When Did "One Off" Take Off?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I appreciate your use of 'if' in this context, Herlock. Opinion is divided, but few if any give credence to Mike's initial claim that the diary was all his own work. By the time he accused his estranged wife of doing the handwriting, and jointly composing the text, he had acquired a ruddy great motive for doing so, and there remains zero evidence that she would have collaborated with her husband on writing the diary of "the bogeyman" from her youth.

What this boils down to is that any Tom, Dick or Harriet alive when Mike Barrett was could have known and used the expression, either in writing or conversation, not knowing - nor perhaps caring - if anyone alive in 1888 could have done the same.

It doesn't nail the Barretts.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

One minefield is enough for me. I can’t multitask them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, Caz. I think you and I make for better samples of what constituted common English in 1992.

If someone knew it but learned it working in a foundry or in school, if they studied anything to do with manufacturing or business or even printmaking etc, or was 5 years old in 92 and only learned it "after 2000 when it took off", it doesn't really count. I fortunately spent most of the 80s studying in the public library when it actually had books (five times more than now at least), away from the rarified crowd.

BTW, did your book include a mini-bio for Michael to see what circles he ran in?

Hi Lombro,
,
I don't think you've quite understood what Caz said. She said her late father-in-law regularly used the expression "one off" in normal language from as early as the 1970s. She wasn't saying that she was unaware of it in 1992, as you claim to be.

Your own experience isn't relevant because you tell us you were living in a foreign country at the time. Over here in the UK, I can assure you that "one off" was a very common expression by 1992. I've already proved this for you with actual examples.

I've no idea why you've wrapped "after 2000 when it took off" in quotation marks. This might be true in foreign countries such as the United States but it was well known and well used in England in the 1980s..... but not, of course, the 1880s when it didn't exist at all.

[Iconoclast]

No gravestone with 'I told you I was ill' on it.

Spike's was good, Caz, but I have already instructed Mrs Iconoclast and Izzy Iconoclast that mine should read:

"Well, that could have worked out better".

Now I just have to become famous ...

PS We often walk our wee dug around the local cemetery and we have twice found graves with my name on it. Their messages are crap, though. Third time lucky, eh?

[caz]

It is rubbish though. Odds on the Barretts wrote the diary.

So you believe the Barretts most likely wrote the diary, but Mike's affidavit confessing to this is 'rubbish'.

It's an interesting point of view, but I respect you for taking a minority position when the majority treat his affidavit as if it were the God's honest truth.

And that's factual.

Love,

Caz and what have you
X

[caz]

The only question remaining is who penned the scrapbook and why did they bother? My guess would be for shits and giggles. Why not? It's a great little piece of fiction.

I could go for 'shits and giggles', Mike, but not if the Barretts were involved and presented their own handiwork to be researched and investigated seriously by the professionals. Anne has never come across to me as the 'shits and giggles' type - although she has certainly giggled nervously on occasion. I see her as a stone cold sober parent - in every sense - compared with her husband, but neither seemed to have any friends in common, let alone a shared sense of fun. Having their daughter Caroline no doubt kept them together and functioning before the diary reared its ugly head, but if they once had a similar sense of humour and used it to create the bloody thing, all trace of that humour was gone not long afterwards and the final ashes scattered. No gravestone with 'I told you I was ill' on it.

It would be hard to find a couple less suited in 1992 to having "a lark" on this scale.

But needs must when the devil drives, so if a theory collapses without the Barretts of Goldie Street to hold it up, then only the Barretts will do.

The devil in the detail can go to hell.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I'd prefer you left it outside your house so I could come along in my shell suit and half-inch it, Ike! Or I could do you a trade... One bottle of original recipe Iron Bru and a sawn-off shotgun for a copy of your much anticipated Society's Pillar, due for release in 2026ish.

I would drive it down to you, Mike, if I could afford the tyres for the return home ...

[Mike J. G.]

Get your order in for my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025, Mike - you won't regret it and, don't worry, I know you're a Scouser, it'll be free.

I'd prefer you left it outside your house so I could come along in my shell suit and half-inch it, Ike! Or I could do you a trade... One bottle of original recipe Iron Bru and a sawn-off shotgun for a copy of your much anticipated Society's Pillar, due for release in 2026ish.

[Mike J. G.]

I do enjoy everyone's amnesia when it comes to the watch.

Allo, Jay.

I'm not one for ruining anyone's enjoyment, but I do remember the watch, mate. The trouble is that it's still not evidence tying Maybrick to the Ripper.

You've first got to establish that the watch was actually Jim's, that Jim actually doodled on it, and then you've got to make a credible case for him actually having been Jack. I'm yet to see any of those things becoming a reality.

There's no reason, other than the romantic comedy of the scrapbook, to believe that Jim was Jack.

There's nothing in Jim's history to tell us that he was capable of murder. There's certainly no evidence for the suggested, but obviously unnamed for obvious reasons, murder in Manchester, either.

Jim didn't write in the scrapbook, that's not really debatable. It's simply not his hand.

Did he own the watch? Not as far as we can tell, though it's not impossible, but nobody's proved it was his.

Did he carve the scratches on the watch? Not as far as we can tell, though it's not impossible, but nobody's proven that he did.

It's on the Maybrick crowd to prove that he commited these crimes, owned the watch and wrote the accompanying novella. I'll wait for that evidence, but I won't hold my breath.

[Lombro2]

At this point, it may help to remind one or two posters of the actual words as they appear in the diary:

...I apologised, a one off
instance, I said, which I regretted and I assured the whore
it would never happen again. The stupid bitch believed
me.

'Sir Jim' admits he lied to Florie at this point but she appeared to accept his apology and assurances that this was a single, regrettable lapse of self control.

The whole thing is a tautology when 'a one off instance' [NO HYPHEN] is interpreted as a unique event, because while he might have needed to spell out to Florie that this meant 'it would never happen again', he hardly needed to explain it to himself in his own private diary.

So......

...I apologised, 'a single aberrant
lapse', I said, which I regretted and I assured the whore
it would not be repeated. The stupid bitch believed
me.

Better?

Much better, Caz. You have summed it up succinctly.

It brings up 2 points.

• This usage of "one off" really has nothing to do or very very little to do with "unique". It's an "aberrant event" so it's probably the first such usage I know of until that sportswriter this year talking about the aberrant -6 (+/-) in one game for two hockey stars.

• It's aberrant behavior for a serial killer who can usually make it out the front door before he hurts women. Most people wouldn't think it was aberrant behavior for a serial killer.

It's very good profiling.

[caz]

By using the expression "one off instance" in the diary, Mike Barrett, if he wrote it, was doing no more than showing he spoke the English language

I appreciate your use of 'if' in this context, Herlock. Opinion is divided, but few if any give credence to Mike's initial claim that the diary was all his own work. By the time he accused his estranged wife of doing the handwriting, and jointly composing the text, he had acquired a ruddy great motive for doing so, and there remains zero evidence that she would have collaborated with her husband on writing the diary of "the bogeyman" from her youth.

What this boils down to is that any Tom, Dick or Harriet alive when Mike Barrett was could have known and used the expression, either in writing or conversation, not knowing - nor perhaps caring - if anyone alive in 1888 could have done the same.

It doesn't nail the Barretts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I do enjoy everyone's amnesia when it comes to the watch.

I haven't forgotten it, ero b. The 'FM' on Kelly's wall and the signature in the watch are implausible marks of a hoaxer, no debate.

I've actually seen and handled the watch. It is tiny and yet the signature (when the light falls the right way) flows freely. It is a remarkable achievement for a hoaxer who managed to get it so much like Maybrick's. I think if people saw the watch, they would agree.

Cheers,

Ike

[Lombro2]

Slight correction and clarification, Lombro2: it was my late father-in-law who would use the expression "one-off" this and "one-off" that, which he had originally picked up from his reserved occupation days during the war, casting ships' propellers in a foundry. He wasn't still using it in that context when I knew him, from the late 1970s, and it was a new one on me - something I never learned at school. His wartime job eventually killed him when he died in 1989 from asbestosis. His last school report concluded: 'He has clean hands and swims well'.
Every day can be a school day if we let it, and we can learn new things from anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you, Caz. I think you and I make for better samples of what constituted common English in 1992.

If someone knew it but learned it working in a foundry or in school, if they studied anything to do with manufacturing or business or even printmaking etc, or was 5 years old in 92 and only learned it "after 2000 when it took off", it doesn't really count. I fortunately spent most of the 80s studying in the public library when it actually had books (five times more than now at least), away from the rarified crowd.

BTW, did your book include a mini-bio for Michael to see what circles he ran in?

[Iconoclast]

...I apologised, 'a single aberrant
lapse', I said, which I regretted and I assured the whore
it would not be repeated. The stupid bitch believed
me.

Better?

Love,

Caz
X

Shall I let the hoaxer know, Caz, or will you?

[Iconoclast]

There's nothing monumental ruling him out, but there's very little evidence to rule basically anyone out, including the cat's mother!
Cheers!

Get your order in for my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025, Mike - you won't regret it and, don't worry, I know you're a Scouser, it'll be free.

[caz]

I'm not sure that many people on here have actually looked beyond the superficial, but the evidence provided by Mike over the years for it either being genuine or a hoax have been as poor as each other.

Mike's affidavit of 1995 claims he and Anne came up with the idea with Tony D in January 1990. He also claims that was the time Anne purchased the small red diary. We know that isn't true. The small red diary was advertised for in March 1992. He also fails to explain why he and Anne sits on it for almost a year after Tony's death. We don't even have to get as far as the phantom auction and lack of any physical evidence before we can see this is all mince.

Then we have his will, where he goes to great lengths to try to protect his transcript copyright. If the diary is a hoax, then the transcript copyright is pointless, isn't it?

Those quick to label Mike and Anne as the forgers, have no idea the nuances of this case. Otherwise, they would clearly see what Ike and I see.

Mike was a liar yes, a forger no.

Funny you should mention Mike's will, ero.

This would have been a good time to get everything off his chest at last, make his final confession to hoaxing the diary and go to meet his Maker with a bit less on his conscience.

That's if he was trying to do the right thing back in 1995 by telling the truth, but the drink kept letting him down.

But no. Mike's focus, as you say, is oddly on the transcript of the diary, which he claims to have transcribed with no personal help from anyone, and exactly the way the pages of the diary were written.

He is still having a pop at Anne a decade after she divorced him, but this time there is no attempt to accuse her or anyone else of fakery. Instead, he merely cuts his ex wife out of the process of transcribing it, making this document represent his finest hour, by claiming to have faithfully transferred the diary's contents to his trusty word processor. In so doing, he cuts himself and Anne out of the process of creating the diary itself.

Go figure, as they say across the pond.

Love,

Caz
X