One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity chaps, as im way behind in diary ‘events,’ who owns the watch now? Did Albert Johnson sell it?

[Iconoclast]

Just out of curiosity chaps, as im way behind in diary ‘events,’ who owns the watch now? Did Albert Johnson sell it?

I vaguely recall that it was up for sale as recently as a couple of years ago but that - sign of the times for interest in the Maybrick case - it didn't reach its reserve value (I think it was an auction). That would suggest that it's still in the possession of the Johnson family.

Just while I'm on, fellow sleuths. It's worth my gently squeezing into the long (and frankly utterly boring) debate about ink, paper, bone black, etc., that in twenty-six long years there is still no stronger evidence against the authenticity of the Maybrick journal than the suggestion that the three words "one off instance" could not have been written by Maybrick in 1889.

It's worth us pausing for a moment to reflect on the significance of that fact. Twenty-six years of - albeit intermittent - debate and the so-called hoax still has not been firmly and finally unmasked. Lord Orsam may well claim (and he does) that his three little words spell out the crime but I would suggest that it would take a great deal more than that to truly unravel and reveal the hoax (if hoax it be).

The journal can't be (categorically) done down on the ink, the paper, either of its two truly outstanding provenances (shame about the Mike Barrett bit, granted), the age of the document, the nature of the hand-writing, the fact that there are so few modern turns of phrase (rather than apparently one or two), the insider knowledge (despite appearing to be pre-1970s), the insight into Maybrick's family. And - of course - the unmistakable certainty that Maybrick wrote Florrie's initials on Kelly's wall and then made reference to them in his journal. And wrote an 'F' on her arm, and then spread her legs out like an 'M'. And cryptically wrote his entire adult family into the GSG!

If hoax it is ever proven to be, it is truly the greatest hoax in history (Turin Shroud excepted, I guess) and - I find it hard to believe I'm saying this - such a truth revealed would arguably point to Mike Barrett actually being right when he claimed to be the greatest forger in history.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I vaguely recall that it was up for sale as recently as a couple of years ago but that - sign of the times for interest in the Maybrick case - it didn't reach its reserve value (I think it was an auction). That would suggest that it's still in the possession of the Johnson family.

Just while I'm on, fellow sleuths. It's worth my gently squeezing into the long (and frankly utterly boring) debate about ink, paper, bone black, etc., that in twenty-six long years there is still no stronger evidence against the authenticity of the Maybrick journal than the suggestion that the three words "one off instance" could not have been written by Maybrick in 1889.

It's worth us pausing for a moment to reflect on the significance of that fact. Twenty-six years of - albeit intermittent - debate and the so-called hoax still has not been firmly and finally unmasked. Lord Orsam may well claim (and he does) that his three little words spell out the crime but I would suggest that it would take a great deal more than that to truly unravel and reveal the hoax (if hoax it be).

The journal can't be (categorically) done down on the ink, the paper, either of its two truly outstanding provenances (shame about the Mike Barrett bit, granted), the age of the document, the nature of the hand-writing, the fact that there are so few modern turns of phrase (rather than apparently one or two), the insider knowledge (despite appearing to be pre-1970s), the insight into Maybrick's family. And - of course - the unmistakable certainty that Maybrick wrote Florrie's initials on Kelly's wall and then made reference to them in his journal. And wrote an 'F' on her arm, and then spread her legs out like an 'M'. And cryptically wrote his entire adult family into the GSG!

If hoax it is ever proven to be, it is truly the greatest hoax in history (Turin Shroud excepted, I guess) and - I find it hard to believe I'm saying this - such a truth revealed would arguably point to Mike Barrett actually being right when he claimed to be the greatest forger in history.

Thanks for that Ike.

As for the diary the problem is that, of the doubts that have been raised, it only takes one to be proven for the diary to ‘categorically’ fall. As the strongest argument against the diary would appear to be David’s ‘one off instance,’ whats needed is someone with cash to spare who could pay for a couple (2 are always better than one) experts in the origins and evolution of words (Etymologists.) Thats with no disrepect meant to David but the opinions of experts in a particular field always carry greater weight.
If those two experts, after a reasonable period of research/investigation (how ever long that would be) came back and said that the phrase ‘categorically’ couldnt have been used then it would indeed be game, set and match and all that would be left would be the hunt to unmask the forger or forgers.

[David Orsam]

The journal can't be (categorically) done down on the ink, the paper, either of its two truly outstanding provenances (shame about the Mike Barrett bit, granted), the age of the document, the nature of the hand-writing, the fact that there are so few modern turns of phrase (rather than apparently one or two)

I suppose this is arguably true if you decide to ignore Dr Baxendale's report in respect of the solubility of the ink and the nature of the handwriting.

No-one disputes that the album in which the Diary is written is old but such things are quite possible for any forger to acquire from the antiques market.

"so few modern turns of phrase" isn't really helpful to your case though is it?

the insider knowledge (despite appearing to be pre-1970s)

Disputed. All the supposed "insider knowledge" is available in modern books.

the insight into Maybrick's family.

Disputed. Any writer of fiction could have done this.

And - of course - the unmistakable certainty that Maybrick wrote Florrie's initials on Kelly's wall and then made reference to them in his journal. And wrote an 'F' on her arm, and then spread her legs out like an 'M'.

Disputed. It is not an "unmistakable certainty". In one print of the photograph the supposed initials aren't even on the wall!

And cryptically wrote his entire adult family into the GSG!

This is, unfortunately, where your argument descends into pure nonsense.

[David Orsam]

As for the diary the problem is that, of the doubts that have been raised, it only takes one to be proven for the diary to ‘categorically’ fall. As the strongest argument against the diary would appear to be David’s ‘one off instance,’ whats needed is someone with cash to spare who could pay for a couple (2 are always better than one) experts in the origins and evolution of words (Etymologists.) Thats with no disrepect meant to David but the opinions of experts in a particular field always carry greater weight.
If those two experts, after a reasonable period of research/investigation (how ever long that would be) came back and said that the phrase ‘categorically’ couldnt have been used then it would indeed be game, set and match and all that would be left would be the hunt to unmask the forger or forgers.

It's not necessary because the experts have already spoken. I refer to:

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Modern Fable
Dr Kate Flint
Oxford English Dictionary

[Sam Flynn]

It's not necessary because the experts have already spoken. I refer to:

Oxford English Dictionary

Speaking of which, here are all the OED references to the use of "mayhem" in the sense in which it is used in the diary, i.e. in its tertiary, and decidedly more modern sense of "chaos, confusion and disorder":

1976 Daily Mirror 15 Mar. 24/4: Without wishin' to cast nasturtiums on your worm—I feel he's not goin' to make much mayhem today.
1976 Economist 20 Mar. 12/1: Thus were the trade unions tacitly egged on to the inflationary mayhem in 1970–74.
1978 H. Carpenter Inklings: He developed the ability to work at his desk in the middle of domestic mayhem.
1980 Times 2 Sept. 17/4: There is a plentiful supply of receptions, cocktail evenings, and general mayhem.
1982 L. Cody Bad Company: Bernie avoided the scented mayhem of the ground floor at Peter Jones.
1987 R. Manning Corridor of Mirrors: The dragon moors himself in the harbour and creates his usual mayhem.
1989 Daily Express 9 Jan. 1/1: It was mayhem on the motorway, which was blocked off to allow emergency services to reach the scene.

[David Orsam]

Speaking of which, here are all the OED references to the use of "mayhem" in the sense in which it is used in the diary, i.e. in its tertiary, and decidedly more modern sense of "chaos, confusion and disorder":

1976 Daily Mirror 15 Mar. 24/4: Without wishin' to cast nasturtiums on your worm—I feel he's not goin' to make much mayhem today.
1976 Economist 20 Mar. 12/1: Thus were the trade unions tacitly egged on to the inflationary mayhem in 1970–74.
1978 H. Carpenter Inklings: He developed the ability to work at his desk in the middle of domestic mayhem.
1980 Times 2 Sept. 17/4: There is a plentiful supply of receptions, cocktail evenings, and general mayhem.
1982 L. Cody Bad Company: Bernie avoided the scented mayhem of the ground floor at Peter Jones.
1987 R. Manning Corridor of Mirrors: The dragon moors himself in the harbour and creates his usual mayhem.
1989 Daily Express 9 Jan. 1/1: It was mayhem on the motorway, which was blocked off to allow emergency services to reach the scene.

Yes but, Sam, you're not going to like me saying this - but someone once posted an example of "mayhem" being used in the modern sense from a U.S. newspaper from around the 1930s. didn't they? I remember this distinctly because when I first read the post (much later) I located the original newspaper online to check the context and it was correct.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes but, Sam, you're not going to like me saying this

I don't mind being enlightened, David. What I found unhelpful the other week, apropos charcoal as an arsenic antidote, was your reeling off example after example after example without so much as a polite intro. This felt like having my head bashed against a wall, and it wasn't very pleasant, believe me. Anyway, that's water under the bridge now.

but someone once posted an example of "mayhem" being used in the modern sense from a U.S. newspaper from around the 1930s. didn't they?

I might have posted it myself, because I found a similar article from the USA. This was an account of an American Football game, ISTR - a very physical sport indeed, where mayhem in the sense of "physical" chaos (if I can put it that way) still makes sense, without stretching its meaning to refer to abstract confusion, which is the sense in which it appears in the diary. American examples notwitstanding, the fact remains that the British examples of this usage given in the OED date no earlier than the 1970s.

[David Orsam]

I don't mind being enlightened, David. What I found unhelpful the other week, apropos charcoal as an arsenic antidote, was your reeling off example after example after example without so much as a polite intro. This felt like having my head bashed against a wall, and it wasn't very pleasant, believe me. Anyway, that's water under the bridge now.

I can't believe that under the guise of saying "water under the bridge" you've raised this nonsense again. As you subsequently admitted, you didn't read my post properly the first time but it didn't stop you from having a childish hissy fit. I didn't bother replying in any detail to you at the time but there was a good reason for posting all the examples I did about the charcoal (which, as you would have seen, had you read them properly, all said slightly different things). It was nothing to do with bashing your head against a wall or anything like that. You just got totally the wrong end of the stick. I did draft a detailed response to your original post (not used) which I'll be happy to post now if you are in any doubt. Let me know. Otherwise I expect to flow under the bridge with the water.

[David Orsam]

I might have posted it myself, because I found a similar article from the USA. This was an account of an American Football game, ISTR - a very physical sport indeed, where mayhem in the sense of "physical" chaos (if I can put it that way) still makes sense, without stretching its meaning to refer to abstract confusion, which is the sense in which it appears in the diary. American examples notwitstanding, the fact remains that the British examples of this usage given in the OED date no earlier than the 1970s.

No, that wasn't it, Sam. It was an example posted by someone else which related to mayhem in a room involving a group of politicians. It had nothing to do with sport.

You may well be right about purely British examples but, as Maybrick lived for a time in the United States, that doesn't really help.

[Iconoclast]

Disputed. It is not an "unmistakable certainty". In one print of the photograph the supposed initials aren't even on the wall!

That one ('FM' on Kelly's wall) was always going to be a matter of opinion but if Maybrick were unmasked as Jack the Spratt McVitie tomorrow, the possibility would seem hugely less implausible.

This is, unfortunately, where your argument descends into pure nonsense.

That one (the names in the GSG) is far from nonesense. If Maybrick were unmasked as Jack the Spratt McVitie tomorrow, the possibility would seem hugely less implausible - and yet it would be the same GSG. There but for the grace of supporting evidence, I guess. Like the Earth revolving around the sun, or it not being flat, and all that. I am like a herald of the future. If only you could see it!

Anyway, of course I accept that Maybrick has not yet unequivocally been shown to be JtSMcV so it's all moot, but it didn't seem to put off Copernicus, Newton, Gallileo, and other great luminaries in their field such as I.

[Iconoclast]

I can't believe that under the guise of saying "water under the bridge" ...

I think we should drop it, but I can't resist noting that without Lord Orsam's extraordinarily-detailed reply (even by his encyclopaedic standards) to Sam's brief point, we would have been robbed of one of the funniest posts (Sam's reply) of the year.

We should have awards for these things. Call them the 'Orsams'. What does everyone think?

[David Orsam]

I think we should drop it, but I can't resist noting that without Lord Orsam's extraordinarily-detailed reply (even by his encyclopaedic standards) to Sam's brief point, we would have been robbed of one of the funniest posts (Sam's reply) of the year.

And, in turn, I can't resist responding that you are 50% correct. The first half of Sam's post was indeed funny and I was about to post a LOL myself, thinking it was a lighthearted reply. That was this:

"Why didn't you have T-shirts made with "Sam Flynn is a complete fvckwit" written on them in big letters?"

Amusing.

But then he got all serious and angry:

"One link would have done."

That wasn't even factually correct. One link (or one example) would almost certainly have resulted in me debating the point back and forth with Sam all evening.

[Sam Flynn]

One link (or one example) would almost certainly have resulted in me debating the point back and forth with Sam all evening.

No, it would not - a single good example would have sufficed, and a bit of human courtesy would not have gone amiss. I'm not a fool, and I found your impersonal, sledgehammer post wholly unnecessary and condescending - it's the kind of crap I expect from some of the more shrill members of this message board, but not you. I was made to look a right chump, and I was genuinely upset because of it.

Like I say, though, that was a couple of weeks ago, and is now water under the bridge.

[Sam Flynn]

No, that wasn't it, Sam. It was an example posted by someone else which related to mayhem in a room involving a group of politicians.

I don't recall seeing that one, so I'll seek it out.

You may well be right about purely British examples but, as Maybrick lived for a time in the United States, that doesn't really help.

I am right about the British examples in the OED, so there's no "may be" on that score, thankfully.

Maybrick's connection was with the 19th Century USA, so a 1930s American article about politicians isn't exactly convincing evidence that Maybrick would have been familiar with that sense of the word, or even could have been.