The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.