The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[John Wheat]

To be absolutely clear here, if you make any assertion at all, the onus falls on you to demonstrate it. There is a difference between making an assertion and giving an opinion. Thus:

• "The scrapbook is an obvious hoax" is an assertion which requires evidence to back it up, whereas
• "The case for the scrapbook being authentic has not yet been supported by the evidence" is an opinion which carries no obligation to defend.

If you post an opinion, no problem. If you simply make bald assertions, please don't be surprised if you are asked to justify them.

Your other alternative is to be found at the end of your previous reply on this point.

Whatever. I'm just not immature or stupid enough to believe the diary is authentic.

[Harry D]

Once again, let me remind you that the scrapbook absolutely does not mention a "one-off" anything. All that you are doing is trying the case using the evidence you have decided is there rather than what is actually there.

If Maybrick had hyphenated these two words, I would be the first to agree that the intended meaning of the phrase is beyond debate. Of course, at that point I would challenge you to reassure us all that every written document and letter since 1888 has been preserved and reviewed to check for common usage of this (or very similar) expressions.

Pettifogging. Hyphenated or not, the use of the term referring to something unique was not used outside of the Maybrick Diary before the 20th century. You can believe that this term has been conveniently lost or that Maybrick was the Shakespeare of his time, but when weighed against that improbability, the dubious origin of the diary, and the other errors, it really is hard to see why anyone thinks it's legit.

[Harry D]

t.

So every printed and hand-written document that ever existed before or at the critical time has been located and visually checked, then? I think not. Rather, you mean that no known document supports your contention.

Graham

We can only work from the material available to us, and none of it contains the use of "one off instance" before the 20th century.

[Iconoclast]

No, it's not. There are no documents that support the diarist's usage of "one-off instance" at that time. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary it's a perfectly valid statement of fact.

Once again, let me remind you that the scrapbook absolutely does not mention a "one-off" anything. All that you are doing is trying the case using the evidence you have decided is there rather than what is actually there.

If Maybrick had hyphenated these two words, I would be the first to agree that the intended meaning of the phrase is beyond debate. Of course, at that point I would challenge you to reassure us all that every written document and letter since 1888 has been preserved and reviewed to check for common usage of this (or very similar) expressions.

[Graham]

For the Diary to be genuine, and personally penned by J Maybrick, then for it to eventually end up in the shaky hands of Mr Michael Barrett it seems plain to me that it must have come out of Battlecrease at some point in its life. If so, by what possible means? There is what I can now only think of as a 'Diary Legend' that it was found under the floorboards of Maybrick's dressing-room when the house was being re-wired. Stories that it was chucked out of a window, ending up on the skip, and so forth. Feldman relates that something was found by, presumably, the electricians, and was taken by them to Liverpool University in the hope that they could shed light upon it - whatever 'it' was. Feldman says he went to the University to find out more, but was given the cold shoulder there. And, quite without his characteristic bulldog-like tenacity, he appears not to have followed up this lead. What did he find out, if anything? Any ideas?

There is also the 'Diary Legend' that it did somehow come out of Battlecrease, but much earlier, and found its way into the possession of Billy Graham via a tenuous and probably non-existent family connection with the Maybricks, who took no notice of it, and eventually handed it over to Ann Graham, who similarly appears to have been just as uninterested in it, and, according to what she said to Feldman, hid it behind a bedroom cupboard for however many years. Only when she felt that it might 'give Mike something to do' did she produce it and hand it over to him.

Discuss.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Another small point, if I may. It's reckoned by them wot know that Shakespeare introduced possibly hundreds of 'new' words into written English... All I'm saying is that words have to be in everyday, spoken usage for some length of time before they are first committed to paper.

True enough, however the number of printed documents produced at the time of Shakespeare, and before him, pales into insignificance compared to what was churned out in subsequent centuries, which sky-rocketed from the 18th Century onwards. Greater urbanisation, industrialisation and easier travel brought more people into proximity with one another, allowing for ideas, words and phrases to spread. Literacy was also improving, and the rise of numerous affordable newspapers in the 19th Century meant that a given word or phrase was significantly more likely to reach a wide audience than ever before, an effect which grew exponentially in the 20th Century with the advent of mass electronic communication media of all kinds.

These factors not only have a bearing on how quickly new words/phrases/meanings "caught on", but also how quickly they got into print, and the sheer range of printed sources that might carry them. In Shakespeare's day, it might have taken a century or more for a word to be written down, but by the time we reach the 20th Century that lead-time dwindled to perhaps a handful of decades at most. With the more recent "viral" success of social media, the lead-time has shrunk further still.

[Graham]

I vividly remember being puzzled when, in the late 1990s, my boss used "two off", "three off", "four off" (etc) when we were putting together a list of computer equipment to be ordered from our store-room. I thought he was spelling "two of" (etc) wrongly, but then he read out the list, confirming that he definitely meant "off" - albeit it still didn't make sense to me. Up until that point, I'd only ever heard (and used) "one-off" to refer to unique people or events, and was totally unaware that it was possible to have more than "one".

Well said, Sam. And thanks. An alternative to 'one'-or 'two'-off, etc., was and probably still is 'one reqd' and so on, 'reqd' being obviously a contraction of 'required'.

Graham

[Graham]

No, it's not. There are no documents that support the diarist's usage of "one-off instance" at that time. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary it's a perfectly valid statement of fac

t.

So every printed and hand-written document that ever existed before or at the critical time has been located and visually checked, then? I think not. Rather, you mean that no known document supports your contention.

Graham

[Harry D]

Not that my opinion matters a toss, but I'm with you on this, Ike. It is simply impossible for anyone to state that the expression does not occur anywhere else other than 1934 engineering journals, etc., etc.

No, it's not. There are no documents that support the diarist's usage of "one-off instance" at that time. Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary it's a perfectly valid statement of fact.

[Iconoclast]

Not that my opinion matters a toss, but I'm with you on this, Ike. It is simply impossible for anyone to state that the expression does not occur anywhere else other than 1934 engineering journals, etc., etc. This still doesn't imply that I think Maybrick wrote the Diary or was Jack the Ripper....

Graham

Well I agree with you on both your points, Graham. To be clear, agreeing with this point does not mean that

I

believe that it proves that James Maybrick was Jack either. I think we should be wary of making categorical statements when we do not have the evidence any more to properly check our facts. Undermining the "one off instance" issue is not the same thing as agreeing that JM was JtR so if more people agree with this they should kindly speak up.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I wouldn't call it common, but it was used to refer to physical objects, typically in a manufacturing context (e.g. a one-off mould for bricks), and this remained the case until well into the 20th Century. It is only in the 20th Century that we start to see it being used to refer to abstract concepts, like "events" and "instances" (which is how it's used in the Diary). As the 20th Century progressed, more and more people would have encountered and adopted the abstract usage, to the extent that by now one hears it used in that manner almost every day. This would not have been the case in the early 20th Century, and almost certainly not in the 19th.

I think we are looking for something a little bit more categorical than this, though. We need a definitive view from an expert (although their pronouncements are so frequently flawed) that it was impossible for James Maybrick to have written those three letters ("one off instance") in that order in the late 1880s. It would have helped your case had he used the hyphenation which the modern "one-off" requires, but he didn't. To prove this point, every written document and letter would need to be reviewed way back to Victorian times, and obviously we do not have 95%+ (a made-up statistic, obviously) of them so we would struggle to ever be categorical on this point.

[Sam Flynn]

if there were various component parts on the same drawing, and if for example two of a particular part were required to manufacture the finished complete article, then the drawing would have something like "Part No 2345 - two off".

I vividly remember being puzzled when, in the late 1990s, my boss used "two off", "three off", "four off" (etc) when we were putting together a list of computer equipment to be ordered from our store-room. I thought he was spelling "two of" (etc) wrongly, but then he read out the list, confirming that he definitely meant "off" - albeit it still didn't make sense to me. Up until that point, I'd only ever heard (and used) "one-off" to refer to unique people or events, and was totally unaware that it was possible to have more than "one".

[Darryl Kenyon]

You are innocent until you are proven guilty. 1934 is where the OED who are well knowledged on the English language [like it or not], is found to be the first term for this coinage in its sense. So on that context Maybrick is innocent until some over evidence shows otherwise. So go ahead and show the other evidence and find an example of one-off being used in that context in Victorian times.
Regards Darryl

[Graham]

Another small point, if I may. It's reckoned by them wot know that Shakespeare introduced possibly hundreds of 'new' words into written English. This does not necessarily mean that he invented these 'new' words; merely that he was the first known writer to put them on paper. Yes, it's likely that he did 'invent' some of these new words. But if he did not, then he was merely writing down, for the first known time in history, words that must have been in current usage before and during his working life. Here are a few:

Bedroom Bump Dauntless Employer Go-Between Lacklustre and loads and loads more. Check the Internet! All I'm saying is that words have to be in everyday, spoken usage for some length of time before they are first committed to paper.

Graham

[Graham]

And we have copies of every written document and letter from 1888 onwards, do we? And each has been carefully reviewed?

Not that my opinion matters a toss, but I'm with you on this, Ike. It is simply impossible for anyone to state that the expression does not occur anywhere else other than 1934 engineering journals, etc., etc. This still doesn't imply that I think Maybrick wrote the Diary or was Jack the Ripper....

And for the dubious benefit of those in this non-technical and somewhat clueless age who don't know what one-off means, in the days when engineering drawings were produced by hand, and when they contained virtually all the information a manufacturer needed to produce items from said drawings, the term one-off simply means that just one single item was to be produced using that particular drawing. Or, if there were various component parts on the same drawing, and if for example two of a particular part were required to manufacture the finished complete article, then the drawing would have something like "Part No 2345 - two off". Simples, eh?

Graham