Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[jmenges]

Page 27

[jmenges]

Page 28

[jmenges]

Page 29

[Elamarna]

Thank you for this Jonathan, and thanks to Keith too

[jmenges]

We will Moderate this thread closely. Only comments and debate pertaining to the typescript will be allowed. Its origins, history, content , structure etc.
No straying or off-topic posts please.

Thanks

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for deleting my post.

So you're not interested in whether or not the Diary is genuine.

Interesting.

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

Simon,
You’re welcome.
What I’m interested in -or not- is of no relevance. My job is to moderate the boards.
Off-topic posts made simply to promote your book will not be allowed on this, or any other thread.
If you have additional concerns, questions or observations about my role as moderator please contact Admin. I’m sure she’d love to hear from you.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I wasn't promoting my book. I have a thread of my own on which to do that.

I was merely puzzling over the authenticity of the Diary.

It's an important matter, germane to the topic, which should be of interest to us all, unless, of course, there's a hidden agenda.

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

Merry Christmas, Simon.

Let’s not argue.

JM

[Kattrup]

Thank you for posting this.

I’m a little confused. In this post, Keith Skinner replied to RJ Palmer that the typescript Keith Skinner had was 18 pages
“my copy is eighteen pages long and annotated with my own notes and some of Robert Smith’s.”

But this manuscript is more than 18 pages. Perhaps he simply misremembered or is this another manuscript than was referred to back then?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Wow. That's going to take some reading when I get a few hours free.

Thank you Keith, much appreciated.

[jmenges]

Thank you for posting this.

I’m a little confused. In this post, Keith Skinner replied to RJ Palmer that the typescript Keith Skinner had was 18 pages
“my copy is eighteen pages long and annotated with my own notes and some of Robert Smith’s.”

But this manuscript is more than 18 pages. Perhaps he simply misremembered or is this another manuscript than was referred to back then?

He corrects himself in the same thread near the bottom of post #1079.

JM

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for posting this.
I’m a little confused. In this post, Keith Skinner replied to RJ Palmer that the typescript Keith Skinner had was 18 pages
“my copy is eighteen pages long and annotated with my own notes and some of Robert Smith’s.”
But this manuscript is more than 18 pages. Perhaps he simply misremembered or is this another manuscript than was referred to back then?

My reply removed - no point in it, Jonathan has answered this.

(I was just going to confirm that Keith's copy was definitely the one Jonathan published, above.)

[rjpalmer]

Please note this is Skinner's "working document"and contains his markings, annotations thoughts and highlighting, many of them made over 30 years ago. They also include the original annotations which were on the transcript when it was received by Skinner.

Do you know if these 'original annotations' were made by the Barretts or if they were made by Harrison and/or Montgomery?

[jmenges]

Do you know if these 'original annotations' were made by the Barretts or if they were made by Harrison and/or Montgomery?

I'm sure RJ is well accustomed to our unique method by now, but for everyone else:

Any questions posed like the above should be written and read as being directed to Keith Skinner.
He will see them and decide if he would like to answer.

JM