One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Purkis]

To return to the title of the thread, I am far from convinced that 'one off instance' is the 'incontrovertible... etc,' that refutes the Diary. If this 3 word phrase is to be presented as proof of a modern hoax then it raises the question of other linguistic anachronisms. If the hoaxer was careless enough to use this phrase, which is unusual now, and apparrently unheard of at the time, then how on earth did he avoid any other mistakes?
For someone from the late 20th Century to create the diary of a Victorian, arsenic addicted serial killer and the only debating point is the phrase 'one off instance'? They are either a genius, or luckier than it's plausible to accept.

[David Orsam]

The link appears to be defective!

Yes, missing "l" at the end, try this:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html

[David Orsam]

To return to the title of the thread, I am far from convinced that 'one off instance' is the 'incontrovertible... etc,' that refutes the Diary. If this 3 word phrase is to be presented as proof of a modern hoax then it raises the question of other linguistic anachronisms. If the hoaxer was careless enough to use this phrase, which is unusual now, and apparrently unheard of at the time, then how on earth did he avoid any other mistakes?
For someone from the late 20th Century to create the diary of a Victorian, arsenic addicted serial killer and the only debating point is the phrase 'one off instance'? They are either a genius, or luckier than it's plausible to accept.

That is a very weak response. Firstly, English is a very old language and the diary is relatively short. There is a limit to the number of modern words or expressions in existence, especially those that sound old. Secondly, other linguistic anomalies have been detected and discussed in this thread but the difficulty is in proving they did not exist in 1888. The response is always, "maybe it did". Thirdly, as I have already stated, this thread requires "one" incontrovertible, unequivocal undeniable fact. Your approach seems to be, "okay, I can't controvert this annoying "one off" point but it's only one incontrovertible fact, so it's not enough"!

Personally, I have not researched a single other word or expression in the diary because it should be obvious to you (as it was to me) that finding one expression in the diary that did not exist in 1888 is enough to render the diary a forgery. Your demand for further examples is redundant.

[David Orsam]

For the record, here are the two diagrams I mentioned in my earlier post, from the 1904 articles:

[paul g]

Diary

Just for the uneducated I.e me.
How much would a Victorian diary sell for around that time
Many thanks

[David Orsam]

Just for the uneducated I.e me.
How much would a Victorian diary sell for around that time
Many thanks

The 1891 diary cost £25 apparently.

[ChrisGeorge]

Just for the uneducated I.e me.
How much would a Victorian diary sell for around that time
Many thanks

The 1891 diary cost £25 apparently.

Here is the 1891 diary purchased by Mike Barrett, as held by the late Jeremy Beadle at the Maybrick Trial event at the Liverpool Cricket Club in May 2007. Photograph by Tony May.

[ChrisGeorge]

To return to the title of the thread, I am far from convinced that 'one off instance' is the 'incontrovertible... etc,' that refutes the Diary. If this 3 word phrase is to be presented as proof of a modern hoax then it raises the question of other linguistic anachronisms. If the hoaxer was careless enough to use this phrase, which is unusual now, and apparrently unheard of at the time, then how on earth did he avoid any other mistakes?
For someone from the late 20th Century to create the diary of a Victorian, arsenic addicted serial killer and the only debating point is the phrase 'one off instance'? They are either a genius, or luckier than it's plausible to accept.

"one off" is far from the only anachronistic element in the Diary and I don't agree that "one off" is unusual now.

The phrase "one tin match box empty" may be more of a stumbling block given that it appears in the police list of Catherine Eddowes' possessions, that a forger could have read about in Martin Fido's book of 1988.

[John G]

"One-off" is not an obscure term today-I've used it myself on numerous occasions. And frankly, the idea that the first known use of the term-in a non-technical sense, applied exclusively to the engineering industry- occurred in a diary, with non-existent provenance, and then was not recorded as having been used again for over 40 years, is completely ludicrous.

[David Orsam]

If the hoaxer was careless enough to use this phrase, which is unusual now, and apparrently unheard of at the time, then how on earth did he avoid any other mistakes?

Just want to repeat the point made by others that using the phrase "one off" to mean something or someone special or unique is certainly not unusual now, it is very common, and the same was true in 1992. It's also a phrase that a modern forger could easily have thought existed in 1888.

[ChrisGeorge]

Just want to repeat the point made by others that using the phrase "one off" to mean something or someone special or unique is certainly not unusual now, it is very common, and the same was true in 1992. It's also a phrase that a modern forger could easily have thought existed in 1888.

That's the point. The creator of the Diary is someone a hundred years later trying to recreate what they think James Maybrick's life was like. But they end up creating a melodramatic and unrealistic pastiche.

[Sam Flynn]

"One-off" is not an obscure term today-I've used it myself on numerous occasions.

The use of "one-off" is first attested in the Oxford English Dictionary in connection with physical and/or manufactured products ("A splendid one-off pattern can be swept up in very little time", Institute of British Foundrymen, 1934). There are numerous other examples, none dating earlier than 1934, in which "one-off" is likewise used to refer to a physical product.

However, the OED's first mention of "one-off" being used to describe an event comes as late as 1968 ("Jenkins has already made a crude stab at wealth tax... but this was a one-off effort"), with the next in 1974 ("I don't like those one-off dates; I need companionship [and] warmth"). It is in the latter sense that we tend to use "one-off" these days, and it is in the same vein that it's used in the diary.

The fact that the diary clearly uses "one-off" in this more modern sense, strongly indicates a composition date not much earlier than the 1960s, and probably later than that.

[Purkis]

Just want to repeat the point made by others that using the phrase "one off" to mean something or someone special or unique is certainly not unusual now, it is very common, and the same was true in 1992. It's also a phrase that a modern forger could easily have thought existed in 1888.

I was referring to the whole phrase : 'one-off instance'.
Of course 'one-off' is very common.

[ChrisGeorge]

I was referring to the whole phrase : 'one-off instance'.
Of course 'one-off' is very common.

Even the occurrence of "one-off instance" is not that rare, as these examples from Twitter posts of September to December of this year demonstrate.

[David Orsam]

I was referring to the whole phrase : 'one-off instance'.
Of course 'one-off' is very common.

Leaving aside that the phrase "one off instance" is in common usage today, and was in 1992, I fail to understand the obsession some people seem have with this exact phrase.

Take the expression "one off occurrence". The word "occurrence" is a synonym of "instance". So if you say "one off occurrence" you are, in effect, also saying "one off instance".

It's the same for the expression "one off occasion". The word "occasion" is a synonym for "instance". They are interchangeable.

That's why I have always said that the expression "one off instance" or similar was not in use in 1888.