Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Spider]

But where was the 'Diary' prior to leaving Battlecrease House, assuming it was there in the first place and who removed it? Had the 'Diary' been found by Michael Maybrick or another brother, it would have been destroyed as soon as the realisation of its implications had sunk in. Similarly, any responsible or honest person finding it, would have brought it to the attention of Michael Maybrick or a family member. The answer is possibly contained in the 'Diary' itself, and it is a relatively simple assumption. James Maybrick, author of the 'Diary' states, towards the end of the 'Diary' and indeed his life: "I place this now in a place were(sic) it shall be found" Anyone writing and being in possession of such an incriminating document such as the 'Diary', would never leave it lying around just anywhere. It would always be with the author. James Maybrick would have been no exception and the 'Diary' would have been with him at all times, be it in Liverpool, London or abroad. And it would have remained with him in death. He would not have risked leaving it in his office either at home or at work when he was ill in bed. Although gravely ill and confined to bed, he could not risk the 'Diary' being found when ill in bed, as should he recover, he will have hanged. Should he die it would not have mattered, but in the meantime he felt safe in the knowledge that it would not be found unless he died. He probably quite simply hid the 'Diary' under his mattress where he was assured of his safety either until it didn't matter anyway, or he recovered and kept the 'Diary'. And who would eventually find the 'Diary'? Not Michael Maybrick or another brother, not anyone of any substance in the Maybrick household. It would have been found by the lowliest of Battlecrease House residents - the Chamber Maid! She would have been responsible for sorting out the bedding following the death of James Maybrick. It was then a short trip to the laundry. The rest as they say is history!

[Graham]

Have you not read the Diary, Mr APerno? The final paragraph states: "....I place this now in a place where it shall be found". That sounds fairly conclusive to me - he wanted the Diary to be found (assuming it really was Maybrick who wrote, I add very quickly to avoid the sensation I've had many times on these boards of fingers tightening around my throat...). I repeat, that as the last entry in the Diary was 3 May 1889, and he was dead 8 days later after an agonising final illness, it doesn't seem likely to me that he managed to crawl out of his sick-bed, lift a bloody great floor-board with the last of his physical strength, drop in the Diary, replace the floor-board and crawl back into bed to peg it shortly afterwards. That is a nonsense scenario - assuming, of course, that Maybrick did write it. No, the sensible scenario IMHO is that on 3 May he felt well enough to get to his office - just - where he kept his Diary, and made the final entry there, in privacy.

Graham

PS: 'I Claudius' was the title of a book; the Emperor was called Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or just 'Claudius' to his mates.

[Graham]

All manner of scenarios spring to mind, Spider. Yep, under the mattress would be as good a place as any, and it seems that it was a 'skivvy' who, according to Billy Graham's somewhat erratic memory, abstracted it from Battlecrease. Or, if Maybrick wrote it and kept it at Knowsley Buildings, then could he not have included it in a package of personal effects marked 'Not To Be Opened Until After My Death' and passed this to a trusted colleague? We can speculate all night - good fun, eh? But one thing is absolutely clear in my mind - the Barratts, either singly or together, had absolutely nothing to do with the composition and writing of the Diary. Of that I am certain.

Graham

[APerno]

Have you not read the Diary, Mr APerno? The final paragraph states: "....I place this now in a place where it shall be found". That sounds fairly conclusive to me - he wanted the Diary to be found (assuming it really was Maybrick who wrote, I add very quickly to avoid the sensation I've had many times on these boards of fingers tightening around my throat...). I repeat, that as the last entry in the Diary was 3 May 1889, and he was dead 8 days later after an agonising final illness, it doesn't seem likely to me that he managed to crawl out of his sick-bed, lift a bloody great floor-board with the last of his physical strength, drop in the Diary, replace the floor-board and crawl back into bed to peg it shortly afterwards. That is a nonsense scenario - assuming, of course, that Maybrick did write it. No, the sensible scenario IMHO is that on 3 May he felt well enough to get to his office - just - where he kept his Diary, and made the final entry there, in privacy.

Graham

PS: 'I Claudius' was the title of a book; the Emperor was called Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or just 'Claudius' to his mates.

Of course I know that, but by saying I Claudius, makes it funny! -- Since you are unnecessarily breaking balls, let me point out that the written work actually opens with the phrase "I Tiberius, Claudius, Dursus, Nero, Germanicus, this-that-and-the-other." Which makes me wonder which is correct, Wikipedia (and you) or Robert Graves (and me). But since my funny (but missed by you ) quip was meant to come from the book and not history then I guess I am correct, not you!.

So now that you made me prove I am literate, let me go back and read your post and see what it had to say.

OK I read your post; the logistics of what had to occur to get the book under the floor is not my point. It is bad enough that this Diary has been accused several times of being anecdotal, where you can flip through the the damn thing making a check-off list of murder clues, as if you are playing a mystery game by Parker Brothers, but now it just screams an I Claudius ending, and that is just plain silly.

He knew he was being poisoned; wrote of his own tragic history, then hid it for posterity. Can't you see the forger is mocking the reader by ending it with this obvious I Claudius allusion?

No I have not read it, only about it (much from you in fact), I would never give these people my money. A free copy I will read.

[Graham]

Mr APerno,

you wrote: Is this actually how the Diary ends, he predestines his demise and buries the Diary for posterity? That does tend to give a chap the idea that you were asking how the Diary ends, as you placed a '?' at the end of the sentence. I would like to ask you, if you've never read it, never intend to, would never give 'these people' your money, what are you doing here?

So sorry I appear to have rattled your cage,

Graham

[rjpalmer]

So my interpretation of what happened is that Doreen requested a transcript asap which Mike attempted but made such a dog’s dinner of it that Anne took over, her sense of professionalism, (she was a PA to a City Stockbroker), not wanting to let such a mess go to Doreen...

...but it does not prove when the transcript was prepared, as people will claim Anne Graham was lying...

Hi Keith. But can't you appreciate why people might think Anne IS lying? Elsewhere she states that she kept the diary hidden behind some sort of china cabinet for years, and didn't discuss it with anyone, because "it was evil." She states she never wanted the Diary to be published. She states she only want Barrett to "write a story" about it, etc.

Yet here she is stating that she assisted Mike in creating a more "professional" typescript of the Diary before he headed off to London, evidently so he would make a better impression on Crew Literary Agency, and thus more likely to have success in selling the publication rights.

It seems like a rather startling contradiction. Why would she care if Barrett made a dog's lunch of the enterprise if she didn't want it published? A 'sense of professionalism' seems like a weak crutch, doesn't it?

Further, Lord Orsam, and others, have noted how Anne's description of how this typescript was produced mirrors Barrett's confession in a strange through-the-looking-glass sort of way, he dictating, she writing (or typing). And in both instances these alleged events must have taken place during the same short span in early April 1992.

HARRISON: "[Mike] brought that transcript with him on his first visit to Doreen Montgomery's office." (p. 272, Pocket Books paperback) [note to self: it is a pity we don't know when Mike called Pan Books, prior to his call to Doreen].

Harrison also claims the typescript found by Scotland Yard on the disk in the Barrett home was the same transcript Barrett took to London in April 1992. This is probable, of course, but disks are disks, and authors sometimes have more than one draft. For the record, do you happen to know if anyone actually make a comparison, or was this just an assumption by Shirley? All the best, RP

[jmenges]

Hi Keith. But can't you appreciate why people might think Anne IS lying?

Roger – of course I can appreciate why people might think Anne is lying – for all the reasons you gave and perhaps even more. I never said otherwise. I merely stated a fact.

Harrison also claims the typescript found by Scotland Yard on the disk in the Barrett home was the same transcript Barrett took to London in April 1992.

I have always been curious about this typescript found by Scotland Yard on a disk in the Barrett home. Mike was being interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect and the Scotland Yard detective did not have a search warrant. So how has this seeming myth crept into the story? In Inside Story (p.69) we wrote...

“Just a few weeks after Scotland Yard had concluded its
investigation [towards the end of 1993] Shirley Harrison
was sent to the US to participate in a coast-to-coast promotional
tour for the book. She soon found herself being interviewed on
the highly popular Larry King show along with Kenneth Rendell.
The man whose report had so wounded the status of the Diary
had another blow to deliver. He had, he told Harrison on air, just
heard of a ‘sinister development’ from the UK. A word processor
had been found, he told Harrison, with a transcript of the Diary
on disc. Rendell had been told this news by Scotland Yard,
Harrison understood, though the detectives had not found
(nor even searched for) Barrett’s word processor during their
interview with him.”

So – I wonder who Kenneth Rendell’s informant might have been?

KS

[rjpalmer]

Roger – of course I can appreciate why people might think Anne is lying – for all the reasons you gave and perhaps even more. I never said otherwise. I merely stated a fact.



I have always been curious about this typescript found by Scotland Yard on a disk in the Barrett home. Mike was being interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect and the Scotland Yard detective did not have a search warrant. So how has this seeming myth crept into the story? In Inside Story (p.69) we wrote...

“Just a few weeks after Scotland Yard had concluded its
investigation [towards the end of 1993] Shirley Harrison
was sent to the US to participate in a coast-to-coast promotional
tour for the book. She soon found herself being interviewed on
the highly popular Larry King show along with Kenneth Rendell.
The man whose report had so wounded the status of the Diary
had another blow to deliver. He had, he told Harrison on air, just
heard of a ‘sinister development’ from the UK. A word processor
had been found, he told Harrison, with a transcript of the Diary
on disc. Rendell had been told this news by Scotland Yard,
Harrison understood, though the detectives had not found
(nor even searched for) Barrett’s word processor during their
interview with him.”

So – I wonder who Kenneth Rendell’s informant might have been?

KS

The other side of the coin, Keith, is whether Harrison had any direct information from Scotland Yard about this investigation, or was only able to repeat what Mike Barrett had told her.

Harrison writes, "I knew that the investigating policemen suspected Mike Barrett to be the forger." (p 272) but she doesn't state how or why.

She then writes. "The facts are this. [sic] The police did not have a warrant. Mike Barrett invited them to his house and co-operated in every way. The WPC [Amstrad] was hardly "found." It was on the table in the dining room where he had transcribed the diary with the help of his wife, in order to make it easy to read. He brought that transcript with him on his first visit to Doreen Montgomery's office."

But very shortly after this visit, and the Larry King Show, the Daily Express reported (Nov 26th) that Scotland Yard had concluded that the Diary was a fake "penned within the last decade." (meaning 1982-1992).

Harrison next calls New Scotland Yard for clarification. "I rang the Yard to discover exactly what was happening and was put through to the SOI, who denied having made any statement to the Daily Express. They transferred me to the Press Office, who, they alleged would have issued any statements. The Press Office refused to speak to me because, they said, I was not a journalist. As an NUJ member for some 30 years this seemed unreasonable." (274)

So it appears she was denied any access to New Scotland Yard.

It all seems rather vague all the way around. Scotland Yard apparently was given a disk, but unless James J has elicited some new information from "Bonesy," the only source Harrison seems to have had at her disposal was Barrett himself, along with the unexplained statement by Kenneth Rendell, who did not name his source. Yet Barrett evidently confirmed Rendell's statement, in part (?), at least as Harrison tells it, though he denies the warrant and disputes the implications. From which I conclude, correctly or incorrectly, no direct comparison was ever made between what was on this disc and what Barrett brought to London back in April 1992. And since, as you say, Smith was being investigated, and not Barrett, our knowledge of these events remains entirely unsatisfactory.

[APerno]

Mr APerno,

you wrote: Is this actually how the Diary ends, he predestines his demise and buries the Diary for posterity? That does tend to give a chap the idea that you were asking how the Diary ends, as you placed a '?' at the end of the sentence. I would like to ask you, if you've never read it, never intend to, would never give 'these people' your money, what are you doing here?

So sorry I appear to have rattled your cage,

Graham

not at all . . . yes I am saying that ending is obviously bogus and he was/is having fun with his readers; it is I Claudius redux! . . . Why I am here: I am reading about the Diary through you guys, (and that really angry guy you all refer to on the other page), I have learned quite a bit about the Diary over the past month listening to you and you all. But this was the first time any one ever mentioned the ending before and boy I let out with one loud laugh. All I could hear was Robert Graves, and I still think the forger is having fun with you all. It's just too dramatic with too obvious a source.

But I am all in, I read everyone's post and I give everyone a fair listen. I want to learn and at this point I doubt if I read the Diary I am going to gain any insight you all haven't found (and have already endlessly argued about), so I can gain much more knowledge about the Diary from listening to you. (And that is NOT intended to be a cheeky statement.)

But my post wasn't intended as an attack on your opinion, it was just the first time I heard how the Diary closed, and I lol!

[Kaz]

not at all . . . yes I am saying that ending is obviously bogus and he was/is having fun with his readers; it is I Claudius redux! . . . Why I am here: I am reading about the Diary through you guys, (and that really angry guy you all refer to on the other page), I have learned quite a bit about the Diary over the past month listening to you and you all. But this was the first time any one ever mentioned the ending before and boy I let out with one loud laugh. All I could hear was Robert Graves, and I still think the forger is having fun with you all. It's just too dramatic with too obvious a source.

But I am all in, I read everyone's post and I give everyone a fair listen. I want to learn and at this point I doubt if I read the Diary I am going to gain any insight you all haven't found (and have already endlessly argued about), so I can gain much more knowledge about the Diary from listening to you. (And that is NOT intended to be a cheeky statement.)

But my post wasn't intended as an attack on your opinion, it was just the first time I heard how the Diary closed, and I lol!

opcorn:

[StevenOwl]

I've just started re-reading Inside Story and within 11 pages have been reminded of another reason I don't believe Barrett had anything to do with the creation of the thing; on June 4th 1992, the day that day Barrett had attended the auction for the publishing rights of the Diary, on the train home to Liverpool he showed the Diary to a stranger on the train and told him about the auction, and how he came to have the Diary in his possession, breaking the confidentiality agreement he'd signed less than 5 weeks earlier. IMO that's not the behaviour of someone who'd recently completed his creation and was about to see a publishing deal signed that would secure him the financial gain he'd hoped to make from it. More the actions of a chancer who simply couldn't believe the situation he'd found himself in and was almost childlike in his excitement at what was happening, to the point that after a few bevvies on the train couldn't contain himself. And wasn't it just Bongo's luck that the person he spilled the beans to was a Liverpool-based journalist - you couldn't make it up!

[APerno]

Mr APerno,

Graham

HI,

Can I ask a question? Need a little help. What is your opinion, what is the Casebook skinny, on David Canter's Mapping Murder and the Maybrick Diary? It is the only extended work/research on the subject, I have read. Don't think I have heard him or the work mentioned.

Thanks Anthony

[jmenges]

The other side of the coin, Keith, is whether Harrison had any direct information from Scotland Yard about this investigation, or was only able to repeat what Mike Barrett had told her.

Harrison writes, "I knew that the investigating policemen suspected Mike Barrett to be the forger." (p 272) but she doesn't state how or why.

She then writes. "The facts are this. [sic] The police did not have a warrant. Mike Barrett invited them to his house and co-operated in every way. The WPC [Amstrad] was hardly "found." It was on the table in the dining room where he had transcribed the diary with the help of his wife, in order to make it easy to read. He brought that transcript with him on his first visit to Doreen Montgomery's office."

But very shortly after this visit, and the Larry King Show, the Daily Express reported (Nov 26th) that Scotland Yard had concluded that the Diary was a fake "penned within the last decade." (meaning 1982-1992).

Harrison next calls New Scotland Yard for clarification. "I rang the Yard to discover exactly what was happening and was put through to the SOI, who denied having made any statement to the Daily Express. They transferred me to the Press Office, who, they alleged would have issued any statements. The Press Office refused to speak to me because, they said, I was not a journalist. As an NUJ member for some 30 years this seemed unreasonable." (274)

So it appears she was denied any access to New Scotland Yard.

It all seems rather vague all the way around. Scotland Yard apparently was given a disk, but unless James J has elicited some new information from "Bonesy," the only source Harrison seems to have had at her disposal was Barrett himself, along with the unexplained statement by Kenneth Rendell, who did not name his source. Yet Barrett evidently confirmed Rendell's statement, in part (?), at least as Harrison tells it, though he denies the warrant and disputes the implications. From which I conclude, correctly or incorrectly, no direct comparison was ever made between what was on this disc and what Barrett brought to London back in April 1992. And since, as you say, Smith was being investigated, and not Barrett, our knowledge of these events remains entirely unsatisfactory.

First up Roger – I entirely agree with you – our knowledge of these events do remain entirely unsatisfactory. I can only provide the information as I experienced and recorded it at the time. I’m not seeking to persuade anybody to my way of thinking or interpretation of events. The mystery about the Word Processor is why it should ever have been a mystery in the first place? As Shirley says, Mike brought a copy to London with him on April 13^th1992 which clearly came off a Word Processor. Looking at my own photocopy, (which would have been given to me by Robert Smith), I note that I sent a copy to Martin Fido on June 17^th 1992. I do not think Shirley ever had any contact with “Bonesy” – certainly he never mentioned it to me. The only person who did persistently telephone Bonesy to the point of “pissing him off” (Bonesy’s own words) was Melvin Harris and even sent him material. In spite of what Shirley writes about the Amstrad being on the table in the Barretts dining room, Bonesy told me that Mike denied having a Word Processor. I remember also hearing this from Paul Feldman – can still see him sitting at his office desk and telling me – and when I asked why would Barrett lie to the Police, Feldy said because he [Feldman] told him to because he thought that he was helping Mike. I remember thinking there and then that was probably the worst bit of advice Feldman could have given to Mike and I anticipated there would be repercussions. I was right.

KS

[Iconoclast]

But this was the first time any one ever mentioned the ending before and boy I let out with one loud laugh. All I could hear was Robert Graves, and I still think the forger is having fun with you all. It's just too dramatic with too obvious a source.

Anthony, just a quick heads-up, the scrapbook claims to have been written by James Maybrick who - it is further claimed - was Jack the Ripper. If you have any knowledge - however slender - about Jack the Ripper, especially the terrible mutilations Jack inflicted on the dead bodies of his victims (in particular Kelly's corpse), you might care to clarify for us which bits you feel are not dramatic.

If you contend - as most of us would contend - that the murders were particularly disgusting and excessive, you might feel less amazed to find a dramatic ending to Maybrick's confession.

He wasn't confessing to not returning his library books, mate. This was reasonably serious stuff for a dying man to be reflecting on. The absence of drama would have seriously concerned me, not the presence of it.

[Iconoclast]

I've just started re-reading Inside Story and within 11 pages have been reminded of another reason I don't believe Barrett had anything to do with the creation of the thing; on June 4th 1992, the day that day Barrett had attended the auction for the publishing rights of the Diary, on the train home to Liverpool he showed the Diary to a stranger on the train and told him about the auction, and how he came to have the Diary in his possession, breaking the confidentiality agreement he'd signed less than 5 weeks earlier. IMO that's not the behaviour of someone who'd recently completed his creation and was about to see a publishing deal signed that would secure him the financial gain he'd hoped to make from it. More the actions of a chancer who simply couldn't believe the situation he'd found himself in and was almost childlike in his excitement at what was happening, to the point that after a few bevvies on the train couldn't contain himself. And wasn't it just Bongo's luck that the person he spilled the beans to was a Liverpool-based journalist - you couldn't make it up!

Couldn't agree more, Steven. For your forger, you need to look elsewhere (certainly not at the Barretts).

But I think your occasion may be wrong? I am reasonably certain that Mike made his ill-timed comments to the journalist from the Liverpool Post on the day he travelled back from London having met Doreen Montgomery and chums for the first time. Not that it matters, of course - it proves Bongo was high on Amateur Hour either way. If I'm wrong, please clarify for me someone.