When Did "One Off" Take Off?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, that seems like a fair comeback. That backs up the other Michael B's point.

But I still say, No. The British examples from prior to 1990 are largely from books on manufacturing, Hansard, and Glasgow newspapers. They would still represent a fraction of a fraction or .0000004% of British English books. And we're not talking fiction books. Again, the term only took off in fiction and therefore the popular print in 2000.




Unless you have specialized interests or knowledge or run with the right crowd, who would know this term in 1992? I was there in 1992. I read Shirley Harrison in 1993. I live in a Commonwealth country and I wouldn't know the term meant something unique or a one-shot deal unless Shirley Harrison explained it.

The other Michael B heard the term but he said he worked in a foundry. Caz knew the term, whenever she read the Diary book, and she said she had an uncle in a foundry who used the term. Why would they have to mention that if the term was popular?

Michael Barrett would have had to have specialized knowledge and then he probably would have had to coin the term "one off instance" himself. But he's a genius and a Liverpudlian. What can I say?

Hi Lombro,

Did I not disprove this statement when we discussed it on JTR Forums in May of last year?

I gave you a number of examples of "one off instance" in general usage prior to March 1992. For example:

"the work offers no challenge to the theory, but rather appears as a uniquely appropriate, one off instance for it." ("Women in the Poetry of T.S. Eliot" by Tony Pinkney, Macmillan, 1984)

"He does however admit that acts took place. They arose from playful antics within the home and it was certainly a one off instance. It is not going to happen again." (Aldershot News, 15 November 1985)

"She again followed him back home where Conway became abusive. Mr Alan Parsons for Conway said that the offences were one-off instances which happened because the dog had escaped the first time from a hole in an extension Conway was building" (Torbay Express and South Devon Echo, 12 February 1986)

"...when the police stopped them, and the visit to the 'shoot' which had apparently been in the glen for some five years was a one-off instance" (Portadown Times, 3 February 1989)

""We realise there has to be a security alarm and that it can go off at times," she said. "But this was not a one-off instance"" (Portadown Times, 24 January 1992)

None of these are Glasgow newspapers, although I don't know if you believe the Scots spoke a different language to the English during the 1980s who in turn spoke a different language to Members of Parliament.

And that's just "one off instance". If you searched for similar usage of "one off" such as "one off happening", "one off event", "one off mistake" etc. you'll easily find plenty in general circulation in newspapers in the 1970s.

We don't have searchable scripts from radio, TV and films from the 1960s onwards but you can be fairly sure that such expressions could be found on those mediums too.

The idea that this expression couldn't or wouldn't have been familiar to Michael Barrett in 1992, if that's what you're trying to argue, is unsustainable.

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, I did. I guess it's hard to stick to the subject when you have no idea what the subject is and who's taking your side.
Nobody, who dissed one-off's late entry into the everyday language of everyday people, want to discuss it? Then I'm off to find that "one-off square compass".
PS I have a mind to just depart from the Land of square compasses and Mr Puddleduck's golden sock drawers because of my fellow combatants inability to stick to the subject and load their guns with proper ammo before popping off. That's why you don't fight with modern armies with 25% friendly-fire deaths.

Very good advice, Viscount L., and one I wish I had noted and adhered to myself way back when.

[Lombro2]

PS Did you laugh too when your comment was called 'Rubbish' by someone who actually agrees with you?

Yeah, I did. I guess it's hard to stick to the subject when you have no idea what the subject is and who's taking your side.

Nobody, who dissed one-off's late entry into the everyday language of everyday people, want to discuss it? Then I'm off to find that "one-off square compass".

PS I have a mind to just depart from the Land of square compasses and Mr Puddleduck's golden sock drawers because of my fellow combatants inability to stick to the subject and load their guns with proper ammo before popping off. That's why you don't fight with modern armies with 25% friendly-fire deaths.

[Iconoclast]

Just finished the diary for the second time and my first impression is the same. It is creative but the motive is not very clear or convincing. There are no rules for diaries although most are time based. Was this written before or after rhe facts is impossible to know. Especially since the press was active in less than 24 hours,in each case. Since some of it matches what the Press reports state it's not hard to imagine a forgery. That would have been easy even in 1888 or 1889. I found it interesting that Maybrick would have picked Middlesex Street as his place of operation. Where Hutchinson said he saw the man he saw with Mary Kelly just before she was murdered. It does not say where on Middlesex but the East side was Metro police jurisdiction so he would have likely been interrogated. If the West side, like Jacob Levy and Joseph Hyam Levy, he would not have been possibly interrogated until after Eddowes, if at all. Both Levys lived on London City side.
I'm open minded but the Diary appears contrived on the surface. Even if it were written in 1888 or 1889 it could still be after the fact.
Those who have studied this more please provide a counterpoint as I still find this interesting. cheers

Well, you've come to the right place, Patrick Differ. Great to hear you've actually read the scrapbook text (you have no idea what rarified company you have now joined).

Points to note:

It doesn't call itself a diary so you shouldn't get hung up about whether it's a diary or not. The Scrapbook of Jack the Ripper would simply not have sold as well so Robert Smith (publisher) called it a 'diary' (as did Michael Barrett, its 'discoverer', apparently, when he was 'Mike Williams' on March 9, 1992).

The motive was clear enough: Maybrick wants to avenge his whoring wife but he can't so he starts a campaign against Whitechapel sex workers (he targets Whitechapel in London because he first thought he saw his wife with a 'lover' in Whitechapel, Liverpool).

The argument has been made that large sections were penned at the same time. I don't know how solid that evidence is, but it has been claimed. Doesn't make it a hoax, but one would have imagined more fragmented entries perhaps were it authentic (but we must not fall into the terrible trap of allowing our expectations to determine the authenticity of this or any other document, of course). If it is genuine, it could have been written after the fact right up to May 11, 1889, but when it was written remains one of its deepest mysteries.

Just as an aside, I think Hutchinson said he saw the man in Petticoat Lane (which was the market in the north section of Middlesex Street) but someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

It is extremely unlikely that a man with impeccable credentials such as James Maybrick would ever have even been stopped by the police if he walked past them after his crimes never mind taken in and interrogated. This was 1888, after all, and the British class system forbade the working classes to even look at their betters never mind speak to them.

The scrapbook is superficially very poor indeed if it is a hoax so I wouldn't worry too much about whether it is contrived on the surface. If you really want to understand what erobitha was referring to earlier today, you need to absorb much much more than simply the text itself. And on that note ...

Like all of my other dear readers, you'll need to wait for my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 which will probably be the greatest book ever written about Jack (never mind the scrapbook) but - as a starting point - you should consider reading:

• The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Shirley Harrison, 1993, Smith Gryphon;
• Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, Paul Feldman, 1998, Virgin;
• Jack the Ripper: The American Connection, Shirley Harrison, 2003, Blake Publishing Limited;
• Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, & Keith Skinner, 2003, Sutton Publishing Limited;
• The Maybrick A to Z, Christopher Jones, 2008, Countyvise Limited
• 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts,Robert Smith, 2017, Mango Books.
• The True History of the Diary of Jack the Ripper, Robert Smith, 2019, Mango Books
• The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The End Game, Christopher Jones and Daniel Dolgin, 2022, Mango Books

Ike

[Patrick Differ]

Just finished the diary for the second time and my first impression is the same. It is creative but the motive is not very clear or convincing. There are no rules for diaries although most are time based. Was this written before or after rhe facts is impossible to know. Especially since the press was active in less than 24 hours,in each case. Since some of it matches what the Press reports state it's not hard to imagine a forgery. That would have been easy even in 1888 or 1889. I found it interesting that Maybrick would have picked Middlesex Street as his place of operation. Where Hutchinson said he saw the man he saw with Mary Kelly just before she was murdered. It does not say where on Middlesex but the East side was Metro police jurisdiction so he would have likely been interrogated. If the West side, like Jacob Levy and Joseph Hyam Levy, he would not have been possibly interrogated until after Eddowes, if at all. Both Levys lived on London City side.
I'm open minded but the Diary appears contrived on the surface. Even if it were written in 1888 or 1889 it could still be after the fact.
Those who have studied this more please provide a counterpoint as I still find this interesting.
cheers

[John Wheat]

We are all waiting with bated breath that maybe one day you will write something that amounts to some kind of actual counter argument.

I've decided to release my breath a long time ago on that score.

If you have a genuine medical condition of some kind, like tourettes, for example, that excuses why you only ever post one-liners repeating the same old message over and over, then I am sorry for any offence my words might have caused.

If you don't, then carry on barking in the dark. I'll just ignore you moving forward.

I don't need to its obvious that Anne and Mike Barrett wrote the Diary.

[rjpalmer]

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.

Good Lord. It's becoming a cult.

[Iconoclast]

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.

One of my hopes for my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 is that this errant nonsense can be put to bed and those who believe the scrapbook and watch and Sept 17 letter and MJK1 photographs are all hoaxes can help us all to understand better who actually did the co-ordinated hoaxing.

Ha bloody ha.

[erobitha]

Rubbish Anne and Mike Barrett are odds on for having written the Diary.

We are all waiting with bated breath that maybe one day you will write something that amounts to some kind of actual counter argument.

I've decided to release my breath a long time ago on that score.

If you have a genuine medical condition of some kind, like tourettes, for example, that excuses why you only ever post one-liners repeating the same old message over and over, then I am sorry for any offence my words might have caused.

If you don't, then carry on barking in the dark. I'll just ignore you moving forward.

[John Wheat]

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.

Rubbish Anne and Mike Barrett are odds on for having written the Diary.

[erobitha]

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.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, okay, Ike. We're working on it.

I will be genuinely gobsmacked the day the receipt appears or any other concrete evidence of a hoax emerges. I will also be relieved as I've been at this for almost thirty years and it is repetitive and boring but I won't be going anywhere until the case is proven beyond doubt either way.

PS Did you laugh too when your comment was called 'Rubbish' by someone who actually agrees with you?

[John Wheat]

I don't believe shifting the onus, changing the subject, or misrepresentation. But since, we're on the subject...


Okay, okay, Ike. We're working on it.

One day, I'm sure, we'll find that man with the Liverpool accent who sold Stewart the watch in the 60s, and the bill of sale, and we'll find that Outhwaite auction ticket and the auction house inventory with the Diary described perfectly--

"Vintage Edwardian notebook used as a photo album with some maritime photos and postcards and at least 60 blank pages, some staining on the inside cover. Lot includes a one-off square compass."

Rubbish. The Diary is a hoax. Most likely written by Anne and Mike Barrett.

[Lombro2]

I don't believe shifting the onus, changing the subject, or misrepresentation. But since, we're on the subject...

What we do not yet have is the proven provenance.

Okay, okay, Ike. We're working on it.

One day, I'm sure, we'll find that man with the Liverpool accent who sold Stewart the watch in the 60s, and the bill of sale, and we'll find that Outhwaite auction ticket and the auction house inventory with the Diary described perfectly--

"Vintage Edwardian notebook used as a photo album with some maritime photos and postcards and at least 60 blank pages, some staining on the inside cover. Lot includes a one-off square compass."

[Lombro2]

Here's a wider timeline based on British sources.
So using the term makes it very likely, but not certain, that the diary was a hoax.

Okay, that seems like a fair comeback. That backs up the other Michael B's point.

But I still say, No. The British examples from prior to 1990 are largely from books on manufacturing, Hansard, and Glasgow newspapers. They would still represent a fraction of a fraction or .0000004% of British English books. And we're not talking fiction books. Again, the term only took off in fiction and therefore the popular print in 2000.




Unless you have specialized interests or knowledge or run with the right crowd, who would know this term in 1992? I was there in 1992. I read Shirley Harrison in 1993. I live in a Commonwealth country and I wouldn't know the term meant something unique or a one-shot deal unless Shirley Harrison explained it.

The other Michael B heard the term but he said he worked in a foundry. Caz knew the term, whenever she read the Diary book, and she said she had an uncle in a foundry who used the term. Why would they have to mention that if the term was popular?

Michael Barrett would have had to have specialized knowledge and then he probably would have had to coin the term "one off instance" himself. But he's a genius and a Liverpudlian. What can I say?