The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

fyi if anyone wants to really know the history of the phrase one off instance and how it proves the diary is a hoax (like if you actiually needed yet another fact that does that) all they need to do is google orsam books and click on articles.

the definitive answer to the maybrick nonsense(and many ripper related bull shite) will be found here.

I think you'll find that the only real stick Orsam wielded whilst screaming 'hoax' like a Braveheart banshee was his far from one-off insistence that "one off instance" was a concept Maybrick simply could not have had (or had to have been the first to have it by about 100 years). All of his other claims are essentially opinions, unproven.

Obviously, we now all know that the concept that Maybrick used in 1888 was formally in print (as "one-off standpoint") as soon after Maybrick's time as 1904. I think we can safely suggest that the 1904 use was not the first use of the concept (of a "one-off" situation rather than a "one-off" process) so there does not appear to be any issue at all with James Maybrick associating the principle of the "one-off" with a situation (instance, event, standpoint, et cetera) which is what he has been so vilified for doing.

Whenever an anti-Maybrick position is shot down, the anti-Maybricks tend to simply 'shut up' about it conveniently and move on to their next 'evidence' of a hoax. Let's just watch it in action!

Keep an eye out on the Society's Pillar thread - Maybrick's about to go back to the top of the Jack parade.

[Sam Flynn]

I did read of a man who dealt 'One off' the bottom of the deck.Only time he ever did so.His playing partner shot him.1865.Did Maybrick play cards?

The expression "one off" doesn't relate to dodgy card dealers, where being dealt a card from the bottom of a deck means you've been cheated.

[harry]

This is what I read on the internet.
'The problem is that there is not a single recorded use of the expression'One off' in the nineteenth century
Now the expression I use,dealing' One Off' the bottom of the deck,does relate to card cheats,and was an expression in use in the nineteenth century,as much as it is today.
Argue as much as you will,as I use the term,it was available.Whether it has a bearing on the Diary,I have no idea.

[Harry D]

I think you'll find that the only real stick Orsam wielded whilst screaming 'hoax' like a Braveheart banshee was his far from one-off insistence that "one off instance" was a concept Maybrick simply could not have had (or had to have been the first to have it by about 100 years). All of his other claims are essentially opinions, unproven.

Obviously, we now all know that the concept that Maybrick used in 1888 was formally in print (as "one-off standpoint") as soon after Maybrick's time as 1904. I think we can safely suggest that the 1904 use was not the first use of the concept (of a "one-off" situation rather than a "one-off" process) so there does not appear to be any issue at all with James Maybrick associating the principle of the "one-off" with a situation (instance, event, standpoint, et cetera) which is what he has been so vilified for doing.

Except the 1904 example does not use "one off" in the same context as the diarist. As Mr Orsam already highlighted, it is being used in a manufacturing sense, and not for someone's actions or behaviour. It's also enclosed in inverted commas, which would suggest the phrase was not particularly common at that time.

[Sam Flynn]

This is what I read on the internet.
'The problem is that there is not a single recorded use of the expression'One off' in the nineteenth century
Now the expression I use,dealing' One Off' the bottom of the deck,does relate to card cheats,and was an expression in use in the nineteenth century,as much as it is today.

But that's not "one off", but specifically "one off the bottom of the deck" - which means you've been slipped a card deliberately by the dealer, a totally different scenario to "one off" being used to refer to a unique thing or event.

[Iconoclast]

Except the 1904 example does not use "one off" in the same context as the diarist. As Mr Orsam already highlighted, it is being used in a manufacturing sense, and not for someone's actions or behaviour. It's also enclosed in inverted commas, which would suggest the phrase was not particularly common at that time.

"One-off standpoint" is unequivocally a 'position' (or 'event' or however you wish to describe it). You may argue that the 'standpoint' is regarding a "one-off" process, and I can see how that works, but it is also a juxtaposition of the process term "one-off" with an event term which is exactly what "one off instance" is. We are told that that wasn't possible in 1888 and yet it happened in 1904, regardless of how you interpret the intent of the author of it. Doesn't seem such a great leap of faith anymore when the gap shrinks so greatly down to about 15 or 16 years.

And that's even assuming that "one off instance" was intended as "one-off instance"!

[Iconoclast]

no Einstein its not-one is doing it on purpose but dosnt really believe what they are saying and the other truly believes but is wrong.
they are mutually exclusive.

for all your vain glorious back patting youre not really that smart are you?

Gosh, I missed that one!

You know, I think you've cut right through to the core of the argument there and nailed me. I really am not that smart at all!

[Iconoclast]

no Einstein its not-one is doing it on purpose but dosnt really believe what they are saying and the other truly believes but is wrong.
they are mutually exclusive.

for all your vain glorious back patting youre not really that smart are you?

Oh - just in case anyone was wondering who was confused here, it was Abby Normal.

A 'false dichotomy' is where you offer someone only two options, neither one of which may be the correct or appropriate one. They can be as mutually exclusive as you want, but they've got to at least include all of the possible options otherwise you're creating a limited-choice. When you only offer two such choices, they become a false dichotomy.

Turns out I am that smart after all - such a relief!

[Iconoclast]

and im sure there is even more times when someone just thought of those phrases. good grief.

And - if they just thought of those phrases - does that not simply go to the argument that those phrases were possible to think? And - if they were possible to think - does that not go to the possibility that they were written down occasionally? Good grief.

[Abby Normal]

Oh - just in case anyone was wondering who was confused here, it was Abby Normal.

A 'false dichotomy' is where you offer someone only two options, neither one of which may be the correct or appropriate one. They can be as mutually exclusive as you want, but they've got to at least include all of the possible options otherwise you're creating a limited-choice. When you only offer two such choices, they become a false dichotomy.

Turns out I am that smart after all - such a relief!

no because your apparently the second of the two options---deluded.

and since you apparently do believe the diary is authentic then i actually feel sorry for you.

but at least your not a troll.

[Harry D]

"One-off standpoint" is unequivocally a 'position' (or 'event' or however you wish to describe it). You may argue that the 'standpoint' is regarding a "one-off" process, and I can see how that works, but it is also a juxtaposition of the process term "one-off" with an event term which is exactly what "one off instance" is. We are told that that wasn't possible in 1888 and yet it happened in 1904, regardless of how you interpret the intent of the author of it. Doesn't seem such a great leap of faith anymore when the gap shrinks so greatly down to about 15 or 16 years.

And that's even assuming that "one off instance" was intended as "one-off instance"!

But again, the context of the "one-off standpoint" was from a manufacturing/design point of view, and there's no proof they were referring to a "unique" event. Mr Orsam has already addressed all of this. It does nothing to validate the claim that "one off instance" was a nineteenth century term.

[c.d.]

Oh Lord, I knew I would regret getting involved in this discussion. Now if Maybrick stated that he wrote the diary to impress Jodi Foster (I think the Americans will get that reference) then I would absolutely conclude that it is fake. However, I am not aware of millions of undercover grammar police that secretly listen and record every conversation (much like Santa's elves) and list first instances of expressions being used. How many books, magazines and publications have been reviewed to reach a conclusion on this? And why does it have to be Maybrick that originated the phrase? He didn't live in a bubble but had an extensive social life and rubbed elbows with a lot of people in the cotton industry. Could he have simply picked it up from them? I have used expressions I got from my friends and vice versa so it needn't be the case that this was solely a Maybrick invention. If you want to argue that the scarcity of this expression casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the diary I have no problem with that. I just think the whole smoking gun conclusion is unwarranted.

And to Ike -- I am trying to keep an open mind on this so much so that I will probably order the book from amazon. You are right that I lean towards the diary being a fake. The provenance seems awfully shaky to me. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em and just don't buy the smoking gun argument.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

And to Ike -- I am trying to keep an open mind on this so much so that I will probably order the book from amazon. You are right that I lean towards the diary being a fake. The provenance seems awfully shaky to me. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em and just don't buy the smoking gun argument.

c.d.

This could be the start of a great relationship, c.d. (although there is a Mrs Iconoclast so don't get your hopes up too much).

Which book are you thinking of ordering from Amazon (I may want to get it too)?

Rootin' Tootin' Six-Gun Ike

[tanta07]

I suppose the diary being a hoax is the most likely answer; it is the simplest explanation, after all. However, if the diary was created by a hoaxer, I've had some nagging questions that I can't resolve:

- If you're going to pick a subject as your fake Ripper, why choose Maybrick? The innocuous Liverpool cotton merchant seems about as unlikely a Ripper suspect as you can come across. Why not choose a far sexier subject like Chapman or Druitt or Tumblety, or hell, just about ANYONE else?

- Once you've decided on framing up Maybrick for your fake Ripper, how on earth did they manage to place the Liverpool cotton merchant in London at the times when the real guy really was in London? It seems like the hoaxer would have had to know an awful lot about this innocuous fella who didn't actually live in London. Who would even have access to the comings and goings of Maybrick during the Autumn of Terror?

While the diary being a hoax is the simpler and more obvious solution, it becomes a lot less simple when you consider all of the homework that would have had to gone into it. It seems like a suspect with relatively little known about him, like a Kosminski, would have made a better subject, since you could have written just about anything about him and no one would be the wiser.

[c.d.]

This could be the start of a great relationship, c.d. (although there is a Mrs Iconoclast so don't get your hopes up too much).

Which book are you thinking of ordering from Amazon (I may want to get it too)?

Rootin' Tootin' Six-Gun Ike

https://www.amazon.com/Diary-Jack-Ripper-Chilling-Confessions-ebook/dp/B009RRZNZE/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=james+maybrick&qid=1564852440&s=gateway&sr=8-1

That is the one that I want to read, right?

I also read and enjoyed the book on the trial of Florence Maybrick "Did She Kill Him?

c.d.

P.S. As for the start of a relationship, my hopes weren't up real high to begin with so no problem.