigby's, up by the Ship and Miter, has his family taken over since he left? Re: the date for the pub, I guess I meant do we know that it was referred to by that name in the relevant years, so 1888/1889, as I recall it changed its name a few times over the years but eventually went back to being known by the same name as it is today, but information is scarce re: the name-changes.

Again, feel free to believe whatever you like, Mike. No hard feelings.

Love,

Caz
X

Personally, I'm 100% sure of it being a hoax, and I'm 80% sure that the writer was mistaken in his/her thinking that the Poste House, as they referred to it, was in existence under that name during that period. For me, it seems far more likely that the writer was lacking in their research than they had actually correctly identified a pub known locally as the Poste House, seeing as I've done a fair amount of looking but have not managed to find any evidence for that name during that period.

I do feel that the mistake was in assuming that the definitely very old pub was always known by the same name, and it seems like a perfectly natural mistake to make if you're not really doing a whole lot of research on the matter.

[Mike J. G.]

Is it truly such a stretch to venture that Maybrick (or someone of his generation) wrote the expression 'one-off instance' when but 15 short years later, someone documented a 'one-off standpoint'?

The problem as I see it, Ike, is that when we consider just how many odd things we're being asked to ignore regarding Maybrick, to assume that he was using an unlikely expression during a period where it would seem odd, is just maybe one stretch too far.

To believe that Maybrick was the writer of the diary and the Ripper, well it requires us to throw common-sense out of the window and assume that coincidence is king.

You simply have to want May to be the Ripper in order to make the pieces fit. There are far too many things that are glaring red flags, and at some point, you have to consider that they're a stretch too far.

[Henry Flower]

Really? So the earliest surviving known recorded usage in a similar context does not appear until after 1950? I must have missed that in the host of posts on the subject, but the earliest surviving known recorded usage is not going to be the earliest ever actual spoken or written usage by a long chalk, is it? Unless I've got this sort of thing totally wrong of course, which is possible.

I know that diary apologists of whatever stripe have resorted to this argument quite often, and I'm puzzled by it. As if there is some curious mechanism whereby a phrase or a word has to be bedded-in, used regularly, accepted into spoken or personal use for years, decades even, before it ever appears in print; as though at some point those 'recorded' writers get together and decide that, yes, the phrase has survived 50 years in the vernacular, we can now start to use it in our recorded writings.

It may present no problem at all to someone like Ike, he may be happy to accept that the disputed diary used a phrase in a way that would not be recorded again for another half century, and was likely the first person ever to do so. Others are happy to accept another reading: that this is confirmation of inauthenticity. Which seems likelier?

[Mike J. G.]

Faked IMHO - but not IMHO in recent decades, and not IMHO for fame or fortune. And the Barretts had bugger all to do with its creation, IMHO.

Perhaps I should make that my signature because I must have posted it scores and scores of times.

Love,

Caz
X

For me personally, I find it too coincidental that the diary came about after the republishing's of RWE's books, I know others do not agree, but when I got a hold of those books again and read them, it just clicked. It does seem strange that the diary came into being around this time.

Do we have any information on the people who were said to have found it and handed it in to the university? Do we know what company they were carrying out works for, what the work was for, and whether or not the story re: the university is true? It does seem odd to me that a person finding such a thing would think to take it to the university, not out of the question, but a bit weird, imho.

If I found an old diary of that ilk, I would probably consider taking it to the central library, or alternatively a local historian.

My personal opinion is that it's a recent forgery.

[Mike J. G.]

It may present no problem at all to someone like Ike, he may be happy to accept that the disputed diary used a phrase in a way that would not be recorded again for another half century, and was likely the first person ever to do so. Others are happy to accept another reading: that this is confirmation of inauthenticity. Which seems likelier?

I agree. It's one thing to assume that James had two entirely different ways of writing, it's another to assume that he'd end up penning details in a manner that was almost identical to several books that wouldn't be written for another century, it's another thing entirely to assume that he was also the originator of an unlikely expression.

A stretch too far.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all.

I don't want to go over the whole 'one off' debate again but I'd like to ask a question if I may.

I really don't know the answer to this by the way I'd just like to hear some current thought from both sides of the debate.

I know most of the doubts raised about the diary but what's the current thinking about the watch? From what I can recall, and I'll admit that I haven't bothered to read up on this, the scientific evidence seemed to be more difficult to dismiss (at least it seemed so at the time).

Regards
Herlock

[Henry Flower]

Hi all.

I don't want to go over the whole 'one off' debate again but I'd like to ask a question if I may.

I really don't know the answer to this by the way I'd just like to hear some current thought from both sides of the debate.

I know most of the doubts raised about the diary but what's the current thinking about the watch? From what I can recall, and I'll admit that I haven't bothered to read up on this, the scientific evidence seemed to be more difficult to dismiss (at least it seemed so at the time).

Regards
Herlock

I was about to ask the same question. I'm as convinced of the inauthenticity of the diary as I need to be, but every time I get comfortable in that recliner I remind myself that the damn watch needs to be explained too.

Caz? Can you help with the watch? What's the state of play?

[Mike J. G.]

From what I gather, the watch isn't all that impressive, which is why we likely haven't heard much about it since then.

The very idea of a special Jack the Ripper watch, complete with initials for victims, is rather silly. It's also interesting that it doesn't include any other initials of suspected victims, but rather the accepted ones.

Seems likely to be an added piece to go along with the diary. Maybe a watch bought at auction and made to look the part.


Others may feel differently, but IMHO, it's not something I give much thought to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi,

From what I can recall, and it's been a while, was that the watch was examined by an expert called Turgoose under a scanning electron microscope. He concluded that the scratches ( names and initials etc) were more than 10's of years old and that he himself wouldn't have had the skill to have made them appear older than they actually were.
I don't know if any further research has been done and I apologise if I've got any of the above info wrong as I'm working from memory. If that examination hasn't been superseded by contradictory research then that places the watch reasonably around 'Maybrick' time. If I remember correctly too didn't the signature inside match Maybricks known signature?

As I said it would be interesting to hear some up-to-date info?

Regards
Herlock

[Henry Flower]

From what I gather, the watch isn't all that impressive, which is why we likely haven't heard much about it since then.

The very idea of a special Jack the Ripper watch, complete with initials for victims, is rather silly. It's also interesting that it doesn't include any other initials of suspected victims, but rather the accepted ones.

Seems likely to be an added piece to go along with the diary. Maybe a watch bought at auction and made to look the part.


Others may feel differently, but IMHO, it's not something I give much thought to.

Don't get me wrong, Mike, I'm inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly. But it will boil down to the science. Until we have something more conclusive than what Turgoose and Wild have said, we can't 100% rule it out. It may seem 'too good to be true', but that proves nothing. The truth might seem too good to be true, sometimes. It often has in my love life, for example. It may be convenient and neat that the watch lists the initials of the five canonicals only, but maybe that demonstrates only that the five canonicals became canonical because for a reason.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's preposterous. For a man who wants to leave his guilty wife's initials all over the Ripper case he suddenly wants to list only the initials of his five victims? Oh right, yeah - because it's proof. He wants to leave incriminating proof. Maybrick was handily leaving confessions all over the place. Like no serial murderer in history....

But I want the science on board too. Until that point I'm 100% on the diary being a fake (from when, I don't know, but I incline towards modern based on what I've read of the RWE line of thought) and only 99.7% on the watch.

[David Orsam]

I think I commented earlier that this is not a thread about the watch but, for the record, here is what Melvin Harris said about it:

"Time, brings us logically to that watch. Is it connected with the Diary? Not at all. It is an opportunistic hoax inspired by the Diary and that's all. It is an independent venture that only came to light six or more weeks after the Maybrick/Ripper alliance was written about in the Liverpool Post. The alleged dating is not a dating of the scratches, it is just the dating of two ultra-tiny particles of corroded brass found at two points in those scratches. Those particles could well have been deposited by two means:

(1) They could have been shed from a well-corroded brass pointer used to make the scratches. (2) They could have been deposited by a contaminated cleaning cloth or buff when the markings were polished & 'distressed'.

....

Though described as 'Maybrick's watch' it is not a Man's watch at all; it is a Lady's watch. No robust Victorian businessman would be seen dead sporting such a watch! And Timothy Dundas, the horologist who cleaned and repaired this watch in 1992, has sworn an affidavit which states that the 'Ripper scratches’ were not in that watch when he worked on it. And in working on it he used the standard watchmaker's magnifying loupes, which show up every scratch and abrasion."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html

[Henry Flower]

I think I commented earlier that this is not a thread about the watch but, for the record, here is what Melvin Harris said about it:

"Time, brings us logically to that watch. Is it connected with the Diary? Not at all. It is an opportunistic hoax inspired by the Diary and that's all. It is an independent venture that only came to light six or more weeks after the Maybrick/Ripper alliance was written about in the Liverpool Post. The alleged dating is not a dating of the scratches, it is just the dating of two ultra-tiny particles of corroded brass found at two points in those scratches. Those particles could well have been deposited by two means:

(1) They could have been shed from a well-corroded brass pointer used to make the scratches. (2) They could have been deposited by a contaminated cleaning cloth or buff when the markings were polished & 'distressed'.

....

Though described as 'Maybrick's watch' it is not a Man's watch at all; it is a Lady's watch. No robust Victorian businessman would be seen dead sporting such a watch! And Timothy Dundas, the horologist who cleaned and repaired this watch in 1992, has sworn an affidavit which states that the 'Ripper scratches’ were not in that watch when he worked on it. And in working on it he used the standard watchmaker's magnifying loupes, which show up every scratch and abrasion."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...y/mhguide.html

David, I think we're done on the watch. The watch is toast. Stick a fork in it. Thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yup. Seems fair enough if there's no contradictory evidence.

Regards
Herlock

[caz]

For me, it seems far more likely that the writer was lacking in their research than they had actually correctly identified a pub known locally as the Poste House, seeing as I've done a fair amount of looking but have not managed to find any evidence for that name during that period.

Hi Mike,

I wonder if you might be getting too hung up on this being a 'name' you were looking for and failed to find, rather than a generic term that could have been used for any inn that once doubled up as, and was known as, a post house, and therefore not listed as an actual pub name or nickname.

If you can ignore the e on Poste House for a moment, and allow that it could have been another example of "Sir Jim's" eccentric spelling (as in poste haste - it would be exactly the same error) it becomes simply the Post House, which you would not expect to find in a list of pubs and their nicknames, any more than you would expect to find 'the Tavern' or 'the Tav' or 'my local' or 'the Pub'. In conversation, it would go something like: "I was just enjoying a swift half in the post house last night when the missus phoned". Incidentally, a few years back I asked a young regular in the Old Post Office if he had a nickname for it and he said he called it "the HQ". Is this a nickname you are familiar with? Would it have been recorded as that anywhere? It may have a different one these days.

Love,

Caz
X