Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Iconoclast]

PS: I just nipped over to the JTR Forum to read the latest fingers-round-throats confrontation, this time about old houses, their floor-boards, and what's under 'em. 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?

Graham

Yes, Graham (great win for the Villa last night, by the way), storing something under the floorboards once you've finally decided (last page of the scrapbook) that you expect it to be found is not congruent, which (as a scrapbook believer) leads me back to Provenance I v2 (the Anne Graham one) which works, just about.

Ike

[Graham]

Aye, indeed Ike - but it took the Villa's record signing to pop one in.

Feldman was I believe originally convinced that the Diary came to light by means of being found under the floorboards by electricians. It seems that something was found, and taken to Liverpool University by the finders for examination. Feldman followed them to the University to investigate - well, he would, wouldn't he? - but was basically told to mind his own business. As far as I know we still don't know what it was that swas found; if indeed anything at all. We all know that Feldman later became convinced that the Diary was abstracted from Battlecrease by a 'skivvy' and that it was passed to Billy Graham's father's family. This is a scenario which, speaking purely personally, is not an impossibility, but at this distance, and without Anne Graham's input, is difficult to prove.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Aye, indeed Ike - but it took the Villa's record signing to pop one in.

Feldman was I believe originally convinced that the Diary came to light by means of being found under the floorboards by electricians. It seems that something was found, and taken to Liverpool University by the finders for examination. Feldman followed them to the University to investigate - well, he would, wouldn't he? - but was basically told to mind his own business. As far as I know we still don't know what it was that swas found; if indeed anything at all. We all know that Feldman later became convinced that the Diary was abstracted from Battlecrease by a 'skivvy' and that it was passed to Billy Graham's father's family. This is a scenario which, speaking purely personally, is not an impossibility, but at this distance, and without Anne Graham's input, is difficult to prove.

Graham

I don't think the artefact taken to Liverpool University was ever verified satisfactorily - it may not even have happened at all.

The 'skivvy' theory provides us with a huge opportunity to give the scrapbook's authenticity a massive fillip as the lady (for ever it was in those days) was almost-certainly the viperous Alice Yapp. She was said to have attended Florence's trial in the company of Elizabeth Formby (source: Anne Graham). If this were on record anywhere, it would be a self-evident and very direct link between Battlecrease House and Anne Graham's lineage. For me, that would be game over, scrapbook proven, Maybrick guilty as charged.

[rjpalmer]

I will remind everyone yet again to be cautious as the author of the Maybrick scrapbook did not write "one-off" anything whatsoever and that it is purely the interpretation of those determined to uncover a hoax which leads people to imagine that it should be interpreted with (rather than without) the critical hyphen (metaphorically speaking).

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.

[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

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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?