Maybrick Diary - Fake or Genuine

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, if only he had! That would have saved us all a lot of soul-searching and pain over the last 30+ years. But he didn't, did he? He didn't mention going to see Everton play at Goodison Park on the opening day of the Football League, the very day he killed Annie Chapman, and he didn't mention Queen Victoria getting the six-foot-under treatment. What a wee scunner, eh?

So that means you have to rely on an expression for which there can never be concrete evidence that it could not have been used in 1888 or 1889. We might all hear the argument loud and clear - as I do - but I'm not jumping in feet first with full-on support for a hoax until I know for certain that the term 'one-off' could not have been used figuratively with 'instance'. There must be millions of documents from the Victorian period which are no longer available to us (never mind all those spoken words now lost to us forever) so I'm not jumping in feet first to back up me auld da's desperation to make a killer point.

Just as 'freshly picked carrots' was apparently never spoken or written by anyone, ever, ever, ever, until 1947, so the expression 'one-off instance' was never used until whenever it finally was.

And at least freshly picked carrots is about as unambiguous as it gets, as opposed to the 'one-off instance' which might have actually been ' a one 'off' instance'. We'll just never know, sadly, so we'll need a wee bit more than that set of assumptions before we jump ship and join your creaking hull.

"freshly picked carrots" isn't an expression though, Ike!

Even "freshly picked" isn't really an expression, but we can find plenty of examples of it from the nineteenth century. There must be thousands of nouns we can add after "freshly picked" which have never been recorded in a sentence before, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been used in the nineteenth century. Freshly picked sparrows for example. I doubt you'll find a recorded example of this before today but it's still an English sentence which anyone could have created in history.

"One off" is not only an extremely useful expression, for which we can find literally millions of twentieth and twenty-first century examples (with none in the nineteenth century), but, as part of the phrase "one off instance", it requires "one off" words to bear the meaning of "unique" or "unrepeatable", which simply wasn't the case in 1888, which is how we know the diary is a fake.

[Iconoclast]

... which is how we know the diary is a fake.

As Ricky Gervais says, you are welcome to have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Ricky Gervais says, you are welcome to have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.

So basically Ike….



Mr X challenges anyone to refute Z


Mr Y steps up and says “here is the refutation of Z….along with the research that I’ve done which proves the refutation to be correct…ok?”


Mr X - Erm…no.


Mr Y - So you don’t accept it?


Mr X - No.


Mr Y - And why is that?


Mr X - Erm…I just don’t.


Mr Y - But what is your reasoning behind your refusal to accept my refutation?


Mr X - Erm….it doesn’t sound right.


Mr Y - Really?


Mr X - Yeah…surely it can’t be right.


Mr Y - But you have no evidence that it’s not right?


Mr X - Erm….well…no.



Ten years later….



Mr Y - Ok, so you and your pals have had 10 years to refute my point. Have you?


Mr X - Erm…no.


Mr Y - Ok, so now do you accept it?


Mr X - No.


Mr Y - Why not?


Mr X - I just don’t. Please stop asking me.


Mr Y - So how much longer do you and your pals think that you might need to refute my point properly?


Mr X - Erm…maybe another 10 years?


Mr Y - Another 10?!


Mr X - At least.


Mr Y - And when that 10 years is up and you still haven’t refuted my point will you and your pals accept it?


Mr X - Erm….let’s not be too hasty.

[Lombro2]

…as part of the phrase "one off instance", it requires "one off" words to bear the meaning of "unique"

And how exactly can a one-off product in 1888 not ever possibly be a unique product?

Were they all castings of non-unique parts that needed replacing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how exactly can a one-off product in 1888 not ever possibly be a unique product?

Were they all castings of non-unique parts that needed replacing?

As has been explained many many times Lombro, there was no such thing as "a one-off product" in 1888. That type of expression wasn't used. If anything, they might have spoken of a "special" product, or something similar. They didn't speak of one off products. The use of one off in the nineteenth century was in the sense of, e.g., casting one off, but they might equally cast two off or three off or a thousand off. So it's only a quantity at that time.

What needs to happen for "one off instance" to come into use in the English language is for "one off" to first develop a separate meaning of uniqueness. We know this didn't happen until the twentieth century. Even if you don't believe me, it's recorded in dictionaries and phrase books. The evolution of the expression in the English language, as the concept of a one off job or product spread from discreet manufacturing or engineering jargon in the first half of the twentieth century to wider figurative usage amongst the general population after the Second World War is extremely well documented.

[Lombro2]

So “one off” is a quantity like “two off” but did not ever mean, or refer to, something unique until 1945. If it did, it was completely incidental and irrelevant to the usage of the phrase “one off” because “two off” also could be incidentally unique in 1888 up to 1945.

I think this is an embarrassment to EFL, as opposed to ESL.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So “one off” is a quantity like “two off” but did not ever mean, or refer to, something unique until 1945. If it did, it was completely incidental and irrelevant to the usage of the phrase “one off” because “two off” also could be incidentally unique in 1888 up to 1945.

I think this is an embarrassment to EFL, as opposed to ESL.

No, Lombro, that's not what I said at all. Try reading it again. It was only two short paragraphs.

[Lombro2]

So a product could be a unique one off in 1888.

Therefore “one off” could mean and refer to something unique in 1888 to a select group of men in private print or discussion without it ever having to enter the official English As A First Language lexicon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So a product could be a unique one off in 1888.

Therefore “one off” could mean and refer to something unique in 1888 to a select group of men in private print or discussion without it ever having to enter the official English As A First Language lexicon.

Two non sequiturs in one short post. Good effort, Lombro.

[Lombro2]

It was a real Perry Mason moment.

Thank you Johnny Cochrane.

[rjpalmer]

AFI used a desktop Gas Chromatograph (GC) to run their analysis. I used one years ago to analyze for DDT in soil samples. In their later analysis of the diary ink and paper, Leeds used GC coupled with Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). The GC/MS is more effective at filtering out interference of small peak curves. The MS part of the test apparatus acts like a black box, reducing the effects of accidently introduced contaminants. I would therefore trust the results of the Leeds analysis over those of AFI.

Hi Scott,

I've long been under the impression that less than eight or nine people follow the Maybrick 'debate' with any regularity, but I was surprised to be contacted by a lurker who wondered about your above statement.

Leeds' own reports do not refer to "GC coupled with Mass Spectrometry."

They refer to Thin Layer Chromatography coupled with SEM/EDX coupled with Optical Microscopy (OM)

My technical knowledge of this subject could fit into a thimble, but there appears to be relevant limitations to SEM/EDX including "detecting and resolving elemental peaks, especially at low concentrations or for light elements (such as hydrogen).

"Key limitations include: detection limits, peak overlaps, energy resolution, and matrix effects" which doesn't sound (to me, at least) that it would be as effective as GC/MS at "filtering out interference of small peak curves."

The same correspondent wondered if Mr. Voller was correct in saying that Leeds used Gas Chromatography; the reports he has seen states that they used Thin Layered Chromatography. Or are we missing a report?

Anyway, I'm not all that keen on discussing it; not being a chemist, I fall back on Voller's criticism that Leeds "assumed rather than established" their ability to detect chloroacetamide. I pass this on for those who might be interested.

RP

[caz]

I don't know if this is a deliberate wind-up, but I have to put you back on ignore, Lombro.

Rust IS caused by oxidation. It's when air and water (or water vapor) turns iron into iron oxide.

Why not do some research instead of the non-stop chest thumping and sabre rattling? If you want to believe in the diary, that's great. I'm happy for you.

I took Lombro2's comment to be tongue-in-cheek rather than a deliberate wind-up. When Palmer posted this:

Fading and bronzing are two different occurrences. Bronzing is the iron in iron gall ink oxidizing (ie., basically rusting).

Lombro2 came back with this:

And rusting has nothing to do with oxidization….

....which may have benefited from a ??? or a Hmmm at the end, if Palmer missed the more subtle ....

I really did't think from the context that Lombro2 meant it literally, or expected Palmer to take it literally - quite the opposite in fact.

[caz]

"freshly picked carrots" isn't an expression though, Ike!

Even "freshly picked" isn't really an expression, but we can find plenty of examples of it from the nineteenth century. There must be thousands of nouns we can add after "freshly picked" which have never been recorded in a sentence before, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been used in the nineteenth century. Freshly picked sparrows for example. I doubt you'll find a recorded example of this before today but it's still an English sentence which anyone could have created in history.

"One off" is not only an extremely useful expression, for which we can find literally millions of twentieth and twenty-first century examples (with none in the nineteenth century), but, as part of the phrase "one off instance", it requires "one off" words to bear the meaning of "unique" or "unrepeatable", which simply wasn't the case in 1888, which is how we know the diary is a fake.

I agree with your first point, Herlock! Don't all faint at the back there. Freshly picked carrots, or freshly picked sparrows [eh???] are not really turns of phrase - or even terns of phrase. This was precisely my point about that 'bumbling purveyor' of awful doggerel referred to back on 10th November 1888. There must be thousands of different nouns that anyone could have added at that time to "bumbling" instead, which had never been recorded in a sentence before, including the very popular noun "buffoon".

And now we know, thanks to RJ Palmer, that 'one off instance' does not require the 'one off' to mean unique or unrepeatable. It can merely mean the first of an unknown number of potential instances in the future. It may or may not make a jot of difference to you, as the lack of a hyphen apparently doesn't either, but there we are. Interpretation can be tricky at the best of times, so adding a hyphen where there is none in the text, or limiting meaning to a single option, is best avoided.

They do say there's a first time for everything...

[caz]

I’ve never claimed with 100% certainty as to who penned the diary; only that Barrett was likely to have been involved in its creation. I am however certain that James Maybrick didn’t pen the diary because it contains a phrase that couldn’t have been used in 1888/9. It’s as simple as that. Just as it would have been a fake had the writer mentioned going to London for the Queen’s funeral.

I have to pick you up on that one, Herlock:

'I have every intention of outliving the Queen and going to London for her funeral.'

Howzat?

Just trying to lighten the atmosphere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with your first point, Herlock! Don't all faint at the back there. Freshly picked carrots, or freshly picked sparrows [eh???] are not really turns of phrase - or even terns of phrase. This was precisely my point about that 'bumbling purveyor' of awful doggerel referred to back on 10th November 1888. There must be thousands of different nouns that anyone could have added at that time to "bumbling" instead, which had never been recorded in a sentence before, including the very popular noun "buffoon".

And now we know, thanks to RJ Palmer, that 'one off instance' does not require the 'one off' to mean unique or unrepeatable. It can merely mean the first of an unknown number of potential instances in the future. It may or may not make a jot of difference to you, as the lack of a hyphen apparently doesn't either, but there we are. Interpretation can be tricky at the best of times, so adding a hyphen where there is none in the text, or limiting meaning to a single option, is best avoided.

They do say there's a first time for everything...

The problem with "Bumbling Purveyor" is that we don't know who the person being spoken of was or why he was supposed to have been a "Bumbling Purveyor". There were other meanings of "bumbling" in 1888 which were not obsolete, for example the noise made by a bee. The fact of the matter is that "bumbling buffoon" is a well known modern expression and there is no known use of it during the 19th century other than in the Maybrick diary (twice). If that doesn't strike you as just one reason why the diary is a fake, which you seem to agree that it is, I don't quite know what to say to you.

As for "one off", this is the second time today that you've attributed a definition of it to Roger without providing any evidence or quotation. I have never seen him say what you are suggesting he said. And the dictionary is very clear as to what it means.

As for the lack of hyphen, which doesn't need to be there, yes, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. What else can "a one off instance" mean in the diary other than "a one-off instance"? There is no other possible interpretation, which is why it doesn't matter whether a hyphen is there or not.