The One Off Meltdown

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't help it if you can't keep up with what's being said.

So you're not going to answer my question?

Fine. In which case I'm going to make a positive statement, having read and understood all your posts in this thread, that the inclusion in the diary of "a one off instance" can in no way be considered a possible point against Mike and Anne Barrett having composed the diary.

If you disagree with that statement please provide a reason. If not, I am, regretfully, going to conclude that the statement of yours that, "I only think it's another possible point against Anne and Mike Barrett having composed the text", was nonsense.

[Lombro2]

An apology is meant to be a sign that an abuser has no intention of repeating the behaviour, but so often they pretend to be mortified to mollify their victim, only to rinse and repeat. Anne Graham presumably had personal experience of this cycle of abuse/apology/more abuse, as would Mike, but I don't know if they would have collaborated comfortably on that part of the diary text. Perhaps the thought of being able to pay the mortgage made everything look brighter.

That’s a fabulous observation, Caz. I can just imagine it. Okay, not really.

It would still make a great scene in the Schtonk movie. Maybe we can get Anne to collaborate with us. But from my experience, offering money to provide details of partner abuse gets you horrified looks. It’s a wonder she could hold her pen!

[The Baron]

One-off instance, a modern mistake, not a modern term

Dissecting the fairy tale from the anti diary camp:

“‘One-off instance’ is a modern idiom. A dead giveaway. Diary debunked. Case closed.”

What they’re doing here is pure sleight of hand, trying to sell snake oil as scholarship, hoping that if they repeat it enough times, no one will look too closely.
But we are looking closely now, and their little trick just exploded in their faces.
Because here’s the truth:

“One-off instance” is not a modern idiom in the diary.

It’s a literal, countable phrase describing a single act.

And it’s exactly how a 19th century mind would express it.

But the anti diary crowd needs you to believe two things:

• That this phrase must mean “a unique, never to be repeated event” because they desperately want an ‘aha!’ fantasy to wave around.

• That people in 1888 were somehow too dimwitted to understand what “a one-off instance” meant unless they had a TV, a radio, or a copy of The Guardian.

How insulting.

How absolutely condescending to imagine that Victorians, men and women who wrote with nuance, built the English literary canon, and spoke with more precision than we do today, would be stumped by the phrase “a one-off instance.”

It's laughable. It’s pathetic.

They treat the past like a cartoon, where people banged rocks together and spoke in grunts until modern idioms fell from the sky sometime around 1950.

But these were the people of Dickens, of Wilde, of Darwin and Tennyson. And we’re supposed to believe they couldn’t grasp the simple, countable logic of:

“I apologized, a one-off instance, I said, which I regretted…”

Seriously?
Here’s the twist they hate:

In this context, “one-off” doesn’t mean unique forever.

It means “I did it once”.
It means “single occurrence”.
It means exactly what it says.

And yes.. people in the 19th century knew what that meant.

There is no idiom here. Just a manipulative man making an excuse.

And when you read the full quote, the violence, the false apology, the sarcastic tone, the very next line, it becomes crystal clear.. this isn’t some modern quip. It’s a dark, deliberate deception.

This is all they’ve got left.. twisting language, rewriting history, and praying you don’t catch them doing it.
But we did.

And now they’re the ones standing in the spotlight, holding a claim they can’t defend, and looking exactly like what they are:

People who underestimate the intelligence of the past.. because they can’t handle the truth in the present.


Evidence That “One-off Instance” = Count (Not Idiomatic)


1. Refers to a specific, just committed act

“So furious I hit her hard... I apologized, a one off instance...”

• The phrase follows a clear, countable act, hitting her once.
• It makes natural sense as “I told her it was a single instance.”

2. Used in context of making an excuse

“I apologized... I said, which I regretted...”

• He’s justifying his behavior, and saying it was a “one-off” as part of his excuse.
• Fits the Victorian tone of formal, measured, and numeric explanation: “a first offense”.

3. Reinforced by the word “Instance”

“a one off instance”

• “Instance” commonly referred to countable occurrences in 19th century English.
• Pairs naturally with “one-off” as a literal count, one instance.

4. Followed by assurance it won’t happen again

“…I assured the whore it would never happen again.”

• If “one-off” meant “never to be repeated,” this would be redundant.
• The fact that he adds this promise strongly implies “one-off” = a first/only event so far, not a permanent one-time thing.

5. His own thoughts undermine the “Never Again” idea

“It was a pleasure… I would have cut the bitch up… The stupid bitch believed me.”

• He’s clearly lying to her.
• The “one-off instance” is part of manipulation, not a genuine statement of finality.
• This undermines the idiomatic “never again” meaning and supports “just one (so far)”.

6. The sentence makes complete sense without an idiom

“I apologized, a one off instance, I said, which I regretted…”

• The sentence flows logically without requiring the modern idiom.
• If read literally “I told her it was a single instance which I regretted.” No modernism needed.

7. And now for the part they’ll pretend not to see

“a one-off promising Filly”
— 1864

There it is. A published, verifiable, pre-Maybrick usage of “one-off” not as a modern idiom, but as a literal count of one. A numerical descriptor. The kind that fits perfectly with “instance.”

The phrase “a one off instance” fits seamlessly into the diary’s narrative as a literal count of a single action, not as a modern idiom meaning “a unique, never to be repeated event.” The grammar, emotional tone, sequence of events, and the speaker’s manipulative mindset all support a literal interpretation rooted in 19th century language use.

It’s over.

No more fog. No more hand waving. No more lazy assumptions.

We’ve got the language. We’ve got the usage. We’ve got the context.
And we’ve got a Victorian racehorse standing in the middle of their argument, kicking it to pieces.

Take a bow, “a one-off promising Filly.”
You just ran circles around the last leg of the mirage and left it coughing in the dust.



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Is this you?



Less than three weeks to the Fifth Anniversary of your bumbling buffoon post! And what did you mean by "another phrase"?

Happy Hunting!