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

[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’.

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[rjpalmer]

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

He's not wrong.

[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.

[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

[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 ?

[milchmanuk]

from my thoughts the new book will be about Florence Maybrick killed James Maybrick ,
yes i,ve ordered a copy with the four quid postage as i was feeling ginger.
there probably be a paragraph about floorboards in Battlecrease House for sure to sell it.
it be sociological about states of mind too perhaps.
as i now have swallowed my second pink g & t.

i will read the society pillar again as i never fully downed the tumbler looking device.
and it has come up again in another much older post.
or similar.

[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.

One thing that I’ve never really understood though is that the ‘one off incident’ point is such a longstanding one and is, I assume, one of the main (if not the main) point but forward by those who believe the diary a fake, why hasn’t Robert Smith taken the simple step of trying to knock it down. If you’re in any kind of battle or disagreement knocking down your opponents strongest point would surely always be the best tactic? I realise of course that you can’t speak for Robert Smith (who I’m assuming still owns the diary?) but why doesn’t he simply commission a language expert to investigate this point? He’s surely not short of a Bob or three? You could lend him a couple of grand from the back pocket Ike

Well you are of course entitled to exercise your right to disagree, Herlock, but I also must reserve the right to point out that you are speaking from a place of ignorance (and I hate it when people do that - including me, of course - because it confuses all of our dear readers who do **** all research into the scrapbook and therefore think they know the answers to all the questions when in fact they simply know **** all about the case, as much as I love them all, bar Orsam and The Acolytes ovvers).

Why are you speaking from a place of ignorance, I hear you think? Well, it is because of the questions you pose above. In his excellent 2017 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts, Smith discusses 'one off instance' on pages 40-41 and then again in note 81. Now, you may feel that what he discusses is inadequate, but you cannot say he hasn't addressed the issue. He may not have commissioned a 'language expert', but I venture that they aren't as 'expert' as their title suggests - the evidence of their 'expertise' has been much questioned over the last thirty years with regard to just the scrapbook alone. But have you read his book, Herly? Or have you entered 'DiaryWorld' again without being properly armed for the visit?

I like you, Herlock. You're like I - one of the good guys. But I'm the Guardian of the ******* Truth here so I'm afraid there can be no mercy asked nor shown here when you enter the Gates of Hell. Do the reading (I suggest you start with my brilliant Society's Pillar 2025, though you'll have a hell of a long wait for it unless I've messed-up the title somewhat, so maybe try Inside Story or 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts itself?) and then return to these shores with your ammunition dry and primed for battle.

It's true I'm stinking rich, by the way, but I am facing multiple law suits for my scurrilous abuse of 'fair use' of copyright in my brilliant Society's Pillar, so I shan't be punting Smithy any of my hard-earned just yet. Unless he wins his law suit or publishes another book, of course ...

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, Herlock. We have to be careful with our use of language because to call 'one off instance' an anachronism is the same as saying the first time 'emoji' was used in a sentence was also an anachronism. Language is permitted to evolve but each evolutionary step is not therefore an anachronism relative to the new world it enters.

I don't argue at all with Barrat's position that James Maybrick could not possibly have been the first person to ever use the term "one off instance" (I use speech marks here to avoid confusion with the apostrophes I will use later) to mean 'the only time this had or ever would happen'. If this is what was intended by its use in the scrapbook (and I will come on to that) then it either indicates the the phrase was already in use by the time Maybrick used it or else it was written far far later and not by James Maybrick.

My caveat in all this is - by my own admission - a rather implausible one (but not an impossible one) and it needs to be considered. Maybrick may have written those words and he may have meant something else entirely. He was, presumably, not transcribing from his own scribbled notes on a scrap of paper, so he was writing as he was thinking, and we all make grammatical and semantic errors from time to time. It's possible that he was writing "a ...", "a one ...", "a one 'off' ...", and he was already struggling to express what he was trying to say so, in wanting to crack on with what he was writing, he simply finished the sentence "a one 'off' instance", and then moved on to whatever else he was trying to say.

You'll note that Maybrick didn't write "a one 'off' instance", it is true. But it is equally true that he did not write "a one-off instance". Whilst I think it is unlikely that Maybrick meant "a one 'off' instance" when he wrote "a one off instance", we have to be careful to consider all of the reasonable options before we start to say he categorically intended to write "a one-off instance" and therefore meant by it a singular event never to be repeated and was therefore the first person ever to even think of using that expression which otherwise did not enter the Google Ngrams literature until the early 1980s.

Barrat's argument is that Maybrick could not have even thought that thought and I think he is potentially correct, but being potentially correct is a long long long long long long long long long long way from proving a point categorically or of highlighting an unequivocal anachronism.

Cheers,

Ike

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.

One thing that I’ve never really understood though is that the ‘one off incident’ point is such a longstanding one and is, I assume, one of the main (if not the main) point but forward by those who believe the diary a fake, why hasn’t Robert Smith taken the simple step of trying to knock it down. If you’re in any kind of battle or disagreement knocking down your opponents strongest point would surely always be the best tactic? I realise of course that you can’t speak for Robert Smith (who I’m assuming still owns the diary?) but why doesn’t he simply commission a language expert to investigate this point? He’s surely not short of a Bob or three? You could lend him a couple of grand from the back pocket Ike