Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

google ngrams

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Speaking of which, if anyone happens to have a copy of HO 144/1638 A50678D/6 feel free to post it.

    I'd like to check the validity of Anne Graham's claim that 'whoring mother' is a reference to Maybrick learning that Florrie had suffered a miscarriage around September 1888. She cites the above document as her source.

    Feldman's only possible allusion to this event dates it to eight months later---May 1889--and it is hard to believe that Feldy wouldn't have milked it to the max, if what Graham claims is true. One of the earliest criticisms of the diary was that the references to Florrie's 1888 affair is an anachronism, so it's odd that Feldman wouldn't have commented on this important document.


    https://www.orsam.co.uk/diarydeepdive.htm

    and here:

    https://www.orsam.co.uk/theyalllovebruce.htm​​​​​​​




    The Baron
    Last edited by The Baron; 10-09-2021, 07:26 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
      whoring mother


      According to google ngrams this phrase starts to appear since 1939


      In this faked diary alone, it appears 12 Times!





      The Baron


      I still can't find anything before 1942!

      12 Times! Astonishing!




      The Baron

      Comment


      • Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



          https://www.orsam.co.uk/diarydeepdive.htm

          and here:

          https://www.orsam.co.uk/theyalllovebruce.htm​​​​​​​




          The Baron

          Thanks, Baron, but I'm not seeing (and don't remember) either of those two articles discussing the timing of Florrie's miscarriage, though I don't doubt that if anyone has the HO document it would be either Lord Orsam or Keith Skinner.

          I'm just wondering if Anne Graham gave a faithful rendition of the reference to Dr. Humphrey in the HO files, since no one else dates this alleged miscarriage to Sept. 1888.

          Then again, AG seems to have an eye for detail. Until Lord O came along, she's the only historian of the case who correctly referred to the Countess C as Florrie's godmother. I imagine the error in the diary jumped out at her when she started doing more intricate research for Feldman, though, interestingly enough, she makes no mention of this contradiction in her book, despite her use of the diary as a primary source. She must have noticed it, but apparently wasn't too keen on mentioning it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

            If you're expecting me to wade through the mud of 10,000+ posts on the subject to find those specific instances, you might be waiting some time for that one!

            I'm pretty confident who would've said it, though
            I wasn't expecting you to do any such thing, Harry.

            That was my point. You made a claim, which I was pretty confident you would be unable or unwilling to substantiate.

            At least you admitted it!

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              PS A large prize awaits the first person to make a saucy joke out of 'Freshly Picked Vegetable Loving Ike'. I can just hear Caz's cogs a-whirring as I type. At least, I hope it's her cogs I can hear a-whirring my way ...
              A freshly picked vegetable lover called Ike,
              Returned from his allotment by bike,
              Through streets broad and narrow,
              With two sprouts and a marrow,
              Just what the missus would like.

              Love,

              Caz
              X



              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


                Thanks, Baron, but I'm not seeing (and don't remember) either of those two articles discussing the timing of Florrie's miscarriage, though I don't doubt that if anyone has the HO document it would be either Lord Orsam or Keith Skinner.

                I'm just wondering if Anne Graham gave a faithful rendition of the reference to Dr. Humphrey in the HO files, since no one else dates this alleged miscarriage to Sept. 1888.

                Then again, AG seems to have an eye for detail. Until Lord O came along, she's the only historian of the case who correctly referred to the Countess C as Florrie's godmother. I imagine the error in the diary jumped out at her when she started doing more intricate research for Feldman, though, interestingly enough, she makes no mention of this contradiction in her book, despite her use of the diary as a primary source. She must have noticed it, but apparently wasn't too keen on mentioning it.



                Hi RJ,


                The document in question (144/1638/A50678D/6) is nothing more than Dr. Stevenson giving his address and declaring that he has nothing to withdraw from his evidence.

                The source of Graham's claim is unknown.

                The rest of this topic you will get from the lion's mouth soon.




                The Baron

                Comment


                • Thanks, Baron. I'll look for it.

                  For future reference, here's the passage from Graham's book (p. 64), and the endnote claiming her source as the above mentioned Home Office File (p. 298). She even quotes Mudbrick as saying "It could not possibly be mine."

                  Clearly, she's trying to imply that Florrie's miscarriage and this resulting conversation took place prior to 29 September 1888, which strikes me as having the decided odor of malarkey.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	whoring mother.JPG
Views:	91
Size:	26.0 KB
ID:	770588
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	whoring mother note.JPG
Views:	105
Size:	20.8 KB
ID:	770589





                  Comment


                  • In an affidavit dated 16 August 1889, (HO/144/1638/A50678) after Florence's trial, Alfred Brierley gave evidence as follows:

                    'I first met Mrs Maybrick at her own house at dinner about two years ago. I met her in company once or twice between that occasion and November 1888. In that month I went to a dance at her house. I subsequently met her at various dances and became on intimate terms with her, and her husband. Mr Maybrick was at home on each occasion on which I visited or called at the house...I never was improperly intimate with her until our meeting in London on 22nd March last.' Brierley added, 'I verily believe that was the only occasion on which Mrs Maybrick was unfaithful to her husband.'


                    The hoaxer may have built upon an unfaithful occasion in spring 1888, but still there is no source for the quote: "it could not possibly be mine"


                    Well spotted there RJ!



                    The Baron
                    Last edited by The Baron; 10-12-2021, 12:31 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Perhaps Lord O should contact Anne and ask her who the other 'whoremaster' in her husband's fake diary is meant to have been. There are clearly two, at least in the mind of the creator of Sir Jim.

                      But usually, it's not all that useful to rely on a husband or lover to know how many - or indeed how few - men the wife in the case might have dallied with. I would expect Anne to know that much, as someone of the female persuasion herself.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post




                        Hi RJ,


                        The document in question (144/1638/A50678D/6) is nothing more than Dr. Stevenson giving his address and declaring that he has nothing to withdraw from his evidence.

                        The source of Graham's claim is unknown.

                        The rest of this topic you will get from the lion's mouth soon.




                        The Baron
                        If you get pregnant, Baron, we'll all know who the father is: Lenny the Lion.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                          In an affidavit dated 16 August 1889, (HO/144/1638/A50678) after Florence's trial, Alfred Brierley gave evidence as follows:

                          'I first met Mrs Maybrick at her own house at dinner about two years ago. I met her in company once or twice between that occasion and November 1888. In that month I went to a dance at her house. I subsequently met her at various dances and became on intimate terms with her, and her husband. Mr Maybrick was at home on each occasion on which I visited or called at the house...I never was improperly intimate with her until our meeting in London on 22nd March last.' Brierley added, 'I verily believe that was the only occasion on which Mrs Maybrick was unfaithful to her husband.'


                          The hoaxer may have built upon an unfaithful occasion in spring 1888, but still there is no source for the quote: "it could not possibly be mine"


                          Well spotted there RJ!



                          The Baron
                          What's up with the fancy font? Is this what love does to a Baron born?
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            If you get pregnant, Baron, we'll all know who the father is: Lenny the Lion.


                            You talk too much Caz, and like the "her nose annoyed me" your comments are shallow and fruitless.

                            If you know the source of Graham's statement then it will be better to bring it, if not then try to look for it, if not, then keep yourself busy in something else!



                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Hey diary defenders?!

                              Couldn't any of you find an example of "whoring mother" being used in the 19th Century?!

                              Before, you know, we will add this phrase to the long long long long list that proves this 'diary' is a modern hoax?!

                              This phrase has been used 12 times in your beloved diary!

                              I haven't thought it will be so difficult for you this time, again!





                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                                Hey diary defenders?!

                                Couldn't any of you find an example of "whoring mother" being used in the 19th Century?!

                                Before, you know, we will add this phrase to the long long long long list that proves this 'diary' is a modern hoax?!

                                This phrase has been used 12 times in your beloved diary!

                                I haven't thought it will be so difficult for you this time, again!





                                The Baron
                                I think you're addressing this to ero b and me so let me be the first to congratulate you and your diary detractors in proving so categorically that the scrapbook is a cheap and shabby hoax knocked-up by Mike Barrett one wet weekend when he was thirteen.

                                He was probably so angry that the concept of freshly-picked carrots had been invented by Google Ngrams in 1947 and that he was therefore being force-fed them by his mother that he decided to take his revenge on us all (erm, both).
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X