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

[Iconoclast]

hi gary
with all due respect, I think he has discussed it multiple times on his site.

hope all is well my friend. : )

Hopefully Gary will clarify this ambiguity.

As I understand it, he made an argument a year or two ago that 'one-off' could relate to a one-year old pony or horse. I forget the exact details but they were along these lines. This argument was then analysed by Lord Orsam and (no surprises here) debunked (in his opinion).

Now, I think this is where the ambiguity comes in. Yesterday, Gary posted a clipping he states was from 1864 in which the expression 'one-off promising filly' was used. I took this to imply a unique promising filly (it was not obvious why it would be unique, granted) and I assumed that the equine-reference was simply a coincidence (like we don't have enough of those in this case?). Perhaps I was too previous in accepting this position. Perhaps he was pursuing his previous argument that 'one-off' in the context of a horse was related to its age, but - if he was - I'm unclear why Orsam needed to have known about the 1864 reference. That is, why would an earlier use be any more relevant to the argument if the later usage had been debunked?

Anyway, I'm happy to be corrected. Gary, could you clarify for the casual readers amongst us (clearly including myself here) what argument you were making by posting the 1864 clipping, please?

Cheers,

Ike

[Abby Normal]

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’.

hi gary
with all due respect, I think he has discussed it multiple times on his site.

hope all is well my friend. : )

[milchmanuk]

if Florence is a " one off "
what was Mr. loverboy in the diary !
had James lived would his ambitions extended to the male populace of Whitechapel.

[milchmanuk]

not putting petrol on the fire.
but the term "one off"
Dear James referring to his wife as live stock , and no more, and he is the knacker of Whitechapel now ,a real Romeo!

[MrBarnett]

I know it’s 2022, but someone suggesting you must have ‘emotional’ issues because you object to their irrational behaviour isn’t right, is it?

[MrBarnett]

Why might it have been that Lord O was banished from this site? Because he was such a superstar researcher that he put the rest of us to shame? Or because he was a nasty, narcissistic little shite who went apeshit when anyone questioned him?

If you believe it was the former, WTF are you still here?

[MrBarnett]

Word.

Before or after I mentioned it?

If it was as after, his reputation is in tatters.

[rjpalmer]

David Barrat very much did address the equine usage.

Word.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

This is veering off topic, and in danger of becoming an ugly argument nobody needs to have.

David Barrat very much did address the equine usage. However, he is indeed persona non Grata in these parts and I can't quote, link or reference. By the by, no one brought him up until Gary decided to focus on one off, a point raised fairly innocuously by Herlock. RJ responds to Gary, and so it goes.

If this thread starts to revolve around David Barrat, it'll get shut down. And that's really not fair on the guys who've written a book and are hosting a lecture, or those who wish to discuss the subject at hand.

[rjpalmer]

I recall your previous PM suggesting my criticism of your idolisation of Lord O was evidence of my mental health issues.

As you have now acknowledged, your memory has failed you.

I wouldn't normally respond to this sort of strange airing of laundry, but since you're making a public accusation, let me just say that I never sent any 'PM' regarding David Orsam and your mental health.

Yes, I did ask about your emotional well-being in a private message (nothing 'nasty' about it--it was genuine concern) after you repeatedly chased me around for asking a simple and innocent question about Thomas Cross of Breiten, which for some reason really upset you and which you still misinterpret as some sort of affront. 'Give it a rest' is a good way of putting it.

Get a grip, mate, and answer the simple question, why do you think Lord O hasn’t addressed the equestrian usage of ‘one off’?

I already answered and I'm not the one losing my grip. I believe Barrat HAS addressed it at his website.

Frankly, you're giving David Barrat too much credit in this one-off instance, Gary. He's gotten under your skin. My reason for rejecting your 'equestrian' suggestion is based entirely on reading your own posts on the topic. If I recall, your attempt to defend the hoax against the accusation of anachronisms with the 'one year old horse instance' came long after Barrat had already left this site.

As such, I would assume that the natural place to find his response would be at his own website, wouldn't it? Since he's not posting here?

In brief, I think his point was that the diarist is referring to a unique event--a one off--and thus a "one year old horse" doesn't make the least bit of sense in the context, but if you want his own response, you'll have to chase him down.

And you don't really expect me to play postman after all your silly name calling and publishing of private PMs do you? Who would want to deal with you after that?

Yes, Gary, call it a day, and do give it a rest. I'm not looking to discuss it any further with you.

I guess I should now chase down the mute button!

[MrBarnett]

Obviously - OBVIOUSLY! - RJ isn’t Lord O’s lickspittle, so he can’t be expected to explain why his Lordship failed to mention the equestrian usage of ‘one-off’ in his definitive (;-) essay on the subject.

That’s for each and every one of us to reach our own conclusion. I’ve reached mine. What about the rest of you?

[MrBarnett]

Apologies, RJ, your nasty PM had nothing to do with your devotion to Lord O. It seems that you consider any disagreement with your views as evidence of mental instability:


Jesus, Gary, can I suggest you give it a rest?

I'm actually worried about your emotional health
It appears that you can't stand for anyone to ask you about your research.

[MrBarnett]

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.

I recall your previous PM suggesting my criticism of your idolisation of Lord O was evidence of my mental health issues.

Get a grip, mate, and answer the simple question, why do you think Lord O hasn’t addressed the equestrian usage of ‘one off’?

[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.

[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.