The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s absolutely nothing that would convince a blinkered believer Roger. Here we have our ‘Maybrick’ saying that he took away a key that wasn’t actually taken away and it’s not a problem to Lombro. What planet are we on here? And people wonder why frustration seeps in.

[rjpalmer]

And one of the guys you’re trying to convince with “Barrett said the key was lost” is the guy who believes Mary was pregnant and had a kid while with Barrett who was equally lost or mum.

Yes, that's what we're saying. Barrett said the key was lost...when it wasn't.

Interesting Freudian slip.

[Lombro2]

And one of the guys you’re trying to convince with “Barrett said the key was lost” is the guy who believes Mary was pregnant and had a kid while with Barrett who was similarly lost or mum.

Sometimes it’s best to keep up and know who you’re talking to and what their theories are regarding the actual case.

[Lombro2]

Desperate people are the ones desperate to convert two people on authenticity and two more on the Barrett Hoax theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Joe Barnett wasn’t living with Mary Jane for 10 days. That’s another key to the story that went conveniently missing.

Could something have taken place during those 10 days when he wasn’t there?

Nice cherry though!

“I love the smell of desperation in the morning.”

[rjpalmer]

"Joe Barnett wasn’t living with Mary Jane for 10 days. That’s another key to the story that went conveniently missing.

Could something have taken place during those 10 days when he wasn’t there?"

Except that that night, after the inquest closed and Abberline gave his deposition, it was widely reported that the key had been found.

A lot seems to have happened after the closing of the inquest, including George Hutchinson's arrival on the scene, but I don't suppose he had the key, do you?

Or do you think the key was found in Maybrick's lair on Middlesex Street?

[Lombro2]

Joe Barnett wasn’t living with Mary Jane for 10 days. That’s another key to the story that went conveniently missing.

Could something have taken place during those 10 days when he wasn’t there?

Nice cherry though!

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of dictionaries. Taken from ChatGPT:


In the late Victorian period (roughly 1870s–1901), it could take several decades—or longer—for a vernacular phrase (like slang or regional speech) to be included in a standard dictionary, and here’s why:


1. Slow Documentation Process

• Lexicographers of the time, such as those working on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), relied on written examples—mostly from books, newspapers, and journals—not everyday speech.
• Spoken vernacular wasn’t considered “respectable” language unless it appeared in print, usually from a reputable source.
• This meant a slang phrase had to gain wide usage and show up in published literature to even be noticed.

2. Cultural Gatekeeping

• Victorian society had strong distinctions between formal vs. informal and proper vs. vulgar speech.
• Working-class slang, street language, and dialects were often seen as low-status and ignored by mainstream dictionaries.

3. Examples

Some phrases from Victorian slang eventually made it in:

• “Blimey” (a softened form of “God blind me”) shows up in print in the 1880s but wasn’t accepted widely in dictionaries until decades later.
• “Bobby” (slang for police officer, from Sir Robert Peel) was first used in the 1830s and appeared in dictionaries by the late 1800s, because it had become institutionalized.

How Long Did It Take?

• On average, 10–50 years, depending on:
  • How widely the phrase was used across regions and classes.
  • Whether it appeared in print.
  • Whether the editors considered it worth including.

The OED’s Role

• The first edition of the OED was being compiled during this period (started in 1879, finished in 1928). It was descriptive, not prescriptive—meaning it included words that were used, not just “proper” ones.
• Still, the OED needed evidence in print, which delayed the inclusion of purely spoken phrases.

Thanks for the unsourced AI lesson dealing with slang and regional speech which has nothing to do with the issue at hand Ero.

What should I draw from your failure to answer my question as to how we are supposed to examine the evidence in this case if it hasn't been provided?

Would it be reasonable for me to infer from your failure to identify any "corroborated witness statements or paperwork" that such things do not exist?

Did you miss my question: "Where do we find this magical evidence to which you refer in order to examine it?"

[erobitha]

The flaw in your post isn't hard to find though Erobitha.

"When looking at Google Ngrams or the newspaper archives, you are accessing data based on formalised writing, not everyday spoken vernacular."

The evidence that the diary isn't fake isn't based off Google Ngrams and newspaper archives. What is literally astonishing though is that you don't even mention the Oxford English Dictionary, or any other dictionary. How it's possible for you to ignore that I have no idea but it just shows the mindset that makes some unable to deal with the overwhelming evidence which proves that "one off instance" is a 20th century expression. Phrase origin reference books also state that "one off" is a 20th century expression. Further, the research which has been conducted into the origin of the phrase includes hard copy books, hard copy journals and every accessible and searchable digital database. It all shows plainly that there was an evolution of the expression "one off" from a mere quantity in the nineteenth century, to a unique manufactured product, pattern or job in the early twentieth century through to a figurative or metaphorical usage (as in the diary) after the Second World War.

There is also a huge amount of supporting evidence of this. The newspaper in the 1970s which said that "one off" was what was known in the trade as "an experimental feature", the person writing to a newspaper in 1979 who said that "one off" in "normal parlance" generally meant "one less than" and was annoyed by people using the expression "one off situation", the journalist in the 1980s who referred to "one off" as a contemporary expression, the writer who compared a Scotsman to someone who an engineer would call a "one off job" shortly after the Second World War and the actual known usage of "one off" in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It's also amazing that you don't seem to care that Maybrick managed to mistake his wife's godmother with her aunt, that he managed to flee from Miller's court with a non-existent key and couldn't remember where he'd left the woman's breasts, all mistakes incredibly enough which can also be found in newspapers and books, and that you have no interest in three other anachronistic expressions being found in the diary.

Perhaps most strange of all is that you refer to people who say diary is fake as "Barrett Hoax believers" even though you also say that you think the diary is fake! How should we describe you? I'm just someone who can see that the diary is very obviously a fake and that all the evidence of fakery points to the Barretts who are, after all, the only credible suspects. Sure, there may not be much hard evidence (although I can't think of any other reason for Mike wanting a Victorian diary with blank pages) but there's nothing at all which points to anyone else. In this respect, given that you say you think the diary is fake, who do you think created it?

Oh, and I haven't yet seen a single "corroborated witness statement". Nor have I seen any "corroborated paperwork", whatever that may be. If you have, you must be very lucky and privileged. But it's interesting that you seem to urge everyone else to set aside anything to do with the Barretts and "examine the evidence". Well, how do we do that? Where do we find this magical evidence to which you refer in order to examine it?

On the subject of dictionaries. Taken from ChatGPT:


In the late Victorian period (roughly 1870s–1901), it could take several decades—or longer—for a vernacular phrase (like slang or regional speech) to be included in a standard dictionary, and here’s why:


1. Slow Documentation Process

• Lexicographers of the time, such as those working on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), relied on written examples—mostly from books, newspapers, and journals—not everyday speech.
• Spoken vernacular wasn’t considered “respectable” language unless it appeared in print, usually from a reputable source.
• This meant a slang phrase had to gain wide usage and show up in published literature to even be noticed.

2. Cultural Gatekeeping

• Victorian society had strong distinctions between formal vs. informal and proper vs. vulgar speech.
• Working-class slang, street language, and dialects were often seen as low-status and ignored by mainstream dictionaries.

3. Examples

Some phrases from Victorian slang eventually made it in:

• “Blimey” (a softened form of “God blind me”) shows up in print in the 1880s but wasn’t accepted widely in dictionaries until decades later.
• “Bobby” (slang for police officer, from Sir Robert Peel) was first used in the 1830s and appeared in dictionaries by the late 1800s, because it had become institutionalized.

How Long Did It Take?

• On average, 10–50 years, depending on:
  • How widely the phrase was used across regions and classes.
  • Whether it appeared in print.
  • Whether the editors considered it worth including.

The OED’s Role

• The first edition of the OED was being compiled during this period (started in 1879, finished in 1928). It was descriptive, not prescriptive—meaning it included words that were used, not just “proper” ones.
• Still, the OED needed evidence in print, which delayed the inclusion of purely spoken phrases.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my very succinct view, the diary rests on two major points on which the Barrett Hoax believers have placed all their eggs. Modern language and handwriting. These two points are the strongest arguments they have. Everything else is a nuanced debate that doesn't get us very far.

However, are they the killer blow they constantly promote them as? I do not believe James Maybrick wrote the diary. I think the handwriting is too big a hurdle for me to overcome as it stands, but I am not absolutely wedded against the possibility of it being in his hand if the evidence can be provided, he did so elsewhere.

The language debate is interesting but by no means conclusive. When looking at Google Ngrams or the newspaper archives, you are accessing data based on formalised writing, not everyday spoken vernacular. It is possible that such phrases existed in the informal spoken language long before they managed to find their way into formal print. There may even be such examples in letters people wrote to each other at the time. We do not have the same level of access to that kind of data as the other sources. So we look at what we can see. Rightly or wrongly.

I find the defence of the Barrett hoaxers strange. The Barrett hoax makes very little sense with any actual, hard, conclusive evidence. No recepts. No witness corroboration. Just oral stories presented by proven liar Mike Barrett, Anne Graham's own story and her dying father's last interview. None of these is actual evidence of anything. They are just words, and every one of those people has presented issues. When you actually set these aside and examine the evidence, which is backed by corroborated witness statements and paperwork, a very different story emerges.

Therein is the intrigue.

The flaw in your post isn't hard to find though Erobitha.

"When looking at Google Ngrams or the newspaper archives, you are accessing data based on formalised writing, not everyday spoken vernacular."

The evidence that the diary isn't fake isn't based off Google Ngrams and newspaper archives. What is literally astonishing though is that you don't even mention the Oxford English Dictionary, or any other dictionary. How it's possible for you to ignore that I have no idea but it just shows the mindset that makes some unable to deal with the overwhelming evidence which proves that "one off instance" is a 20th century expression. Phrase origin reference books also state that "one off" is a 20th century expression. Further, the research which has been conducted into the origin of the phrase includes hard copy books, hard copy journals and every accessible and searchable digital database. It all shows plainly that there was an evolution of the expression "one off" from a mere quantity in the nineteenth century, to a unique manufactured product, pattern or job in the early twentieth century through to a figurative or metaphorical usage (as in the diary) after the Second World War.

There is also a huge amount of supporting evidence of this. The newspaper in the 1970s which said that "one off" was what was known in the trade as "an experimental feature", the person writing to a newspaper in 1979 who said that "one off" in "normal parlance" generally meant "one less than" and was annoyed by people using the expression "one off situation", the journalist in the 1980s who referred to "one off" as a contemporary expression, the writer who compared a Scotsman to someone who an engineer would call a "one off job" shortly after the Second World War and the actual known usage of "one off" in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It's also amazing that you don't seem to care that Maybrick managed to mistake his wife's godmother with her aunt, that he managed to flee from Miller's court with a non-existent key and couldn't remember where he'd left the woman's breasts, all mistakes incredibly enough which can also be found in newspapers and books, and that you have no interest in three other anachronistic expressions being found in the diary.

Perhaps most strange of all is that you refer to people who say diary is fake as "Barrett Hoax believers" even though you also say that you think the diary is fake! How should we describe you? I'm just someone who can see that the diary is very obviously a fake and that all the evidence of fakery points to the Barretts who are, after all, the only credible suspects. Sure, there may not be much hard evidence (although I can't think of any other reason for Mike wanting a Victorian diary with blank pages) but there's nothing at all which points to anyone else. In this respect, given that you say you think the diary is fake, who do you think created it?

Oh, and I haven't yet seen a single "corroborated witness statement". Nor have I seen any "corroborated paperwork", whatever that may be. If you have, you must be very lucky and privileged. But it's interesting that you seem to urge everyone else to set aside anything to do with the Barretts and "examine the evidence". Well, how do we do that? Where do we find this magical evidence to which you refer in order to examine it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

From The Diary of Jack the Ripper, pg. 242.



With the key I did flee
I had the key
And with it I did flee


From the inquest deposition of Inspector Frederick Abberline (Reading Observer, 17 November 1888 and multiple other sources):



Discuss.

This is proof of forgery. ‘Maybrick’ took away a key that didn’t exist. How desperate would someone have to be to defend this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - There's a useful saying: 'don't feed the trolls.'

If a poster is not arguing in good faith, a judicious use of the 'ignore' button works wonders.

Good advice Roger. There’s a point when it goes past poor understanding and into ‘deliberate’ territory.

[Geddy2112]

Discuss.

The author of the diary is telling porkies?

[rjpalmer]

From The Diary of Jack the Ripper, pg. 242.



With the key I did flee
I had the key
And with it I did flee


From the inquest deposition of Inspector Frederick Abberline (Reading Observer, 17 November 1888 and multiple other sources):



Discuss.

[The Baron]

Ignore buttons don’t fix weak arguments, but I understand the need for escape routes.


The Baron