Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[Sam Flynn]

As Ike has pointed out, the diary itself does not claim that the 1889 race was 'the fastest on record'.

I never said it did. But Shirley Harrison, for one, has made that claim as an indicator of the diary's accuracy.

If the Barretts read the word in the diary as 'finest', rightly or wrongly, would that not imply that they were interpreting someone else's words?

I'd say there's a good chance that the Barretts knew full well what was written there, Caz

[Michael W Richards]

2023-12-17 Finest vs Fastest.pdf

Apologies for the rubbish reproductions but it was the best I could do before me tea.

Whilst I would accept that there is no way one could be categorical about whether the word is 'finest' or 'fastest', and I do take on board RJ's point that it does appear to be six letters not seven, I cannot 'see it' as 'finest' in the smudged form that we have: there does not appear to be a dot above the 'I', and the second letter does have the strong appearance of an 'a', and the smudge for what would have to be an 'e' (if the word was 'finest') is consistent with the smudging of the 'longer' letters elsewhere (the 't' and the 'h' of 'with', for example).

As I say, I can't call it categorically but my vote would go for 'fastest' because that's how it reads to my eye but that may simply be habit rather than insight.

PS Well it showed-up when I previewed it! Looks like RJ has beaten me to it, anyway.

Not usually posting on these threads but I read some recent posts regarding "finest" and "fastest" and I believe there is a characteristic in that contentious word that may help. The gigantic swoop. I believe that is to cross 2 T's. Its why there is no swoop on the easily recognizable "finest".

[rjpalmer]

Not usually posting on these threads but I read some recent posts regarding "finest" and "fastest" and I believe there is a characteristic in that contentious word that may help. The gigantic swoop. I believe that is to cross 2 T's. Its why there is no swoop on the easily recognizable "finest".

Thanks Michael, but unfortunately it's not of much help because the diarist has a habit of making these 'gigantic swoops' no matter how many T's are in the word.

On the relevant page, we can see the same long swoop through the, thrilled, with, truly, etc. If we could trust the 'swoop' the word 'thrilled' would become 'thritted.'

To be positive, I think it would take a document examiner consulting the original.

[erobitha]

Interesting….

Saturday 30th March 1889 - Liverpool Daily Post

[caz]

Sarcasm duly noted.

So, you weren't too impressed with Ike's suggestion that Maybrick "didn't need to (remember) as it was presumably published in the following day's newspapers - possibly with a list of previous times going back to 1871 from which he could quickly see that he had just watched the fastest race of his lifetime."

Me, either.

It's so nice when we can agree.

On this one, Palmer appears to be agreeing with himself, as I made no comment on Ike's suggestion. Or is he claiming the special ability to read another person's mind?

But, having already determined the photo album confessional is a hoax, there is no reason to speculate or care that 'Maybrick' made an error--I was looking at it from the perspective of the hoaxer.

Which, from the stone age right up until this thread was opened, was not a 'hoaxer', singular, according to Palmer, but a pair of 'em, going by the name of Barrett.

If it says 'finest,' then we have an Agatha Christie 'Ten Little Indians' moment where the three little books needed to create the text are whittled down to two, which again undermines the theory of sophistication.

If the word is 'finest' in both documents, it tells us bugger all about the order in which they were created.

If it says 'fastest,' one wonders why the hoaxer would have written this if the 1871 Grand National time was faster (or of less duration) and Maybrick was alive & well & living in Liverpool in March 1871. The hoaxer could have only known this--if know it they did--by consulting a list. And such a list would have raised doubts in the mind of an audience. Even a writer of historical fiction doesn't want to drop a potential clanger if it can be helped.

And Palmer's point is?

Even Mike Barrett could hardly have misread the typed word 'finest' as 'fastest', so there needs to be some explanation for the change IF one wants to argue for one.

Is it too simple an explanation that, like Palmer, the Barretts thought the handwritten word looked like 'finest', so that's why they transcribed it that way on the word "prosser"?

[caz]

I'd say there's a good chance that the Barretts knew full well what was written there, Caz

Afternoon Sam,

I'm not sure what you meant by this. They knew 'what was written' where?

Previously, you wrote:

IMHO, the Barretts were probably right to read it as "finest".

Call me Dopey Doris, but I still don't know what you meant by this either. They were 'probably right' to read it where?

If your belief is that the Barretts created both documents, and the word is 'finest' in both, would they not have been copying their own word from the word processor to the guard book - before going more than slightly mad by printing off all their worksheets to hand over with their finished hoax?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If it says 'fastest,' one wonders why the hoaxer would have written this if the 1871 Grand National time was faster (or of less duration) and Maybrick was alive & well & living in Liverpool in March 1871. The hoaxer could have only known this--if know it they did--by consulting a list. And such a list would have raised doubts in the mind of an audience. Even a writer of historical fiction doesn't want to drop a potential clanger if it can be helped.

I'm genuinely trying to understand the argument Palmer is making here. He appears to think that a hoaxer - or writer of historical fiction - would regard it as a potential clanger to have their deranged, diary-writing debauchee stray by a quarter of an inch from the literal truth appertaining to the facts of the 1889 Grand National, as if the real person being portrayed as the very devil would somehow look more real - more human - to the reader if he was given a photographic memory and an inability to get the tiniest fact wrong, or to exaggerate or be mistaken about anything. To err is human, to be too literal divine.

'...if the greedy bastard would have known he was less than a few feet away from the name all England was talking about he would have died there and then.'

I'm pretty sure 'the greedy bastard' wouldn't have 'died there and then', regardless, so I'm assuming whoever dreamed up this funny little scenario didn't mean it seriously, or believe it literally.

Over and out - to the pub! Hooray!

[rjpalmer]

If the word is 'finest' in both documents, it tells us bugger all about the order in which they were created.

No one said otherwise. Why do you insist on arguing bitterly over points no one ever suggested? It's not a very healthy mental habit.

As I understand it, the Barretts were asked to produce a typescript of the diary as part of their contractual agreement to be Harrison's collaborators.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that--if the Barretts were the hoaxers--they would have been stupid enough to simply hand over one of Barrett's rough drafts, filled with lines they had decided not to use in the diary or other glaring indications of an earlier draft.

Is that what you believed the skeptics were hoping to find? If so, I'm sorry to inform you that such is not the case.

Any hoaxer with more than a hundred brain cells would know that he or she or they would need to hand in a document that had the appearance of a transcript created directly from the manuscript.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

No one said otherwise. Why do you insist on arguing bitterly over points no one ever suggested? It's not a very healthy mental habit.

As I understand it, the Barretts were asked to produce a typescript of the diary as part of their contractual agreement to be Harrison's collaborators.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that--if the Barretts were the hoaxers--they would have been stupid enough to simply hand over one of Barrett's rough drafts, filled with lines they had decided not to use in the diary or other glaring indications of an earlier draft.

Is that what you believed the skeptics were hoping to find? If so, I'm sorry to inform you that such is not the case.

Any hoaxer with more than a hundred brain cells would know that he or she or they would need to hand in a document that had the appearance of a transcript created directly from the manuscript.

Hi RJ,

It's certainly a thought that crossed my mind, being as it was the only rational reason I could reach for the typescript not being released. As it currently stands, that concern appears to be unfounded. So I'll take the rap for that suggestion, I've certainly made it.

I've noted a few minor discrepancies but nothing I'd hang my hat on. It seems at this junctior to be a typescript of the diary, as was always claimed, so at least now we're all on the same page. I guess that's the point of releasing the document's? We might deliberate over details, but there was no 'smoking gun' so to speak. Nice to have that particular point cleared up. There's a lot to be said for this 'openess', it's particularly helpful in breaking down the mysteries that abound in the case.

So I certainly stand corrected, there's nothing with a flashing red light so far, but we're all better illuminated by the document being released. Thank you Keith.

[Sam Flynn]

If your belief is that the Barretts created both documents, and the word is 'finest' in both, would they not have been copying their own word from the word processor to the guard book

My point is that, if the Barretts were involved in the diary's production, their misreading the word as "fastest" would be unlikely, despite it being ambiguous on the manuscript.

[Iconoclast]

Interesting….

Saturday 30th March 1889 - Liverpool Daily Post

So what are we thinking ero b?

That Mike or Anne Barrett trawled the microfiche down at Liverpool Central Library for a reference to the 1889 Grand National and then - foolishly some would say - used a rather unusual term (for a horse race) in their nascent scrapbook hoax for 'authenticity'?

Or that James Maybrick read this article the day after the big race and parroted it when writing about the event in his nascent scrapbook?

It's a difficult one but I think I know which option I'm going to plump for if you twist my arm ...

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

It's certainly a thought that crossed my mind, being as it was the only rational reason I could reach for the typescript not being released. As it currently stands, that concern appears to be unfounded. So I'll take the rap for that suggestion, I've certainly made it.

I've noted a few minor discrepancies but nothing I'd hang my hat on.

Hi Al.

Note that I used the word 'glaring.' Didn't Keith refer to there being 'meaningful' differences between the typescript and the manuscript in describing it to David Orsam? I can't recall his exact words.

We might bear in mind that the primary intention of the typescript was entirely legitimate. The literary agent needed a faithful copy of the diary's text for her purposes (Shirley's book proposal) and the Barretts needed to provide it. Thus, even if they had been somehow involved in the hoax, the Barretts could hardly have handed over a suspicious mess. If there are differences, 'meaningful' or otherwise, they would bound to be subtle, uncertain, and open to various interpretations.

Personally, I would hesitate to use the word 'minor.' There are several elements in the typescript that I find quite interesting, though I have no eagerness to discuss them, because as always, they will just be met with hostility in this neck of the woods.

One thing that stuck me more forcefully when seeing the typescript is that at no time does 'Maybrick' strike out a single line of his prose. We don't see any of those curious asterisks anywhere in the typescript's 'main' text. 'Maybrick' is perfectly able to write without revision, including writing a few memorable lines. It's only when he comes to writing verse that he strikes out line after line, and even openly curses his inability to write. It's rather comical.

In fact, I'd argue that it's cheesy as hell--the custard is way over-egged--but I suppose some go in for this sort of thing and find it realistic. The same bloke that just wrote three long paragraphs is suddenly cursing 'drats!' (I paraphrase) because he can't write a simple line or two of verse.

It doesn't ring true. The 'Dear Boss' writer oozes with linguistic confidence, so it's remarkably out of character as well. It's so bad that I can almost see why Caz sometimes refers to the diary as a deliberate spoof or farce, even though I don't ultimately agree with that assessment. I think it is unintentionally bad.

Seasons Greetings.

[erobitha]

So what are we thinking ero b?

That Mike or Anne Barrett trawled the microfiche down at Liverpool Central Library for a reference to the 1889 Grand National and then - foolishly some would say - used a rather unusual term (for a horse race) in their nascent scrapbook hoax for 'authenticity'?

Or that James Maybrick read this article the day after the big race and parroted it when writing about the event in his nascent scrapbook?

It's a difficult one but I think I know which option I'm going to plump for if you twist my arm ...

My thoughts are that it is rather odd that someone like Mike would spend hours scanning through microfilm to find a word he feels befits the text so well, to then only opt for ‘fastest’ for his typescript and then not use ‘finest’ on the diary page itself. It reads to me as ‘fastest’ in the scrapbook.

Or it is simply that in a long article about the Grand National the word finest was used coincidentally. Or the Barretts made a mistake, if indeed it was the Barrett’s who wrote the scrapbook.

Who actually knows?

[Iconoclast]

One thing that stuck me more forcefully when seeing the typescript is that at no time does 'Maybrick' strike out a single line of his prose. We don't see any of those curious asterisks anywhere in the typescript's 'main' text. 'Maybrick' is perfectly able to write without revision, including writing a few memorable lines. It's only when he comes to writing verse that he strikes out line after line, and even openly curses his inability to write. It's rather comical.

In fact, I'd argue that it's cheesy as hell--the custard is way over-egged--but I suppose some go in for this sort of thing and find it realistic. The same bloke that just wrote three long paragraphs is suddenly cursing 'drats!' (I paraphrase) because he can't write a simple line or two of verse.

It doesn't ring true. The 'Dear Boss' writer oozes with linguistic confidence, so it's remarkably out of character as well. It's so bad that I can almost see why Caz sometimes refers to the diary as a deliberate spoof or farce, even though I don't ultimately agree with that assessment. I think it is unintentionally bad.

Seasons Greetings.

I can't help thinking you're rather late to the table on this one, RJ?

Did it not strike you more forcefully 30 years ago when the facsimile of the scrapbook was first published in Harrison I?

As it is the season, were you a little 'crackers' not to notice this before you saw Anne Barrett's well-informed asterisks for the first time? Did the original strike-throughs not trigger a red-nosed alert in the Palmer household?

When did the cheese reach the level of hell and the custard get way over-egged in your careful considerations on the case?

[rjpalmer]

When did the cheese reach the level of hell and the custard get way over-egged in your careful considerations on the case?

Hello, Ike.

I can't recall the exact moment the aroma of cheese first hit my nostrils, but it certainly came roaring back the day after Mr. Menges posted the typescript.

'Maybrick's' antics in striking out lines of poetry were duly noted, of course, but I don't particularly remember noticing that not a single word of prose is struck out.

There's the infamous blot (be it 'James' or 'regards,') but that doesn't count.

Surely a cotton merchant, accustomed to hobnobbing in the genteel American south where linguistic competence is held in considerable esteem would have blushed a bit when he realized that he had just written the phrase:

did not Edwin say of me that I was the most gentlest of men.

Most gentlest? Grammar, sir!

(But perhaps we can blame that one on Edwin?)

Anyway, as you've no doubt noticed, 99% of our diary discussions over the past 10 years haven't revolved around Bunny or Lowry or Edwin, but around Mike and Anne and Eddie.

Seldom have you and I had the pleasure of discussing the text itself.

Season's Greetings.