New Book: The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper

[milchmanuk]

oh
Christopher J.M. Jones wrote about a "Hill family " in Hazelwood School.
i went to a wedding reception at Oxted by same name is this one & the same school ?

[Iconoclast]

Ok Ike, I disagree but that’s life and no problem at all. As you know, I don’t follow diary matters but I’m considering getting the new book when it surfaces. A return to Diaryland is a worrying prospect.

It has been suggested to me privately that I might well have - in the interests of balance - recommended that our old pal Herlock absorb the trenchant views of Melvin Harris as he, apparently, has three chapters on the diary in his True Face Of JtR.

I do think that's a great idea, but I can't recommend he does directly as - and here I show my own healthy ignorance of the case - I don't posses it and I've never read it.



Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has been suggested to me privately that I might well have - in the interests of balance - recommended that our old pal Herlock absorb the trenchant views of Melvin Harris as he, apparently, has three chapters on the diary in his True Face Of JtR.

I do think that's a great idea, but I can't recommend he does directly as - and here I show my own healthy ignorance of the case - I don't posses it and I've never read it.



Cheers,

Ike

I’ve got the book Ike,

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

No commentary on Chris Jones referring to the Battlecrease/Eddie Lyons provenance as a "load of rubbish"?

He's not wrong.

[rjpalmer]

It has been suggested to me privately that I might well have - in the interests of balance - recommended that our old pal Herlock absorb the trenchant views of Melvin Harris as he, apparently, has three chapters on the diary in his True Face Of JtR.

Many thanks to your correspondent, Ike, but it is a rather odd suggestion, isn't it?

Although Melvin's writings on the Maybrick Hoax are well worth reading, none of the appendices in Melvin's book deal with anachronisms in the diary, which is what Herlock was referencing. I fear that you've sent him on a bit of a goose chase.

Herlock might be better off chasing down David Barrat's articles or revisiting the appropriate threads on this website if he's interested in anachronisms.

With all good wishes.

PS. I'll only add that any English speaker in the UK or Ireland in 1992 would readily recognize the phrases "one off instance" and "bumbling buffoon." Since there is no evidence of the Diary existing before 1992, why should a reader reject the obvious and instead settle for some convoluted maybricksplaining about unruly colts or minor characters from Charles Dickens?

Have you exposed yourself to the accusation that you are urging people to ignore the obvious to grasp instead at the wildly improbable or, in some cases, the nearly incomprehensible?

By the way, seeing that Anne and Mike's typescript seemed to contain confusion over the difference between "instant" and "instance" it might be worthwhile to satisfy the whims of us amateurs by letting us know how they rendered this particular phrase when re-writing (or pre-writing?) the diary on the Amstrad 8526. Minor curiosity, only--that is, if you're allowed to give aid and comfort to your perceived enemies.

All the best.

[MrBarnett]

Many thanks to your correspondent, Ike, but it is a rather odd suggestion, isn't it?

Although Melvin's writings on the Maybrick Hoax are well worth reading, none of the appendices in Melvin's book deal with anachronisms in the diary, which is what Herlock was referencing. I fear that you've sent him on a bit of a goose chase.

Herlock might be better off chasing down David Barrat's articles or revisiting the appropriate threads on this website if he's interested in anachronisms.

With all good wishes.

PS. I'll only add that any English speaker in the UK or Ireland in 1992 would readily recognize the phrases "one off instance" and "bumbling buffoon." Since there is no evidence of the Diary existing before 1992, why should a reader reject the obvious and instead settle for some convoluted maybricksplaining about unruly colts or minor characters from Charles Dickens?

Have you exposed yourself to the accusation that you are urging people to ignore the obvious to grasp instead at the wildly improbable or, in some cases, the nearly incomprehensible?

By the way, seeing that Anne and Mike's typescript seemed to contain confusion over the difference between "instant" and "instance" it might be worthwhile to satisfy the whims of us amateurs by letting us know how they rendered this particular phrase when re-writing (or pre-writing?) the diary on the Amstrad 8526. Minor curiosity, only--that is, if you're allowed to give aid and comfort to your perceived enemies.

All the best.

Hi RJ,

‘Maybricksplaining’? What a witty verbal creation! But aren’t you applying it to the wrong people? Surely, your pal Orsam is the ultimate ‘Maybricksplainer’.

Perhaps, as his representative on earth, you can ‘Maybricksplain’ to us mere mortals why Lord O never mentions the 19th century equestrian usage of ‘one off’ in his definitive tract on the subject.

Ignorance? Deliberate deception? Concern that such complex detail might overwhelm the shallow intellectual vessels of his readers?

Rather than just respond with your trademark sarky verbiage, perhaps you can ask your chum for a response and provide us with a concise quote from the horse’s mouth (or more likely the other end of his alimentary canal).

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Wasn’t there a time when ‘topping’ oneself was thought to have been a creation of the script writers of The Sweeney in the 1970s? If someone hadn’t found an example from a century earlier, wouldn’t that still be held up alongside ‘one-off’ as proof that the diary was a modern fake?

[MrBarnett]

The idea of a notable or unique individual or event being compared to a single manufactured item produced from a mould which is then broken goes back centuries.

The tradition of describing a single item produced from a mould as a ‘one-off’ almost certainly dates from the 19th century. Anyone who imagines they can precisely date occupational jargon from its earliest appearance in print is either a fool or a charlatan.

And those who try to bullishly push such nonsense to promote their version of reality are guilty of the worst kind of ‘splaining’. Their ‘useful idiot’ acolytes, though, should be pitied as victims of Copenhagen syndrome.

[MrBarnett]

I really want to know why his Lord Almightyship was silent about this kind of thing from (from 1864).

His reputation as a competent researcher and a trustworthy analyst hangs in the balance.

[MrBarnett]

I hate to keep banging on about this (not really) but why didn’t Orsam refer to the livestock ‘one-off’ usage Maybrick would have been familiar with?

My guess is that his Googling was inadequate.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQxD4Ff7dY

[rjpalmer]

perhaps you can ask your chum for a response and provide us with a concise quote from the horse’s mouth (or more likely the other end of his alimentary canal).

Gary

Well, you seem to have found your boxing gloves again, Gary, after a long hiatus following your recent bout on JTR Forums. I can see you're itching for another timewasting fight.

Unfortunately, I have no immediately plans to be your postman, so you'll have to email David Barrat if you wish a response; my understanding is that he cannot be quoted on this site anyway.

Speaking for myself only, I'm afraid that I find your 'equestrian' defense of the Mabyrick Hoax strange and not a little desperate.

Why would anyone mention an obscure 'equestrian' term that that does not fit the context of the passage, and certainly not without an enormous amount of straining?

But let me see if I understand you.

'Maybrick'--in the same passage that also uses the anachronism 'bumbling buffoon' and references a phrase that was not known to have been used by Dr. Hopper until the inquest into Maybrick's own death several months later--while also describing events that never actually happened (is this the four strikes and you're out rule?) recounts how he struck his wife.

Florrie begs him not to do it again---a key point, if we are to fully understand the context.

'Maybrick' agrees not to do it again, assuring her it was a "one off instance."

It is as clear as a bell what the hoaxer meant by this and it had sod-all to do with horses.

Indeed, anyone reading this document-from-nowhere in 1992 would immediately recognize the phrase a "one off instance" because it was in wide circulation in 1992.




But, if I understand you correctly, you instead believe that "Maybrick" (in handwriting that is not his own) meant that striking Florrie was a "one-year-old horse instance"? That he is, for some reason, referencing this obscure equestrian term within his promise not to do it again and his assurance that it was a one-time thing?

Do I have that right? Does that make any sense? If so, how do you propose to equate this usage with Florrie asking him not to do it again, and Maybrick saying that he won't do it again?

Is there a single example of anyone in the 19th Century using this equestrian term in this way?

Sorry, Gary, but I really find your suggestion here entirely unconvincing. I found it unconvincing two years ago and I still do. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I believe it is an anachronism and the diary's unbonded ink and the reference to a police inventory list not published until 1987 justifies that belief.

And for future reference: there's three things I don't care to argue with you about, Gary: East End butchers, Boris Johnson, and Lord Orsam.

Lechmere is fine by me.

Okay, back to the baseball game.

[MrBarnett]

Well, you seem to have found your boxing gloves again, Gary, after a long hiatus following your recent bout on JTR Forums. I can see you're itching for another timewasting fight.

Unfortunately, I have no immediately plans to be your postman, so you'll have to email David Barrat if you wish a response; my understanding is that he cannot be quoted on this site anyway.

Speaking for myself only, I'm afraid that I find your 'equestrian' defense of the Mabyrick Hoax strange and not a little desperate.

Why would anyone mention an obscure 'equestrian' term that that does not fit the context of the passage, and certainly not without an enormous amount of straining?

But let me see if I understand you.

'Maybrick'--in the same passage that also uses the anachronism 'bumbling buffoon' and references a phrase that was not known to have been used by Dr. Hopper until the inquest into Maybrick's own death several months later--while also describing events that never actually happened (is this the four strikes and you're out rule?) recounts how he struck his wife.

Florrie begs him not to do it again---a key point, if we are to fully understand the context.

'Maybrick' agrees not to do it again, assuring her it was a "one off instance."

It is as clear as a bell what the hoaxer meant by this and it had sod-all to do with horses.

Indeed, anyone reading this document-from-nowhere in 1992 would immediately recognize the phrase a "one off instance" because it was in wide circulation in 1992.




But, if I understand you correctly, you instead believe that "Maybrick" (in handwriting that is not his own) meant that striking Florrie was a "one-year-old horse instance"? That he is, for some reason, referencing this obscure equestrian term within his promise not to do it again and his assurance that it was a one-time thing?

Do I have that right? Does that make any sense? If so, how do you propose to equate this usage with Florrie asking him not to do it again, and Maybrick saying that he won't do it again?

Is there a single example of anyone in the 19th Century using this equestrian term in this way?

Sorry, Gary, but I really find your suggestion here entirely unconvincing. I found it unconvincing two years ago and I still do. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I believe it is an anachronism and the diary's unbonded ink and the reference to a police inventory list not published until 1987 justifies that belief.

And for future reference: there's three things I don't care to argue with you about, Gary: East End butchers, Boris Johnson, and Lord Orsam.

Lechmere is fine by me.

Okay, back to the baseball game.

Sorry, RJ, I must have misinterpreted your complete indifference to Lord O as crawly bumlick obeisance. How on Earth did I get that so wrong?

East end butchers? I don’t believe I’ve ever met such an individual. You’re not getting butchers confused with knackers are you? As for BoJo, I’m assuming you slipped him in to add to your woke credentials. Nice one.

I’d forgotten that your bessie mate is (perfectly understandably) persona non grata here, so a direct quote is presumably unacceptable, but you’re always referencing him, so give us your take on why he has been silent on the horsey ‘one-off’.

[MrBarnett]

When someone speaks of ‘obscure’ terminology that often appeared in mid-Victorian advertisements in connection with sales of livestock, you really have to question their bias.

If I had a mate who’d got things so wrong, I’d give him stick. But then I don’t have any mates I look upon as gods.

[rjpalmer]

Sorry, RJ, I must have misinterpreted your complete indifference to Lord O as crawly bumlick obeisance.

You really seem to be having some sort of crude meltdown, Gary. It's painful to watch. I do hope everything is okay at home?

For the reasons I've already stated--which you don't seem to have a good answer for-- I find your "one year old horse instance" suggestion far from compelling in the context of the diary. I doubt that I'm alone.

For this, I am accused of "bumlick obeisance," even though my opinion has nothing to do with anyone, other than your own questionable interpretation.

Interpret my future silence how you ever want, Gary, but the correct interpretation would be contempt.

[rjpalmer]

Oh, one last thing:

give us your take on why he has been silent on the horsey ‘one-off’.

Silent?

I haven't read the Maybrick articles at his website in a good long while, but I distinctly recall that he addressed this at considerable length and more than once.

If you're interested, I'd suggest looking there or contacting him.

I have no interest your on-going feud, as I've mentioned on numerous occassions.

It's difficult to discuss the Maybrick Hoax without occasionally referencing David Barrat's articles, because, other than Chris Jones, he is the only one doing any original work on the subject that I have seen.

Good-bye and I do hope you feel better soon.