Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Ven]

two examples, 3 spelling mistakes... all leads to lexicon conversion...and if a 1600AD example...many, many yaers to convert! (let's see how long it takes for "yaers" to take of (off)

[Yabs]

I’ve always felt uncomfortable that Maybrick writes his thinking process during the composition of his poems and the poems at the same time.
It comes across as an affectation for dramatic effect, not someone wanting to impress with his prose.
You wouldn’t want a valentines card from Maybrick.


Roses are red

Bellflowers are blue

Violets are blue.


Think dam it!


Violets are blue

My last name ends with M

curses!!

My last name starts with M


I shall find a word that rhymes with blue damn you!

Do you love me too?

Love James

X

[Iconoclast]

I’ve always felt uncomfortable that Maybrick writes his thinking process during the composition of his poems and the poems at the same time.
It comes across as an affectation for dramatic effect, not someone wanting to impress with his prose.
You wouldn’t want a valentines card from Maybrick.


Roses are red

Bellflowers are blue

Violets are blue.


Think dam it!


Violets are blue

My last name ends with M

curses!!

My last name starts with M


I shall find a word that rhymes with blue damn you!

Do you love me too?

Love James

X

I think your incredulity is not quite enough to swing the argument against Maybrick, I'm afraid, Yabs. It's not exactly what we sometimes like to call 'evidence', in all honesty.

Cheers,

Ike

[Yabs]

Hi Icke.

I totally agree my friend, it’s just one of the many things that I feel seem a little odd.
Along with the diary’s constant use of the words Today, tomorrow, Yesterday, instead of naming a day or a date, the latter being the more natural thing to do.


So yes, far from proof and I never for one moment thought of it as such.
It’s just one of the many things that lead me to view the scrapbook with suspicion.

All the best

[Iconoclast]

Hi Icke.

I totally agree my friend, it’s just one of the many things that I feel seem a little odd.
Along with the diary’s constant use of the words Today, tomorrow, Yesterday, instead of naming a day or a date, the latter being the more natural thing to do.


So yes, far from proof and I never for one moment thought of it as such.
It’s just one of the many things that lead me to view the scrapbook with suspicion.

All the best

Personally, I can't imagine writing about yesterday, today, or tomorrow without using those rather convenient terms. When writing to myself (as Maybrick was to himself) why would I need to offer any greater precision than that? I use those words all the time in my own very occasional diary or in emails, etc.. On the other hand, when I'm referring to a date outside of that very tight window, I will happily use a date format to aid clarity for the reader who is most likely (in the case of my diary) to be myself. I cannot eek any drama or suspicion out of that rather natural and thoroughly mundane aspect of human communication.

Could any of our readers offer an insight into the thorny problem of referring to yesterday, today, or tomorrow without using those specific terms? Clearly James Maybrick (or our erstwhile hoaxer) failed miserably and had to resort to using the most perfect words possible for each occasion (however many hours forward or backward he was reflecting upon). I'm struggling, Yabs. I need help here to understand how "I went to the pub and got totally smashed yesterday" (my diary, not James', obviously) would reveal to the reader that I didn't, but how "I went to the pub on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 and got totally smashed. By the way, that's the day that passed before the day I'm currently in." would support the notion that I had.

I have often thought that being a Newcastle United fan made me a perfect foil for Maybrick's sentiments, incidentally. No, I'm not suggesting that we're all a bunch of secretive, murdering animals, but simply that sometimes I really do feel like burning St. James' to the ground. Ha ha.

Ike (no 'c')

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Ironically Ike, your post is currently showing as being posted "today".
However, when that is no longer the most relevant term, I'm sure Casebook will date it accordingly.

[Iconoclast]

Ironically Ike, your post is currently showing as being posted "today".
However, when that is no longer the most relevant term, I'm sure Casebook will date it accordingly.

Good point, Abe!

[Yabs]

Of course those are natural terms to use.

But to bother to write a journal of your movements and only use those terms, and not include one date or even name which day of the week it is at any point, is very odd.

[Iconoclast]

Of course those are natural terms to use.

But to bother to write a journal of your movements and only use those terms, and not include one date or even name which day of the week it is at any point, is very odd.

Yabs, this is a 'hoaxer' who was able to spell 'sceptick' correctly in the context of 1888. He or she did the hard yards of research. I don't think he or she would have had a moment's hesitation in using some days of the weeks or actual dates, especially where these were well-established. You probably feel that I am over-reacting here, but you need to realise that we get far too much irrational (lazy?) 'reasoning' on the Casebook, and - like irrationality all the world over - it is frighteningly-compelling to those who like to repeat such stuff not long later as known facts.

You need to be careful how your mind moves from A to C - especially if it has to go through B and B is an unknown, unmapped town in the backwaters.

Cheers,

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

I recently stumbled across something that I found quite funny, it concerned Vincent Burke, the local crime writer and historian, who had a great interest in the Maybrick poisoning case. It was in a summary of the case by him that I noticed the fact that he mentions the "Poste House" being one of James's favourite haunts in which to meet his friends, in fact, he even includes footage of the pub in question, which we all now know didn't exist by that name in the 1880s, being that it was known as the Muck Midden until at least 1894.

Now, I've heard so much nonsense from people in this forum that "Maybrick" was more than likely referring to another pub by that name, which after some searching, I've not been able to find any such evidence for, and it seems Shirley Harrison also had this problem despite "hours of trawling." Caz likes to make a funny claim about another pub going by that name, according to some random bloke she met in there one time. Of course, Caz also reckons that the Maybrick case is practically unheard of in this city, which is obviously hilariously false, as I've mentioned before.

There is no doubting that the pub spoken of in the "diary" is the Poste House in Cumberland street. So, did Vincent Burke not know this? He was a local man. Was he merely referring to the fact that the pub known as the Poste House was once the pub frequented by James? Where did this information regarding James drinking there ever even come from?

Where is the information regarding where James did or did not "take refreshment"?

Vincent was a speaker at the "Trial of..." at the cricket club, so he wasn't a stranger to the diary. Which came first, then? I believe Vincent bases his information regarding James' favourite watering hole merely on the diary's mention of it. I don't recall there being any actual, supported information regarding where James drank. The fact that the pub was situated close to his offices, so he must have drank there, doesn't wash with me, as there where a lot of pubs situated near his offices.

I still believe that the Poste House is basically mentioned in the diary merely because it's a very-well known old pub in this city with links to such people as Charles Dickens. The information regarding its former names are not as easy to dig up, hence why the diarist makes the mistake of mentioning the incorrect name of the Poste House to begin with.

Of course, you can ignore all of that and just hope really, really hard that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and you can live out the fantasy that every pub under the sun was known as the Poste House, and that nobody in Liverpool has ever heard of the Maybricks, despite the obvious evidence going against both of those suggestions.

Food for thought.



Hope you're all washing your hands!

[Iconoclast]

Of course, you can ignore all of that and just hope really, really hard that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and you can live out the fantasy that every pub under the sun was known as the Poste House, and that nobody in Liverpool has ever heard of the Maybricks, despite the obvious evidence going against both of those suggestions.

You seem to be the only person on this site who does not understand that not only is every pub under the sun NOT known as the Poste House, but that any building which collected post to be picked-up by the frequent post carriages of the 1800s was referred to as a 'post house'. This was true whether they were public houses or not.

The fact that Maybrick spelt the one he was in as 'Poste House' is beyond everyone else's control, but not categorical evidence that he did not write the scrapbook.

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

You seem to be the only person on this site who does not understand that not only is every pub under the sun NOT known as the Poste House, but that any building which collected post to be picked-up by the frequent post carriages of the 1800s was referred to as a 'post house'. This was true whether they were public houses or not.

The fact that Maybrick spelt the one he was in as 'Poste House' is beyond everyone else's control, but not categorical evidence that he did not write the scrapbook.

Ike

Ah yes, Ike, because post offices were often sourced by keen drinkers, privy to the secret knowledge that they served ale for one's refreshment! lol.

Ike, the clue is in the fact that Maybrick supposedly "took refreshment" there. The fact that you laughably have to invent a story about the writer actually meaning to claim Sir Jim was sitting in a post office having a glass of beer in a fruitless attempt to try and quash the fact that the writer actually made a staggering, factual error, is nothing short of embarrassing, but whatever keeps this dream alive for you, mate.

"Poste House." That, right there, is your dead giveaway, mate.

A pub that didn't exist by that name until 5 years after Sir Jim had bitten the dust. A pub that is now touted, wrongly, by all and sundry, as being frequented by James Maybrick. Shirley Harrison didn't think the writer was actually discussing a local post office, nor did Vincent Burke, or anyone else, for that matter... Besides you

[Iconoclast]

Ah yes, Ike, because post offices were often sourced by keen drinkers, privy to the secret knowledge that they served ale for one's refreshment! lol.

Ike, the clue is in the fact that Maybrick supposedly "took refreshment" there. The fact that you laughably have to invent a story about the writer actually meaning to claim Sir Jim was sitting in a post office having a glass of beer in a fruitless attempt to try and quash the fact that the writer actually made a staggering, factual error, is nothing short of embarrassing, but whatever keeps this dream alive for you, mate.

"Poste House." That, right there, is your dead giveaway, mate.

A pub that didn't exist by that name until 5 years after Sir Jim had bitten the dust. A pub that is now touted, wrongly, by all and sundry, as being frequented by James Maybrick. Shirley Harrison didn't think the writer was actually discussing a local post office, nor did Vincent Burke, or anyone else, for that matter... Besides you

'Post house' = building which collects post prior to collection. May be a pub. May not. If not a pub, probably no-one drinking there. For the record, I believe that most were indeed pubs which also provided accommodation for travellers such as those collecting the post.

This is so simple to understand that I have to assume that you are attempting some foolish wind-up when you persistently - 2018, now 2020 - keep making a 'joke' of something which is simply an established part of Victorian enterprise.

Your belief that the scrapbook is a hoax determines your position and your arguments in the self-same way mine (and others') do. End of. Nothing special about my position, and citing hoaxers as proof that hoaxes have occurred is rather like arguing that when the ball crosses the line it's always a goal.

By the way, it's been ages since I last reviewed this stuff but I'm sure the Wrexham House in 1882, known colloquially as the 'Much Midden' around 1888, became something like The Post Office Tavern or The Post Office Restaurant by the end of the century. It was only in the 1960s that it became the Poste House.

[caz]

I still believe that the Poste House is basically mentioned in the diary merely because it's a very-well known old pub in this city with links to such people as Charles Dickens. The information regarding its former names are not as easy to dig up, hence why the diarist makes the mistake of mentioning the incorrect name of the Poste House to begin with...

Really? Easy as falling off a log, Mike. Try the directories I consulted many moons ago in the Liverpool library. Pretend you are a hoaxer who wants his diarist to take refreshment in a pub near Whitechapel in the heart of Liverpool in the year 1888. You'd like to pick the tiny Poste House in Cumberland Street but you are not certain if it was called that in 1888. So you pop to Liverpool Library and simply scroll down the list of publicans in the relevant 1888 directory, but what's this? No sign of your Poste House. Without digging out my notes, I believe Ike is correct that it was then the Wrexham House. You'd need the directory for 1894 to learn that your chosen pub, also known as the Muck Midden, had been renamed The New Post Office Hotel, as a nod to Liverpool's new main post office in Victoria Street. You won't find your dear little Poste House listed in any directory in the 19th century, but you would find what the same pub at the same address was called in 1888. So you'd be off your nut to carry on regardless and call it the Poste House in your fake diary, wouldn't you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Really? Easy as falling off a log, Mike. Try the directories I consulted many moons ago in the Liverpool library. Pretend you are a hoaxer who wants his diarist to take refreshment in a pub near Whitechapel in the heart of Liverpool in the year 1888. You'd like to pick the tiny Poste House in Cumberland Street but you are not certain if it was called that in 1888. So you pop to Liverpool Library and simply scroll down the list of publicans in the relevant 1888 directory, but what's this? No sign of your Poste House. Without digging out my notes, I believe Ike is correct that it was then the Wrexham House. You'd need the directory for 1894 to learn that your chosen pub, also known as the Muck Midden, had been renamed The New Post Office Hotel, as a nod to Liverpool's new main post office in Victoria Street. You won't find your dear little Poste House listed in any directory in the 19th century, but you would find what the same pub at the same address was called in 1888. So you'd be off your nut to carry on regardless and call it the Poste House in your fake diary, wouldn't you?

Love,

Caz
X

exactly. which shows it wasnt written at the time and that the hoaxer wasnt very good.