One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Herlock. Your memory is fine.



I promised to go, but this really needs to be addressed.

'Orsam' listed this as a 'false fact,' because Jonathan Green's Dictionary of Jargon was written in 1984 (and later revised) and the entry states nothing whatsoever about this being a 19th Century prison expression.

And, other than Green, Smith gives no source for his claim.

Further, the usage is not comparable to the way "Maybrick" uses it.

Nor does it refer to a duty done on an irregular basis. It is a term used when one prison guard is handing over an inmate to another guard's supervision. It is a system where they make a verbal exchange---"one off" and the other responds "one on"--so they knew they are on the same 'wavelength,' and the prisoner isn't being lost in the shuffle due to miscommunication.

See the link below, about a quarter of the way down, for the full discussion. Orsam's point is entirely valid.

MaybrickTheFalseFacts - Orsam Books

Thanks Roger,

So my old mate the late Alan was correct. Something told me that David had addressed this point but I only had time for a quick look on his site earlier in the evening and I couldn’t find the relevant part.

So basically, until someone can prove that David is wrong about ‘one off instance’ being anachronistic then the diary has to be considered a proven forgery. It seems simple enough. I’m not in any camp and pay almost no attention to anything to do with the diary but it appears straightforward to me. The onus is on those who believe the diary to disprove David’s conclusion and no one has done it so far.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Roger,

So my old mate the late Alan was correct. Something told me that David had addressed this point but I only had time for a quick look on his site earlier in the evening and I couldn’t find the relevant part.

So basically, until someone can prove that David is wrong about ‘one off instance’ being anachronistic then the diary has to be considered a proven forgery. It seems simple enough. I’m not in any camp and pay almost no attention to anything to do with the diary but it appears straightforward to me. The onus is on those who believe the diary to disprove David’s conclusion and no one has done it so far.

Is that the way it works, Mike? Shouldn’t the ball be in the court of those who claim ‘one-off’ was anachronistic to prove it?

[erobitha]

So basically, until someone can prove that David is wrong about ‘one off instance’ being anachronistic then the diary has to be considered a proven forgery. It seems simple enough. I’m not in any camp and pay almost no attention to anything to do with the diary but it appears straightforward to me. The onus is on those who believe the diary to disprove David’s conclusion and no one has done it so far.

I'm a keen admirer of your matter-of-fact approach to life Herlock. Black and white. No nuance.

I don't believe things work like that, but I admire the commitment to the belief that it does.

I think what must be established is that there are actually multiple scenarios to consider, and just to focus on "Prove Maybrick wrote it" is somewhat limiting.

1) Maybrick wrote it and all the issues raised must be addressed 100% to secure universal approval across Ripperlogy. That is the current bar you and others have set "Believe it, prove it. All of it."
2) Maybrick didn't write it but it could be an old hoax to implicate him as being potentially the writer. Does that make Maybrick JTR? Unlikely we would all probably agree. But then there is the possibility the watch is genuine and the "diary" was created to try and endorse his candidacy with more than one artefact. We cannot dismiss that scenario. But then the watch needs to replace the scrapbook for point 1 if Maybrick can then ever be seriously considered. For me, the watch is what keeps me locked in.
3) Same as point 2 - except we replace the word 'old' with 'modern'.
4) Both the watch and "diary" are 100% conclusively, without doubt, been shown to be clear hoaxes and people like me go and cry in a dark room for six months. That has not been proven either.

I am interested in the truth. If point 4 is what we are left with. So be it. But scenarios 1-3 are still very much up for grabs through further debate, analysis and discovery.

[Iconoclast]

Oh, and let's make one point explicit, shall we? The only reason you don't want Tony Devereux to have been discussing the Diary with Mike in 1991 is because it is a kick in the pants to the 'March 9th 1992' provenance. It's not that the circumstances aren't reasonable in and of themselves.

Before the 'new' provenance emerged, Diary supporters were happy to accept it, because it seemed to support Anne Graham's tale of having given the diary to Tony, and Mike pestering him. Indeed, I don't think I exaggerate when I say that your mentor, Paul Feldman, was overjoyed to learn that Mike and Tony had discussed the diary as far back as the Summer of 1991.

Now it's necessary to not only sweep it under the floorboards like a hideous, vulgar, and unwanted object, but to argue with tooth & nail if someone suggests it may have occurred.

My how times have changed, Ike!

And all of this is largely true. The Graham provenance used to be the only horse in the race so it was inevitable that that was the provenance with the greatest merit (simply by default); and it took me a while to fully digest the incredible 'double event' coincidences of March 9, 1992 - simply far too unlikely to be ignored. Thus, the Graham provenance must have been the true 'coincidence' (one of the two provenances had to be) and the 'double event' of March 9, 1992 had to be non-coincidental (that is, they must have been linked to the final outcome - the emergence of the scrapbook). It's just simple statistics - probably even for those people who cannot get their heads around statistics.

[Iconoclast]

Is that the way it works, Mike? Shouldn’t the ball be in the court of those who claim ‘one-off’ was anachronistic to prove it?

The burden of proof lies with anyone making any assertion so I would suggest that you are both right.

[Iconoclast]

I'm a keen admirer of your matter-of-fact approach to life Herlock. Black and white. No nuance.

I don't believe things work like that, but I admire the commitment to the belief that it does.

I think what must be established is that there are actually multiple scenarios to consider, and just to focus on "Prove Maybrick wrote it" is somewhat limiting.

1) Maybrick wrote it and all the issues raised must be addressed 100% to secure universal approval across Ripperlogy. That is the current bar you and others have set "Believe it, prove it. All of it."
2) Maybrick didn't write it but it could be an old hoax to implicate him as being potentially the writer. Does that make Maybrick JTR? Unlikely we would all probably agree. But then there is the possibility the watch is genuine and the "diary" was created to try and endorse his candidacy with more than one artefact. We cannot dismiss that scenario. But then the watch needs to replace the scrapbook for point 1 if Maybrick can then ever be seriously considered. For me, the watch is what keeps me locked in.
3) Same as point 2 - except we replace the word 'old' with 'modern'.
4) Both the watch and "diary" are 100% conclusively, without doubt, been shown to be clear hoaxes and people like me go and cry in a dark room for six months. That has not been proven either.

I am interested in the truth. If point 4 is what we are left with. So be it. But scenarios 1-3 are still very much up for grabs through further debate, analysis and discovery.

erobitha,

With your track record at the races, could you nip down to Ladbrokes and stick a few bob on 1), 2), and 3) for me, please?

Ike of the Turf

[MrBarnett]

The burden of proof lies with anyone making any assertion so I would suggest that you are both right.

On this thread?

[erobitha]

erobitha,

With your track record at the races, could you nip down to Ladbrokes and stick a few bob on 1), 2), and 3) for me, please?

Ike of the Turf

Guaranteed the 4 dog wins so

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that the way it works, Mike? Shouldn’t the ball be in the court of those who claim ‘one-off’ was anachronistic to prove it?

Hello Gary,

It just seems to me that David has come to a research-based conclusion and this shows that there are no known or recorded instances of ‘one off’ being used apart from in purely engineering/manufacturing terms. To me that seems, at the very least, a huge stumbling block to accepting the authenticity of the diary. And I have to admit that I was never someone that dismissed the diary straight away or even earlier on as many did. After reading Feldman I even started to think “maybe this is genuine after all.” To be even more honest I remained of the opinion that there was at least a chance of it being genuine until I came up against ‘one off instance’ via David. Surely somewhere in literature of whatever form we should have been able to find an example of this usage? I certainly don’t know enough about the subject to make any kind of informed judgment but I find it impossible to get past a phrase that apparently shouldn’t be in a diary written in 1888/9? So it appears to me that David has proved it which leaves it to others to find the refutation. I don’t know if that will ever happen Gary (David obviously believes that it won’t) but as he can do no more surely the ball is firmly in the court of others to provide the refutation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm a keen admirer of your matter-of-fact approach to life Herlock. Black and white. No nuance.

I don't believe things work like that, but I admire the commitment to the belief that it does.

I think what must be established is that there are actually multiple scenarios to consider, and just to focus on "Prove Maybrick wrote it" is somewhat limiting.

1) Maybrick wrote it and all the issues raised must be addressed 100% to secure universal approval across Ripperlogy. That is the current bar you and others have set "Believe it, prove it. All of it."
2) Maybrick didn't write it but it could be an old hoax to implicate him as being potentially the writer. Does that make Maybrick JTR? Unlikely we would all probably agree. But then there is the possibility the watch is genuine and the "diary" was created to try and endorse his candidacy with more than one artefact. We cannot dismiss that scenario. But then the watch needs to replace the scrapbook for point 1 if Maybrick can then ever be seriously considered. For me, the watch is what keeps me locked in.
3) Same as point 2 - except we replace the word 'old' with 'modern'.
4) Both the watch and "diary" are 100% conclusively, without doubt, been shown to be clear hoaxes and people like me go and cry in a dark room for six months. That has not been proven either.

I am interested in the truth. If point 4 is what we are left with. So be it. But scenarios 1-3 are still very much up for grabs through further debate, analysis and discovery.

I agree that there are many complex points of discussion and debate surrounding the Diary Erobitha but all of the complex points of provenance and historical accuracy are entirely moot if the diary contains a phrase which all of the current evidence shows just cannot have been written by someone in 1888/9. According to David’s research there’s not a single, solitary example of this usage in existence. For me personally, and until someone can refute this, then this is the killer blow. As I said to Gary, until ‘one off instance’ I still accepted the possibility of the diary being genuine. I even came under heavy fire on here once for simply for playing Devil’s Advocate on the subject. I never dismissed the diary because of the Poste House thing or even because the handwriting in the diary didn’t match Maybricks (which I annoyed a few posters by suggesting this as a point in favour of genuineness) but I can’t get past ‘one off instance.’ So until someone can refute it my personal position is that the diary has to be a forgery. Modern or historical, who knows?

[Abby Normal]

I agree that there are many complex points of discussion and debate surrounding the Diary Erobitha but all of the complex points of provenance and historical accuracy are entirely moot if the diary contains a phrase which all of the current evidence shows just cannot have been written by someone in 1888/9. According to David’s research there’s not a single, solitary example of this usage in existence. For me personally, and until someone can refute this, then this is the killer blow. As I said to Gary, until ‘one off instance’ I still accepted the possibility of the diary being genuine. I even came under heavy fire on here once for simply for playing Devil’s Advocate on the subject. I never dismissed the diary because of the Poste House thing or even because the handwriting in the diary didn’t match Maybricks (which I annoyed a few posters by suggesting this as a point in favour of genuineness) but I can’t get past ‘one off instance.’ So until someone can refute it my personal position is that the diary has to be a forgery. Modern or historical, who knows?

hi herlock
im sure you remember Lord David Orsam also proved it was a fake once and for all (again) with this tour de force of research and analysis:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/bunnysaunt.htm

[harry]

I am sure every poster knows the way to greet a group of people in the morning."Good morning all" is quite common,as is several other means,but who can remember, or point out where or when those two words "Morning alltogether" has been a common form of greeting.Is it relevant to this thread?I'd say about as relevant as "One off".Now I cannot claim that 'Morning altogether'was common or used in the eighteen hundreds,or even today,but the possibiliy exists.I have only heard the expression uttered by one person,but does that allow me to claim it hasn't,and wouldn't have been used by others?

[John Wheat]

Because the truth actually matters? Who cares if William Bury was the ripper or someone else was? I think you do. He killed his wife, so he's fair game.

Mike was a liar, so he's also fair game. He may as well have written the diary, because he said he did in June 1994? Even though he retracted this and later tried to accuse his estranged wife of writing it, and later still reverted to his original Tony Devereux story?

That may be truth enough for some, but not for me, John.

Love,

Caz
X

Fair enough Caz. I'd agree the truth matters. I also agree that Bury is fair game as he killed his wife. Another thing I'm aware of is that Mike was a liar.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

On this thread?

Good point, MrB!

Let me rephrase:

You're both wrong.

Indeed, everyone's wrong. All the time. Ever.

Except Caz who's got a wicked switchblade and needs no invitation to use it ('Old Lady' my arse ).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hello Gary,
It just seems to me that David has come to a research-based conclusion [one-off instance] ... but as he can do no more surely the ball is firmly in the court of others to provide the refutation?

I'd have to agree that him and his subscription to Meccano Monthly have made some reasonable points regarding the use of 'one off instance' in the scrapbook. For clarity, there is no real argument against the possible use of 'one-off'. His point is that - in 1888 or 1889 - the notion of a 'one-off' had never (on the published record) been conjoined with 'instance' so that the expression moves on from 'one thing off a list of things' or 'one thing not two or more things' to something more like 'one thing that has no comparator'.

Now, all I would suggest that you do is bear a few thoughts in mind:

He researched extensively through trade journals where the term 'one-off' would have a specific meaning and be likely to be used (interestingly, however, he shows that it frequently wasn't used and alternative terms such as 'special' or 'casual' were often still preferred even well into the 20th century) and we'll assume that he researched through all other available publications (and wasn't simply falling back onto Google Ngrams with its attendant misdirections such as the absence of 'freshly picked carrots' from the common lexicon before 1948). What he could not research through (obviously) was the spoken word in conversation, and any letters and books which have not survived and been documented somewhere, so we need to show a wee bit of caution before we start to get overly insistant that Maybrick's potential use of the term was categortically the only one for the next 100 years.

I would also caution that Maybrick was not supposed to have written 'one-off instance' (with the hyphen. In the scrapbook, he's definitely not Mr. Hyphen, it is true, but the absence of it leaves the reader to wonder if what he was trying (very badly) to write was 'an 'off' moment which I won't repeat'. Just because he wrote what he wrote is no guarantee that that was exactly what he meant. Ever typed a line in a post and then corrected it afterwards? Maybrick didn't have a handy 'Edit' button, nor - I imagine - would he care to use it even if he did as he appeared to be writing solely for his own eyes right up until the very end.

So, yes and no. Yes, 'one off instance' is an interesting entry in the scrapbook. And no, it is not the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary he claims it to be. If it was, we'd all be dejectedly ripping up our betting slips, looking forlornly around for signs of another race, and being patted on the back and consoled by erobitha.

Ike