The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper

[rjpalmer]

I still cannot (and possibly never will) bring myself to post on a thread which so blatantly excludes me ...

It pains me to say this, Ike, but I suspect that the more astute readers of this forum will know the real reason that you suddenly abandoned a thread which you had previously contributed to without protest or qualm....

...faced with several startling revelations--some of them introduced by your own good self---each and every one of them utterly debilitating to the dairy's cause, you decided to change the subject.

1. Anne Graham's startling admission that she fully planned to collaborate with Mike on the writing of a story about Maybrick-as-Ripper (couched, in my opinion, in the lie that the diary had already existed), manipulating him into thinking it was his own idea.

2. An equally debilitating revelation that the chief witness for the 'Battlecrease' provenance gave an account so muddled and contradictory that it leaves his worth as a witness in tatters.

3. A series of interesting photographs uploaded by Jon Menges showing for the first time the suspicious oily patterns on the inside cover of the photo album---consistent with someone rubbing the upper left-hand corner so vigorously that he wore the endpaper down to the boards.

Little wonder then, that you decided, as we say here in 'Merica, "to get out of Dodge," and to start a new thread.

All the best.

[rjpalmer]

utterly debilitating to the dairy's cause

Maybe that should have read udderly debilitating the dairy's [sic] cause.

The hoax was certainly milked for all it was worth by Robert Smith.

[Iconoclast]

It pains me to say this, Ike, but I suspect that the more astute readers of this forum will know the real reason that you suddenly abandoned a thread which you had previously contributed to without protest or qualm....

With testicles of steel, mate, I ain't afraid of the odd debate or two. I just don't want to have it on a thread that basically reads, "Maybrick clearly didn't do it and - if you post on this thread - you're totally agreeing with that". Happy to have it here, though, RJ.

...faced with several startling revelations--some of them introduced by your own good self---each and every one of them utterly debilitating to the dairy's cause, you decided to change the subject.

Never one to knowingly walk away from a meaningful debate. Let's see what you've got, shall we?

1. Anne Graham's startling admission that she fully planned to collaborate with Mike on the writing of a story about Maybrick-as-Ripper (couched, in my opinion, in the lie that the diary had already existed), manipulating him into thinking it was his own idea.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my Dandelion and Burdock! When did Anne Graham make a startling admission that she blah. blah, blah? I suspect there's now a shortage of Kool Aid at the nearest store to Palmer Mansions. I'm not saying she didn't, I just don't recall this remarkable moment in this long, often challenging, tale.

2. An equally debilitating revelation that the chief witness for the 'Battlecrease' provenance gave an account so muddled and contradictory that it leaves his worth as a witness in tatters.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my Newcastle Brown! When did a chief witness in the Battlecrease provenance give an account so blah, blah, blah? Are we talking about Brian Rawes here?

3. A series of interesting photographs uploaded by Jon Menges showing for the first time the suspicious oily patterns on the inside cover of the photo album---consistent with someone rubbing the upper left-hand corner so vigorously that he wore the endpaper down to the boards.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my pease pudding and saveloy scottie! These are photographs which show the very things Mike Barrett homed-in on when giving his surreal January 5, 1995 affy David, man - now, does that mean he was confessing how they got there or simply building a story around them 'cos they were already there when he first got his mitts on James Maybrick's scrapbook?

Little wonder then, that you decided, as we say here in 'Merica, "to get out of Dodge," and to start a new thread.

Pherswerk, man - I very nearly gagged on my black bullets! I had to get out of Dodge to save my reputation when realising I had foolishly neglected to pay attention to the thread title. No harm, no foul and all that as you Yankee boys are wont to say.

As The Greatest Thread of All was recently demolished, I have had to re-build the brand elsewhere, and where better than The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper? Hey, we're all friends here, right?

[rjpalmer]

I'm not saying she didn't, I just don't recall this remarkable moment in this long, often challenging, tale.

Of course, you don't remember it, Ike. You've shown time and again that you aren't paying attention and thus can't comprehend the true value of the documentation that comes your way, but I don't mind dropping the occasional hint---not that it does much good.

But I see by the scoreboard that you must be basking in the joy of Newcastle's complete destruction of Leicester City, and as it would be ungentlemanly to introduce a sour note in the weekend celebrations, I'll leave further commentary for another day.

[paul g]

Maybrick may of wrote the diary as a “one off” confession or the hoaxer could have wrote it using an expression that did not exist at the time it represented.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I recall correctly, in my 2019 version, I acknowledge that 'one off instance' is problematic (without being in any way conclusive).

I agree completely. In order to be conclusive you would have to show that you somehow designed a computer program that was able to scan every book written before 1888/1889. You would then have to demonstrate that it would have been impossible to have missed any book in your search. You would also have to demonstrate that you were somehow able to review every spoken conversation prior to that time period.

So with all due respect to Herlock, I think he got a little carried away with his response.

"One off" only goes to probability. It can't be used to form a definite conclusion.

And no, don't try to pull me into this.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

It wouldn’t be the first time that I’d got carried away but I’d like to ask a hypothetical question - if a purported diary appeared with the word ‘television’ in it would we need to design a computer programme to scan every written and spoken word to achieve a level of confidence that it was clearly a fake?

[Iconoclast]

Hi c.d.

It wouldn’t be the first time that I’d got carried away but I’d like to ask a hypothetical question - if a purported diary appeared with the word ‘television’ in it would we need to design a computer programme to scan every written and spoken word to achieve a level of confidence that it was clearly a fake?

Ah, Sir H - so nearly a cracking analogy, but sadly it falls for the following reason: televisions did not exist before the 1920s, but one-off instances did. The issue is whether they were called ‘one-off instances’ or not in 1888-89 not whether they existed.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, Sir H - so nearly a cracking analogy, but sadly it falls for the following reason: televisions did not exist before the 1920s, but one-off instances did. The issue is whether they were called ‘one-off instances’ or not in 1888-89 not whether they existed.

Ike

Hello Ike,

You say "televisions did not exist before the 1920s" but that doesn't help because the first recorded use of the word "television" dates from 1900 (per the Oxford English Dictionary).


But it doesn't matter. You actually make the point for me. The reason we don't need to scan every book or review every spoken conversation for this purpose is because we know how and when the word "television" originated. In the same way, we know how the expression "one off" evolved from a quantity of one to mean something unique, and we know that this didn't occur until the 20th century. We further know that expressions such as "one off instance", including every single similar expression that could substitute for "one off instance" such as "one off occasion" or "one off event" didn't come into existence in the English language until after the Second World War. It's a matter of clear record.

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike,

You say "televisions did not exist before the 1920s" but that doesn't help because the first recorded use of the word "television" dates from 1900 (per the Oxford English Dictionary).


But it doesn't matter. You actually make the point for me. The reason we don't need to scan every book or review every spoken conversation for this purpose is because we know how and when the word "television" originated. In the same way, we know how the expression "one off" evolved from a quantity of one to mean something unique, and we know that this didn't occur until the 20th century. We further know that expressions such as "one off instance", including every single similar expression that could substitute for "one off instance" such as "one off occasion" or "one off event" didn't come into existence in the English language until after the Second World War. It's a matter of clear record.

Hello Herlock,

You should be wary of hanging onto Orsam's Never-Ever-Ever claims regarding 'one off instance'. All he has shown is that the use of 'one-off' was intimately associated with production methods long into the twentieth century. This is all he has shown. This is not the same as arguing that 'one-off' had not by then been bastardised into a handy device for expressing anything that was singular - or even unique - in nature in England or, of course, in America. He has claimed it to be so, but his proof is that the expression wasn't in print until God-Knows-O'Clock in the late twentieth century (1982, IIRC) but we can all do that with Google Ngrams. Find me 'freshly picked carrots' in print before 1947, Herlock, and I will be impressed because Google Ngrams says it literally sprang into existence (according to Orsam's logic) in that year. No-one had ever-ever-ever used that expression before 1947 therefore the scrapbook is a provable hoax. Et cetera.

When you say, "It's a matter of clear record", you might want to pause a moment in your certainty and reflect on exactly what it is you are claiming because these are exactly the sort of claims which I have been railing against for years in defence of the Maybrick scrapbook. I implore you to consider the lessons to be learned from the old days of "top myself" did not mean hanging in 1888 and that other choice perennial "Maybrick's brother didn't write lyrics". Such certainties lie firmer in the mind than in the realms of truth and evidence.

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

You should be wary of hanging onto Orsam's Never-Ever-Ever claims regarding 'one off instance'. All he has shown is that the use of 'one-off' was intimately associated with production methods long into the twentieth century. This is all he has shown. This is not the same as arguing that 'one-off' had not by then been bastardised into a handy device for expressing anything that was singular - or even unique - in nature in England or, of course, in America. He has claimed it to be so, but his proof is that the expression wasn't in print until God-Knows-O'Clock in the late twentieth century (1982, IIRC) but we can all do that with Google Ngrams. Find me 'freshly picked carrots' in print before 1947, Herlock, and I will be impressed because Google Ngrams says it literally sprang into existence (according to Orsam's logic) in that year. No-one had ever-ever-ever used that expression before 1947 therefore the scrapbook is a provable hoax. Et cetera.

When you say, "It's a matter of clear record", you might want to pause a moment in your certainty and reflect on exactly what it is you are claiming because these are exactly the sort of claims which I have been railing against for years in defence of the Maybrick scrapbook. I implore you to consider the lessons to be learned from the old days of "top myself" did not mean hanging in 1888 and that other choice perennial "Maybrick's brother didn't write lyrics". Such certainties lie firmer in the mind than in the realms of truth and evidence.

Cheers,

Ike

Hi Ike,

The problem with your analogy is that "Freshly picked carrots" isn't an expression, and thus can't be compared to a genuine expression like "one off" or "one off instance". If there is an expression there, which I don't think there is, it's "freshly picked". If you add an existing noun to any expression (or to any pair of verbs/adverbs) there's a decent chance you will be the first person ever to have written it.

I doubt that Lord Orsam would agree with your summary of what he has shown and I don't either. What he has shown is how the expression "one off" evolved to mean something unique which didn't happen in the 19th century. It's pretty clear from your post that you haven't been keeping up with Orsam's work on this matter because he recently posted that he'd found an example of the expression "one off instance" from 1976, which is what he said he expected. The fact that you don't know this suggests that you probably don't know what Lord Orsam has demonstrated.

As for your other comments, "top myself" remains a clear anachronism not recorded in print (as at 1992) until 1958, as Kate Flint correctly said at the time, and is an expression which should not be in an 1888 diary. The fact that someone on an online forum once might have wrongly claimed that Maybrick didn't ever write lyrics has no bearing on the subject of "one off instance" which has been thoroughly researched and which demonstrates that the diary is a fake.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

The problem with your analogy is that "Freshly picked carrots" isn't an expression, and thus can't be compared to a genuine expression like "one off" or "one off instance". If there is an expression there, which I don't think there is, it's "freshly picked". If you add an existing noun to any expression (or to any pair of verbs/adverbs) there's a decent chance you will be the first person ever to have written it.[

The issue is not whether we are dealing with expressions or not, Herlock. The issue is whether something could have been said, written, or typed in 1888-89. I would suggest that the (let's call it) notion of 'freshly picked carrots' would have been perfectly common in 1888: people would have very commonly said it and some may well have written it. And yet it does to appear in print until 1921 (it's getting earlier mind - not that long ago, Ngrams thought it was 1947). Now, that does not tell us whether or not 'one off instance' (meaning 'one-off instance') could have been said, written, or typed in 1888, but it cautions us to be wary of being too dogmatic about it.

I doubt that Lord Orsam would agree with your summary of what he has shown and I don't either. What he has shown is how the expression "one off" evolved to mean something unique which didn't happen in the 19th century. It's pretty clear from your post that you haven't been keeping up with Orsam's work on this matter because he recently posted that he'd found an example of the expression "one off instance" from 1976, which is what he said he expected. The fact that you don't know this suggests that you probably don't know what Lord Orsam has demonstrated.

No, I did know this. I simply remembered his original date in the moment.

As for your other comments, "top myself" remains a clear anachronism not recorded in print (as at 1992) until 1958, as Kate Flint correctly said at the time, and is an expression which should not be in an 1888 diary.

I'm surprised you haven't been keeping up with this one, Herlock, given how often you post. Jack the Ripper Forums some years ago demonstrated a Times (I think) article from about 1888 in which 'top myself' was clarified to mean "hang oneself".

The fact that someone on an online forum once might have wrongly claimed that Maybrick didn't ever write lyrics has no bearing on the subject of "one off instance" which has been thoroughly researched and which demonstrates that the diary is a fake.

It's a warning to us from history, Herlock. It wasn't 'someone'. It was everyone. There was a plethora of posters citing this little gem as the 'final proof'. They all shut up, though, once Livia Trivia showed them how utterly wrong they had all been.

As I say, warning form history.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue is not whether we are dealing with expressions or not, Herlock. The issue is whether something could have been said, written, or typed in 1888-89. I would suggest that the (let's call it) notion of 'freshly picked carrots' would have been perfectly common in 1888: people would have very commonly said it and some may well have written it. And yet it does to appear in print until 1921 (it's getting earlier mind - not that long ago, Ngrams thought it was 1947). Now, that does not tell us whether or not 'one off instance' (meaning 'one-off instance') could have been said, written, or typed in 1888, but it cautions us to be wary of being too dogmatic about it.



No, I did know this. I simply remembered his original date in the moment.



I'm surprised you haven't been keeping up with this one, Herlock, given how often you post. Jack the Ripper Forums some years ago demonstrated a Times (I think) article from about 1888 in which 'top myself' was clarified to mean "hang oneself".



It's a warning to us from history, Herlock. It wasn't 'someone'. It was everyone. There was a plethora of posters citing this little gem as the 'final proof'. They all shut up, though, once Livia Trivia showed them how utterly wrong they had all been.

As I say, warning form history.

Ike, I have no idea if the notion of "freshly picked carrots" was "perfectly common" in 1888. The diary is a forgery, probably written in the 1990s, so the fact that it is in that document doesn't assist us. But I have no doubt that you can find examples of people talking about "freshly picked" vegetables in 1888. So there would be nothing surprising if someone had written of "freshly picked carrots" in that year.

But that's completely different from "one off instance" because, unlike the existence in 1888 of "freshly picked" to mean something harvested recently, "one off" could not have been used to mean a unique instance. It didn't bear the meaning of unique at that time. It's really that simple and your oft-repeated point about freshly picked carrots is misguided, telling us literally nothing about actual expressions in use, or not, in the nineteenth century. And the issue most certainly is whether we are dealing with expressions. For example, perhaps no one has ever written of a "naughty fresh coy juicy sausage" in the history of the English language but if it appeared in a Jack the Ripper diary today, that fact would tell us nothing about whether the diary was a fake or not because all those five words existed in 1888, just like the words "freshly", "picked" and "carrots" existed. On the other hand, "one off" did not exist in the sense of meaning something unique, so no one would have formed the expression "one off instance".

On "top myself", you completely misunderstand me and demonstrate a surprising ignorance of the topic at the same time. What was found on JTR Forums was an article in the Derby Mercury of 1877 in which a prisoner said that he felt so mad that he could get up and "top himself" there and then. The journalist was compelled to explain to his readers that "By topping himself he meant hanging himself". The word "top" had meant "hang" long before this so, to me, there is nothing extraordinary about someone putting the existing word "top" together with "myself" to form "top myself". But this is the only known nineteenth century example and it had to be explained. And what was actually written was "top himself" not "top myself". As far as I'm aware, we still don't have a known example of "top myself" before the Second World War which shows how rarely it was used. So, for sure, it wasn't literally impossible for someone to have written "top myself" in 1888 but it's still an anachronistic expression which should not be found in a document from 1888. That's the point I was making.

On Maybrick's lyrics, I seem to recall that it was once vehemently stated that the forger couldn't possibly have known that Maybrick wrote lyrics, which pointed to the diary being genuine but, then, it turned out be mentioned in the secondary literature about the Maybrick case. The fact that one argument in favour of the diary's authenticity turned out to be a dud, I'm sure you'll agree, doesn't affect any of the other arguments in favour of its authenticity. What does affect those arguments is the fact that "one off instance" is a purely late 20th century expression which could not possibly have been written by anyone in 1888.