Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[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]

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

[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.

[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!

[APerno]

Re-reading my Ripper books, I noted with some interest that Maybrick's final visit to his business office was on 3 May - the date of the last entry in the Diary, in which he complained of 'unbearable pain', and also that he would leave the Diary in a place where it would be found. Frankly, I can't see how a terminally ill man, in severe pain, would be physically capable of raising a heavy Victorian floor-board, placing the Diary in the floor space, then replacing the board. Apart from which, had he been fit enough, I think it reasonable to assume that someone in the household would have heard a floor-board being lifted and replaced, even in the dead of night. So is it beyond the realms of possibility that, as has been suggested before, the Diary was actually found in Knowsley Buildings, being the place where Maybrick - if he was the writer - kept it and wrote it? And left it?

Graham

Maybrick was I Claudius? --- Is this actually how the Diary ends, he predestines his demise and buries the Diary for posterity?

[jmenges]

The typescript certainly existed. Letters exchanged at the time among the participants in April/May 1992 make reference to it.

JM

Again Keith Skinnner:

Mike Barrett says he created the text of the Diary on his Word Processor around the beginning of 1990. There is no way of disproving this. Anne Graham told me on May 31^st 1995 –and I quote from my scribbled note made at the time...

“Anne said that the t/cript was made after they were in a “go” situation
It was done fast – Mike’s typing etc was hopeless so Anne had to redo it.
Mike read it and Anne typed it, checking back against original, every so often, as
she believed that it should be same as original.”

By “go” situation I mean that after Mike’s initial visit to London with the Diary on April 13^th1992 events began to move fast and it looked like the Diary was going to be taken seriously. There is a letter from Doreen Montgomery to Sally Evemy (Shirley’s researcher), dated April 22^nd 1992, which suggests that shortly after Mike’s London visit a transcript of the Diary was called for – or perhaps it was taken to London on that first visit – I don’t know. Doreen writes:-

“Dear Sally,

Shirley and I agreed, that to save time, I would send you a copy
of the typed script of the Diary. Shirley has one too.”

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.

There is a further letter from Doreen to Mike dated May 12^th 1992 telling Mike that Shirley had prepared a preliminary outline for the book and they were now approaching publishers to test reaction. Part of the letter reads...

“ In the meantime ,(I know it will be adding to the expense but we can’t make
bricks without straw) will you be kind enough to get the diary from the
Bank or ask the Bank Manager, if he could arrange for it to be photocopied.
We shall need to have sample pages photocopied to show to publishers, initially.
The typescript you prepared won’t do it on its own.”

All I can prove is those letters exist but it does not prove when the transcript was prepared, as people will claim Anne Graham was lying and point to Mike’s sworn Affidavit of January 5th 1995 where he stated he created the text at the beginning of 1990.

KS
via
JM

[jmenges]

So is it beyond the realms of possibility that, as has been suggested before, the Diary was actually found in Knowsley Buildings, being the place where Maybrick - if he was the writer - kept it and wrote it? And left it?

Graham

Keith Skinner brings to this post the following:

The full transcript of the September 1993 Liverpool interview between Mike Barrett and Martin Howells, (which James posted on the message boards) shows how keen Mike was on Knowsley Buildings, (where Maybrick had his office), as well. Indeed, Robert Smith told me that after he had commissioned the book in July 1992, Mike would constantly telephone him to discuss Knowsley Buildings as a provenance, the inference being that the Diary may have come into Tony Devereux’s hands when the building was demolished in the 1960s. I believe this is the interview where Caroline Morris spotted an interesting remark Mike made when he talked about how much his life had changed since the Diary came into his life eighteen months ago – taking it back to March 1992.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/11065-michael-barrett-interview-transcript-september-1993

JM

[jmenges]

Are you absolutely certain that the mooted typed-up version in the word processor actually existed? I can only recall (without checking) Kenneth Rendall's absolutely scurrilous mentioning of it live on air in the States. Was the fact of it ever actually verified or is it possibly one of what seems to be many scrapbook myths?

The typescript certainly existed. Letters exchanged at the time among the participants in April/May 1992 make reference to it.

JM

[c.d.]

The police made a very thorough search of the whole house prior to Florence being arrested. Would that have included lifting floorboards? Possibly. It was not an unheard of hiding place. Besides all they would have had to have done was lift up the rug and look for any indications that such a thing had been done.

c.d.

[Graham]

Because floorboards will have be lifted at some point for renovation work unless the house is to be demolished. Whoever placed it under the floorboards (if it was found there) knew that.

But why under the floorboards? Maybrick had a locked dressing-room next to his bedroom, and both his family and household staff were under strict instructions never to enter that room. After his death, the room would most definitely have been entered and searched under the supervision of at least one of his brothers - not for any Diary, but for private papers, deeds, and so forth.

Graham

[Graham]

Re-reading my Ripper books, I noted with some interest that Maybrick's final visit to his business office was on 3 May - the date of the last entry in the Diary, in which he complained of 'unbearable pain', and also that he would leave the Diary in a place where it would be found. Frankly, I can't see how a terminally ill man, in severe pain, would be physically capable of raising a heavy Victorian floor-board, placing the Diary in the floor space, then replacing the board. Apart from which, had he been fit enough, I think it reasonable to assume that someone in the household would have heard a floor-board being lifted and replaced, even in the dead of night. So is it beyond the realms of possibility that, as has been suggested before, the Diary was actually found in Knowsley Buildings, being the place where Maybrick - if he was the writer - kept it and wrote it? And left it?

Graham

[Scott Nelson]

It occurs to me that, if one assumes that the Diary, whoever wrote it, was meant to be seen, otherwise what was the point, then why the hell shove it under the floorboards of any house any where?

Because floorboards will have be lifted at some point for renovation work unless the house is to be demolished. Whoever placed it under the floorboards (if it was found there) knew that.

[Iconoclast]

If the typescript reads "one-off" and the Diary proper reads "one off," it could indicate Barrett's intended meaning, and also give support to his claim that a dictation of some kind took place, and the penwoman (or penman) was not able to actually see the typewritten composition.

It could, Roger, or it could indicate that the typist read "one off" in the scrapbook and typed-up "one-off" which would clearly mean that seeing the typed text would never resolve that particular issue (and possibly no other either).

Of course, for all I know, the typescript version uses no hyphen. It could well be that we'll never see the typescript, and it will remain forever a hypothetical, unless Keith Skinner and David Orsam patch things up. I suppose it is possible the Israelis and the Palestinians will one day walk arm in arm, and daisies will grow out the end of gun barrels.

Are you absolutely certain that the mooted typed-up version in the word processor actually existed? I can only recall (without checking) Kenneth Rendall's absolutely scurrilous mentioning of it live on air in the States. Was the fact of it ever actually verified or is it possibly one of what seems to be many scrapbook myths?

[rjpalmer]

I said it would be 'interesting,' Ike, not that I would necessarily 'do' anything with it. Whether it would reveal a pattern of any sort would entirely depend on what other discrepancies exist in the typescript. Barrett's account, which I fully appreciate you do not believe, states that he dictated his composition to Anne while she wrote it down in the guard book. If the typescript reads "one-off" and the Diary proper reads "one off," it could indicate Barrett's intended meaning, and also give support to his claim that a dictation of some kind took place, and the penwoman (or penman) was not able to actually see the typewritten composition.

Of course, for all I know, the typescript version uses no hyphen. It could well be that we'll never see the typescript, and it will remain forever a hypothetical, unless Keith Skinner and David Orsam patch things up. I suppose it is possible the Israelis and the Palestinians will one day walk arm in arm, and daisies will grow out the end of gun barrels.

[Iconoclast]

This is one example, among many, why it would be interesting to see the typescript of the Diary recovered from the Barrett's word processor. Did Anne's version use the hyphen or not? I have no idea, but one might as well get it from the horse's mouth.

Hmmm. I don't know what anyone would do with that information, Roger. In 1991 (or there or there abouts) someone (not just Anne) could have typed "one off instance" or "one-off instance" either intentionally or in error and that fact would tell us nothing about the source document, assuming there even was a source document at that point (if you are you, you presumably have to believe that the typed document itself was the source document, whereas if I were me, I'd have to believe that the typed document was a mere facsimile of the source document itself, which was of course James Maybrick's scrapbook).

Really not sure what you'd do with that information, old chap.

Ike