Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

I've forgotten what the expression was but if c.d. says he says it, that's fine with me.

It was Abby, but you get my drift dear readers?

[erobitha]

That is your idea of how to have a discussion - to abuse people?

'You might regret stepping foot into this world.' (your # 288)

That's your standard of behaviour?

And you're proud of it?

Night night little soldier.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Night night little soldier.

Are you incapable of making a serious response?

You think it is all right to abuse (your word) people and then just laugh it off, as though personal abuse is nothing more serious than a light-hearted joke?

Did not your parents or teachers ever teach you any manners?

[Iconoclast]

I can very much believe you are a cocoa man Ike (smiley face emoji - no offence).

PI should get themselves noticed for Orsam’s blog. If they think this place is full of abuse, wait until they get their very own nickname on the brown drainpipe of shame.

I can’t quite decide who comes off the worst on the dark web of the the dank, dripping drainpipes. I’ve almost grown quite fond of my monicker (‘Major Misunderstanding’), by the way.

I think it is fair to say that the Chigwell Chunterer can take a wee jest as well as the next person, in his defence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

yes i admit it. its a yanky saying.

Where is your evidence that 'Get your shirt straight' is an English expression anywhere?

And while you are trying to think of an answer, are you admitting the corollary that has been suggested, namely that you actually wrote the word 'shirt' with the letter 'r' missing?

[Iconoclast]

Where is your evidence that 'Get your shirt straight' is an English expression anywhere?

And while you are trying to think of an answer, are you admitting the corollary that has been suggested, namely that you actually wrote the word 'shirt' with the letter 'r' missing?

OMG - give it up! Abby admitted as much in #364.

He wrote '****' and the Casebook algorithm turned it into asterisks which everyone (bar you, it seems) knows will happen so - when seeking to clarify with Abby that that was what had happened - I had to type the word 'shirt' and say that the 'r' was removed otherwise if I had typed the word '****' all that would have happened was that the algorithm would had converted it to asterisks again which really would have served no purpose whatsoever (other than to keep the Casebook as clean as possible from foulmouthed cussers like me and Palmer).

Then, because you just didn't appear to get it (though I thought briefly that you were joining in the joke hence I offered you a bit of encouragement to loosen up) a few other posters jumped onto the bandwagon of the 'shirt' comment and those of us who understood what was happening had a wee chuckle.

BUT NOT AT YOU!

NOT EVEN TOWARDS YOU!

Even now, I am wondering if you knew all of this all alone and are just beasting me for the fun of it (and - if you are - I admire it, well done, I have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker and I feel like a complete shirt for being so dim).

Now can you please let it go so that I can properly engage in ignoring you?

[erobitha]

I can’t quite decide who comes off the worst on the dark web of the the dank, dripping drainpipes. I’ve almost grown quite fond of my monicker (‘Major Misunderstanding’), by the way.

I think it is fair to say that the Chigwell Chunterer can take a wee jest as well as the next person, in his defence.

His response to me referring to his website as brown sludge did tickle me, I have to say.

Some people need to be less sensitive and not see everything as offensive abuse of their human right to free speech. Or their right to post idiotic posts without a sarcastic reply. I have gotten as much as I have given, and not once have I claimed victimhood. It's the nature of being on a cut-throat forum.

This is not Guantanamo Bay. You can actually leave if you are triggered so easily by the words of strangers.

[Iconoclast]

His response to me referring to his website as brown sludge did tickle me, I have to say.

Some people need to be less sensitive and not see everything as offensive abuse of their human right to free speech. Or their right to post idiotic posts without a sarcastic reply. I have gotten as much as I have given, and not once have I claimed victimhood. It's the nature of being on a cut-throat forum.

This is not Guantanamo Bay. You can actually leave if you are triggered so easily by the words of strangers.

I could never leave (however bad it gets inside my tortured head :-)). Will never leave. My mission is too important for the future of mankind.

As you say, others possibly should ...

[John Wheat]

People seem to be taking this thread too seriously especially when it's the joke part of Ripperology.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

People seem to be taking this thread too seriously especially when it's the joke part of Ripperology.

So far, since I dared to try to inject some seriousness into the discussion, we have had:


Iconoclast in # 408 claiming

'The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888',

and my response in # 410:

'I ask why you defend the Maybrick scrapbook by writing

'PS The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888...'

without offering any evidence in support of your assertion.'

With no response having been made, I wrote in # 415:

'my detractors here are unable to produce any evidence that the adjective 'one-off' was in use in 1889.'

There has since been no response from any of them.



I have on this forum been accused of making assumptions, suppositions, and sweeping statements.

I do not know how people like Iconoclast and erobitha can claim that something is an historical fact, when challenged on that point make jokes or no response, and get away with it.

It seems that one rule applies to me and another to them.


As if to underline my point, The Baron appeared briefly in # 400.


I reminded him in # 407 that in another thread he had claimed

'as if the Kosminski described by the Police whether Aaron or not, was not an insane and sexual maniac',

and that I had responded,

'Where is your evidence that Aaron Kosminski or any other Kosminski in London was a sexual maniac?'


The Baron's response?

As on the other thread: no response.

Like Iconoclast, he has claimed that something is a proven fact, but is unable to produce any evidence to support his claim and instead of doing so, stays silent.



As I pointed out to Iconoclast in # 356,


'You have suggested that the murderer originally put Kelly's breasts on the table, then moved them, and then forgot he had moved them.

Now you are suggesting that he threatened to cut off his next victim's ears and send them to the police, but then decided not to do either thing.'


The same person, Iconoclast, who wrote such nonsense, accused me of being an idiot and then refused to apologise.

He has also written that what I write is 'ridiculous', that I have 'restricted vision', that I cannot think for myself, that I 'toady' to people who are masturbating, that I write 'stupidities', and that my thinking is 'dumb'.


We then had Abby Normal contradicting me in # 388, claiming that Eddowes' nose was cut off and using a swear word to make the point:

'get your **** straight' (asterisks not being mine)


He was then supported by erobitha and Iconoclast, both claiming incorrectly that Eddowes' nose was cut off and defending his use of a swear word directed at me.


Iconoclast says he wants new readers of this thread and actually addresses them as 'dear readers'.

Why would anyone want to read this thread, let alone post comments on it, when they see the lamentable standard of civility on it, the personal abuse, the complete disregard for historical truth, and the wilful defence of a forgery by means of completely unsupported assertions?

This thread ought to be closed down and those who have abused one of the serious contributors to it, as well as historical fact, and who can hardly manage to make a serious comment about anything, should leave this forum and post their comments somewhere else where jokes and lavatory humour are preferred to serious discussion.

[erobitha]

So far, since I dared to try to inject some seriousness into the discussion, we have had:


Iconoclast in # 408 claiming

'The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888',

and my response in # 410:

'I ask why you defend the Maybrick scrapbook by writing

'PS The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888...'

without offering any evidence in support of your assertion.'

With no response having been made, I wrote in # 415:

'my detractors here are unable to produce any evidence that the adjective 'one-off' was in use in 1889.'

There has since been no response from any of them.



I have on this forum been accused of making assumptions, suppositions, and sweeping statements.

I do not know how people like Iconoclast and erobitha can claim that something is an historical fact, when challenged on that point make jokes or no response, and get away with it.

It seems that one rule applies to me and another to them.


As if to underline my point, The Baron appeared briefly in # 400.


I reminded him in # 407 that in another thread he had claimed

'as if the Kosminski described by the Police whether Aaron or not, was not an insane and sexual maniac',

and that I had responded,

'Where is your evidence that Aaron Kosminski or any other Kosminski in London was a sexual maniac?'


The Baron's response?

As on the other thread: no response.

Like Iconoclast, he has claimed that something is a proven fact, but is unable to produce any evidence to support his claim and instead of doing so, stays silent.



As I pointed out to Iconoclast in # 356,


'You have suggested that the murderer originally put Kelly's breasts on the table, then moved them, and then forgot he had moved them.

Now you are suggesting that he threatened to cut off his next victim's ears and send them to the police, but then decided not to do either thing.'


The same person, Iconoclast, who wrote such nonsense, accused me of being an idiot and then refused to apologise.

He has also written that what I write is 'ridiculous', that I have 'restricted vision', that I cannot think for myself, that I 'toady' to people who are masturbating, that I write 'stupidities', and that my thinking is 'dumb'.


We then had Abby Normal contradicting me in # 388, claiming that Eddowes' nose was cut off and using a swear word to make the point:

'get your **** straight' (asterisks not being mine)


He was then supported by erobitha and Iconoclast, both claiming incorrectly that Eddowes' nose was cut off and defending his use of a swear word directed at me.


Iconoclast says he wants new readers of this thread and actually addresses them as 'dear readers'.

Why would anyone want to read this thread, let alone post comments on it, when they see the lamentable standard of civility on it, the personal abuse, the complete disregard for historical truth, and the wilful defence of a forgery by means of completely unsupported assertions?

This thread ought to be closed down and those who have abused one of the serious contributors to it, as well as historical fact, and who can hardly manage to make a serious comment about anything, should leave this forum and post their comments somewhere else where jokes and lavatory humour are preferred to serious discussion.

You really are a superstar.

[Iconoclast]

So far, since I dared to try to inject some seriousness into the discussion, we have had:
Iconoclast in # 408 claiming
'The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888',
and my response in # 410:
'I ask why you defend the Maybrick scrapbook by writing
'PS The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888...'
without offering any evidence in support of your assertion.'
With no response having been made, I wrote in # 415:
'my detractors here are unable to produce any evidence that the adjective 'one-off' was in use in 1889.'
There has since been no response from any of them.

Okay, against my better judgement, I am going to address this point as this poster appears to be ill-informed.

The expression 'one off' originates in manufacturing circles and relates to a single production of an article from a template. There is nothing unique about the concept of the 'one off'. There were examples of 'two off', 'three off', et cetera. I'm cutting this story very short here: eventually, the concept of the 'one off' as in 'unique event' evolved into common speech. David Barrat's argument is that Maybrick's use of the expression 'one off instance' (as in a unique event not to be repeated) had not entered common speech by 1888 even if the concept of a 'one off' had (for manufacturing purposes).

If you would like to read his article, please click on the following link: https://www.orsam.co.uk/oneoffarticle.htm.

We are not permitted to quote Barrat directly here but I can assure you that if you click on the link you will find him explaining that the earliest known confirmed written use of 'one off' to indicate a quantity that he could find is found in the American Journal of Railway Appliances dated 1 July 1884.

Now, I hadn't remembered all of this when I wrote 'The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888' but I knew that I was right because I remembered the gist of Barrat's argument and he has an unerring habit of being correct regarding his facts (less so regarding his arguments, in my opinion). I knew that I was right, but being right in this regard was not some sort of attempt on my part at making an argument - I was simply stating a fact. I was genuinely taken aback at your reaction to my mentioning this because the issue was never whether the expression 'one off' existed or not in the late Victorian period but - rather - whether it was possible for the human mind to conjoin it with the notion of an 'event (as in 'one off instance'). Barrat's argument is that it was not therefore the Victorian scrapbook is a more modern hoax.

The reason why I did not address your seeking my evidence for the use of 'one off' should now be clear: it was irrelevant to the argument.

So, to iterate: the issue is not whether the expression 'one off' was in common speech in 1888 but - rather - whether it was already being conjoined with the notion of a unique event. Had I suggested that 'one off instance' was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888, you would have been at liberty to demand my evidence for the matter, but I did not suggest that, therefore I did not deem it fit for me to provide evidence for something that was already an established fact.

David Barrat, by the way, is the very antithesis of a diary defender so you should not feel the need to question his identification of the term 'one off' being used in the American Journal of Railway Appliances dated 1 July 1884.

Finally, as James Maybrick himself had a very strong American pedigree, the argument needs to be that no-one in the UK (in the form it was in 1888) and in the USA could possibly have had the mental construct of the conjoining of 'one off' with the notion of a unique event. As the term 'one off' was evidently in use in manufacturing circles in America at least as early as 1884, it rather begs the question of how quickly common speech over there began to evolve the notion into one which might be applied to singular events and therefore to what extent Maybrick in his American travels had absorbed the term and used it in his murderous journal before the decade was out.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Okay, against my better judgement, I am going to address this point as this poster appears to be ill-informed.

The expression 'one off' originates in manufacturing circles and relates to a single production of an article from a template. There is nothing unique about the concept of the 'one off'. There were examples of 'two off', 'three off', et cetera. I'm cutting this story very short here: eventually, the concept of the 'one off' as in 'unique event' evolved into common speech. David Barrat's argument is that Maybrick's use of the expression 'one off instance' (as in a unique event not to be repeated) had not entered common speech by 1888 even if the concept of a 'one off' had (for manufacturing purposes).

If you would like to read his article, please click on the following link: https://www.orsam.co.uk/oneoffarticle.htm.

We are not permitted to quote Barrat directly here but I can assure you that if you click on the link you will find him explaining that the earliest known confirmed written use of 'one off' to indicate a quantity that he could find is found in the American Journal of Railway Appliances dated 1 July 1884.

Now, I hadn't remembered all of this when I wrote 'The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888' but I knew that I was right because I remembered the gist of Barrat's argument and he has an unerring habit of being correct regarding his facts (less so regarding his arguments, in my opinion). I knew that I was right, but being right in this regard was not some sort of attempt on my part at making an argument - I was simply stating a fact. I was genuinely taken aback at your reaction to my mentioning this because the issue was never whether the expression 'one off' existed or not in the late Victorian period but - rather - whether it was possible for the human mind to conjoin it with the notion of an 'event (as in 'one off instance'). Barrat's argument is that it was not therefore the Victorian scrapbook is a more modern hoax.

The reason why I did not address your seeking my evidence for the use of 'one off' should now be clear: it was irrelevant to the argument.

So, to iterate: the issue is not whether the expression 'one off' was in common speech in 1888 but - rather - whether it was already being conjoined with the notion of a unique event. Had I suggested that 'one off instance' was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888, you would have been at liberty to demand my evidence for the matter, but I did not suggest that, therefore I did not deem it fit for me to provide evidence for something that was already an established fact.

David Barrat, by the way, is the very antithesis of a diary defender so you should not feel the need to question his identification of the term 'one off' being used in the American Journal of Railway Appliances dated 1 July 1884.

Finally, as James Maybrick himself had a very strong American pedigree, the argument needs to be that no-one in the UK (in the form it was in 1888) and in the USA could possibly have had the mental construct of the conjoining of 'one off' with the notion of a unique event. As the term 'one off' was evidently in use in manufacturing circles in America at least as early as 1884, it rather begs the question of how quickly common speech over there began to evolve the notion into one which might be applied to singular events and therefore to what extent Maybrick in his American travels had absorbed the term and used it in his murderous journal before the decade was out.

I have read that article.

It mentions one remarkable fact: the term 'one-off', as an adjective denoting uniqueness, did not occur in the Times Newspaper in the late eighteenth century, nor at any time during the nineteenth century, and did not appear in it until the year 1944.

It states furthermore that there is no proof that the expression was yet in use until the twentieth century.

Your point about Maybrick's connection with America and the possible use there of 'one-off' as a manufacturing or engineering term might have some merit had Maybrick been an engineer rather than a cotton merchant.

As the article points out, if Maybrick wrote that diary in 1888 or 1889 then he was the first person in England to use the expression 'one-off' in that way.

Considering that there is no evidence that Maybrick was even in London on the nights in question, it is stretching credulity to suggest that he was the Whitechapel Murderer, let alone that he was the originator of an expression now commonly used in English.

[Iconoclast]

I have read that article.

It mentions one remarkable fact: the term 'one-off', as an adjective denoting uniqueness, did not occur in the Times Newspaper in the late eighteenth century, nor at any time during the nineteenth century, and did not appear in it until the year 1944.

It states furthermore that there is no proof that the expression was yet in use until the twentieth century.

Your point about Maybrick's connection with America and the possible use there of 'one-off' as a manufacturing or engineering term might have some merit had Maybrick been an engineer rather than a cotton merchant.

As the article points out, if Maybrick wrote that diary in 1888 or 1889 then he was the first person in England to use the expression 'one-off' in that way.

Considering that there is no evidence that Maybrick was even in London on the nights in question, it is stretching credulity to suggest that he was the Whitechapel Murderer, let alone that he was the originator of an expression now commonly used in English.

The crux of this argument is whether or not it is reasonable to have expected James Maybrick to use the the expression 'one off instance' (no hyphen, note) in 1888.

I have accepted that Barrat has made a great point. I just question whether he has proved it rather than simply proposed it. I for one will not be giving up my pursuit of Maybrick on the basis of unproven argument, however compelling that argument may seem.

[erobitha]

Considering that there is no evidence that Maybrick was even in London on the nights in question, it is stretching credulity to suggest that he was the Whitechapel Murderer, let alone that he was the originator of an expression now commonly used in English.

There is evidence James Maybrickw could have been in London in September 1888. Refer to Gustav Witt's letter to the Home Office in August 1889.

"I saw Mr Maybrick at his office and dined at his house whenever I had to run down to Liverpool. Last year in June Mr and Mrs M. both came up from Liverpool and were our guests, and my wife and I at the time commented on the evidently unsatisfactory state of affairs. I remember that when again Mr. M visited us a few months later he complained of his eyes watering and giving him trouble and I chaffed him about getting old. I did not see him this year as I have been travelling for 9 months in the East and only returned a few months ago, finding my poor friend dead.”

What do you constitute a "few months"? Also, were there some witness reports suggesting the suspect might have issues with their eyes?

Can you name some candidates who were proven to be in London on the exact dates of the murders?