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!

[caz]

It wasn't "Roger Palmer's point", it was your point (which you made in your #62) to which Roger responded, agreeing with you, in his #63 and #64.

As far as I'm concerned, the expression "a one off instance" means both it has never happened before and will never happen again. You can't divorce one from the other. So I don't personally see any issue with it being used in the way it's used in the diary nor do I see any problem with the point being punctuated by "it will never happen again".

But this is all of no consequence.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this was all started by Ike suggesting that because it's tautology, as he alleged (but which you, me and Roger all agree it is not), the words "one off instance" can't mean what everyone thinks they mean but instead refer to an "off instance".

Now the argument is daft for two reasons. Firstly, if it was tautology, and bad English, that would be entirely consistent with Mike Barrett being the author. Secondly, there is no such thing in the English language as an "off-instance" but, if there were, it would never be written as "a one off-instance".

Given that in your post you write "[NO HYPHEN]" in capital letters, as if that is of any significance (which it is most certainly not), I think it's time, Caz, for you to make clear what you think about Ike's "off instance" suggestion. I say it's utterly bonkers. You?

I don't know what else to say, Herlock. RJ Palmer's modern example was to show us that a 'one off' instance does not need to mean a 'unique' occurrence at all, as had been argued over and over again, but it does imply a 'first'. I was having a little fun with Palmer over our fictional 'Bunny' being too thick to remember if our fictional 'Sir Jim' had ever whacked her one before. Repeated acts of domestic violence can also cause head injuries, so a victim's memory could be affected, enabling an abuser to gaslight them into believing it was a first - and last.

Palmer took my funny little observation literally, and tried to claim that the passage in the diary shows 'irrationality' on the part of his suspected hoaxers. Nuance can get lost when there's a theory to maintain. So now I'll leave you two to thrash out between you which interpretation is the better fit for a Barrett hoax, if you still prefer 'unique' and Palmer favours 'first', bearing in mind that you only have one person left on earth who might actually have known where the 'one off' in the diary [no hyphen] came from.

I believe Paul Dodd's father bought Battlecrease around the end of the Second World War, so that might just give you some food for thought as to how the diary could possibly have been written without any creative input from a Barrett.

Or maybe not.

[caz]

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 understood my point about domestic abuse. There is nothing nonsensical about it.

One version of Barrett Hoax Theory has Anne as a domestic abuse victim by early 1992, to explain how she may have been coerced into handwriting the diary against her will. A variation seeks to make a lot of the same woman's later claim that she had always been able to manipulate Mike. Palmer sees this as a 'confession' of sorts, to having written the diary story, while making Mike believe it was his idea and ultimately his creation.

It's a mess.

Maybe you could help to make it all make sense and decide who was actually doing the manipulating, and who allowed themselves to be manipulated.

[rjpalmer]

It's a mess.

No; that would be your Battlecrease provenance.

Anne's contradictory and conflicting behavior is a fact on record to anyone who isn't too blind to see it or too disingenuous to admit it. Why can't the victims of alcoholic abusers also 'manipulate' them? Indeed, don't they often do so?

The idea that Anne was in an abusive relationship in 1991-1992 is not anything I pulled out of thin air---it was reported in your own book without either irony or contradiction.

You're also (for the hundredth time) misrepresenting what I actually suggested. You are attributing to me--in a rather dishonest fashion--what was Anne's 'mess.'

I didn't suggest it--she did. I don't care if Anne manipulated Barrett into writing a Jack the Ripper story or not. It's her claim.

I merely pointed out that this directly and undeniably contradicts her other claim that she and Barrett couldn't possibly have collaborated on anything back in 1991-92.

Why do you find it necessary to debate in bad faith?

Why can't you simply admit that it is ANNE who is contradicting herself instead of me?

Why play these games if--as you claim--you are after the truth?

[rjpalmer]

Another contradiction in Anne's account of how she had tried to manipulate Barrett into writing a 'Jack the Ripper' story is that elsewhere she claims that she found the whole subject horrific and voyeuristic. We were told on this forum years ago that Anne had nothing but contempt for 'Ripperologists,' didn't care one iota about Jack the Ripper, and if I'm not mistaken even chastised one Caroline Morris for her interest in "men who mutilate women." (I quote from memory)

Yet here Anne is, on another occasion, claiming that she was not only going to manipulate Barrett into writing a Jack the Ripper story, she was going to help him write it.

Yet somehow, I'm loopy for noticing the obvious contradictions in Anne's statements that don't seem to bother anyone else?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know what else to say, Herlock. RJ Palmer's modern example was to show us that a 'one off' instance does not need to mean a 'unique' occurrence at all, as had been argued over and over again, but it does imply a 'first'. I was having a little fun with Palmer over our fictional 'Bunny' being too thick to remember if our fictional 'Sir Jim' had ever whacked her one before. Repeated acts of domestic violence can also cause head injuries, so a victim's memory could be affected, enabling an abuser to gaslight them into believing it was a first - and last.

Palmer took my funny little observation literally, and tried to claim that the passage in the diary shows 'irrationality' on the part of his suspected hoaxers. Nuance can get lost when there's a theory to maintain. So now I'll leave you two to thrash out between you which interpretation is the better fit for a Barrett hoax, if you still prefer 'unique' and Palmer favours 'first', bearing in mind that you only have one person left on earth who might actually have known where the 'one off' in the diary [no hyphen] came from.

I believe Paul Dodd's father bought Battlecrease around the end of the Second World War, so that might just give you some food for thought as to how the diary could possibly have been written without any creative input from a Barrett.

Or maybe not.

If you could provide a quote where Roger said that one-off "does imply a first" Caz I could consider what you're telling me but I've looked over his previous posts and just don’t see see him saying that anywhere. I'm not sure it really matters, though, because the dictionary tells us what "one off" means.

If your theory is that Paul Dodd's father created the fake diary and hid it under the floorboards of Battlecrease, I'm fully prepared to consider that, although it would be such strange thing for him to do, so I'd want to know the motive. It still doesn't explain why Mike Barrett sought a diary from 1880-1890 with blank pages in March 1992 though.

But, Caz, you didn't answer my question as to what you think of Ike's "off instance" suggestion. Is there a particular reason you don't want to discuss it?

I also don’t know why you've repeated that there is no hyphen in the diary's "one off", this time, oddly, in lower case rather than in capitals as before. What do you think the significance of that is? You are aware, aren't you, that the hyphen is optional?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lombro2 understood my point about domestic abuse. There is nothing nonsensical about it.

One version of Barrett Hoax Theory has Anne as a domestic abuse victim by early 1992, to explain how she may have been coerced into handwriting the diary against her will. A variation seeks to make a lot of the same woman's later claim that she had always been able to manipulate Mike. Palmer sees this as a 'confession' of sorts, to having written the diary story, while making Mike believe it was his idea and ultimately his creation.

It's a mess.

Maybe you could help to make it all make sense and decide who was actually doing the manipulating, and who allowed themselves to be manipulated.

I believe I've already said, Caz, that Anne could have been the mastermind behind the diary plot or she could have been an innocent participant, writing out the text at Mike's request. We just don't have enough evidence to know where the truth lies and I'm personally not particularly interested in the endless speculation.

The only thing I will say is that Anne's surprising boast of being willing and able to manipulate Mike does not seem to match with the character of that woman which has been presented by you on these boards and which I read about in "Inside Story" so I would think it's more a problem for you to sort out.