Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[caz]

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

Totally agree. It's certainly not a very healthy mental habit to claim that another poster is 'arguing bitterly' over something, when they are merely observing [with a wry smile on their face] that two 'finests' would not change anyone's opinions on which 'finest' came first: the typed or the handwritten.

Since I wasn't arguing 'bitterly' over this or anything else in Diary World, and am highly unlikely ever to do so, it's not my mental habits Palmer needs to concern himself with.

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.

The typescript released to this thread [thank you, Keith] was with Doreen by mid-April 1992. The first collaboration agreement was not drawn up by Rupert Crew until 30th April, and this would bind the parties to share the responsibilities, expenses and royalties from any future book. On 6th May 1992, Doreen wrote to Mike to say she had redrafted this agreement to include Anne, as co-owner of the diary: 'It seems to me desirable from every viewpoint to do this and I am glad you felt so, too.' Doreen went on to state: 'So, if you are happy now with the wording of the Collaboration Agreement, perhaps you and Anne would kindly sign in the space provided…'

There appears to be no evidence that the typescript received in April was produced by the Barretts as a condition of an agreement yet to be drawn up, signed and returned. If the pair were as crooked as Palmer would have us believe, would they not have delayed matters until they had contractually committed themselves to delivering one - especially as they would have needed, at the very least, to check it through carefully and only, in Palmer's own words: 'hand in a document that had the appearance of a transcript created directly from the manuscript'?

How does Palmer think the Barretts went about this? Did they create a completely new document, transcribed onto the word processor from the finished hoax, in April 1992? Or did they have to adapt an original working document before and after printing it off, to give it the right appearance?

I was once mocked by Palmer for suggesting there would need to have been at least two typed versions to keep the Barretts in the hoaxing frame, and now it seems that this is what he is suggesting himself. He is conceding the very point I made myself - that no hoaxer with half a brain would have handed in their own original creation from their word processor, along with their finished hoax. And by conceding this much, he also appears to be conceding that he has not identified any 'glaring indications' in the released typescript that it represents an earlier draft, and could not be a genuine transcript created directly from the physical diary.

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.

I don't know what anyone was 'hoping' to find, but the fuss made about it being previously suppressed does now seem just a trifle out of proportion if everyone knew all along that it was bound to look, for all intents and purposes, like a genuine transcript made of the diary's contents - and would therefore change nothing.

I note Palmer's use of the expression: 'if the Barretts were the hoaxers' when appearing to speak for others. For the longest time, when speaking for himself, he has had Mike and Anne up to their elbows in the diary's creation. Nobody else needed to apply.

[caz]

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.

And thank you, Al, for a sound post, which is very well received by me at least.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

So sorry, Sam, for the late response. Christmas saved the hoary old sonnet. Or something of that ilk.

I think I see your point now.

If the Barretts had created the text on their word processor, before it was copied out by hand into the scrapbook, the word 'finest' would have been all their own, and it appears so clearly in the typescript that there would need to be some explanation if it was then handwritten as 'fastest'.

So while I agree that misreading the typed word would have been unlikely, those who think the word is actually 'fastest' need to come up with a feasible explanation if they also believe the hoaxer or hoaxers created both documents.

Are we finally on the same page?

Apologies for the distraction if you are busy listening to Alan Gray & Michael Barrett in conversation.

Enjoy!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Extraordinary, but wonderful. I never thought to see those words in a post by Palmer. I could hug him - if my arms were long enough.

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.

No hostility from me, for this very welcome expression of reasonable doubt. A great start to the new year as far as I'm concerned. Made even greater now all 15 Barrett and Gray tapes are safely gathered in and available for everyone's listening 'pleasure'.

In summary, since the typescript was done, dusted and distributed in April 1992, before the Barretts would read and sign a Collaboration Agreement, they evidently prepared it quickly, with no obligation or pressure on them to do so - which would leave a few loose ends if they had been 'somehow involved' in the diary's creation. How they managed to hand over a typescript so swiftly, which differed from the actual diary only in subtle, uncertain ways, which would be open to various interpretations, remains for others to discuss if they are eager to do so. Was it by happy accident or subtle design?

Or, dare I say, was this a rushed, but honestly prepared transcript, open to the human errors observed, because - as Anne has claimed and all the evidence supports - Mike's typing was so hopeless that they soon swapped roles, with Mike dictating the handwritten words while Anne typed them onto the word processor? She also claimed to check back to the diary every so often to make sure any spelling mistakes in the original were faithfully transferred, as Mike wouldn't have recognised one if it jumped up and bit him.

I have long suspected that, all in all, this 'creation process' took place over ten or eleven evenings when Mike was back in touch with Doreen to discuss arrangements for showing her the diary. Mike was proud of that transcript. He treated it like his second best achievement in life - after working out who lived in a house like Battlecrease.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

"Apologies for the distraction if you are busy listening to Alan Gray & Michael Barrett in conversation."

Well, I'm trying to. Unfortunately, I have trouble with audio at this point, especially the low-quality ones.

Does anyone know if transcripts may be forthcoming? Even partial transcripts would be helpful.

[caz]

I did try once upon a time, Scotty, with one or two of them, but soon gave up as I had a torn eardrum back in the late 1970s and had the devil's own job trying to decipher anything useful at all. It can take an absolute age to transcribe just a couple of sentences, especially when repeatedly having to type the words 'inaudible' or 'unintelligible'.

But if anyone has exceptional hearing and bugger all else to do in 2024...

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

Thank you, Caroline. No wonder Keith didn't think releasing them would help very much. Even if we could understand all the dialogue, it may not be revealing anything more useful.

[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

A reminder.

JM

[jmenges]

Thank you, Caroline. No wonder Keith didn't think releasing them would help very much. Even if we could understand all the dialogue, it may not be revealing anything more useful.

From Keith Skinner:

This is in response to Scott Nelson's post which Mr Nelson may find helpful.

The 15 tapes embrace the period between 16 August 1994 up to 30 September 1996 which was a critical period in the story of the Diary as it led up to Michael Barrett's affidavit of January 5th 1995 describing the background to the creation of the diary by Mike Barrett (d.2016) his then wife Anne Barrett, Anne's father Billy Graham (d.1994) and Tony Devereux (d.1991).

In Inside Story (published 2003) we covered the period between 1992 to 2003. Understanding the context of these 15 tapes is useful even though the audibilty of the recordings is wanting. These were not structured sit-down interviews but Alan Gray's on the spot recordings of his meetings with Mike Barrett. In many ways it is the 'feeling' of their meetings, moments in time captured on tape, which is perhaps more important than the substance? That is a dimension which a flat transcript (although very useful of course) would not give you. In addition,their value to us was because Mr Gray diligently recorded the precise dates of his meetings with Mike Barrett.

At the time of writing Inside Story we only had three tapes available to us - the most useful covering the period between November 6th 1994 and November 7th/8th 1994. We give a condensed summary of these events on pages 151-155 of Inside Story.

All of the other tapes came to us after our book was published in 2003.

Hope this information might help Mr. Nelson.

Best Wishes

Keith

[Iconoclast]

To give some context here, transcribing these tapes requires headphones (to drown out background noise in your environment), the ability to quickly play back the last ten seconds or so possibly five or more times each time, and to do that for maybe two to three hours per day for a week or more just to produce as accurate as possible a transcription and a meagre 15 pages or so of dialogue - and even then you may end up with more inaudibles than 'audibles'.

If anyone knows a way to do it faster without losing any fidelity, I'm all ears ...

[jmenges]

I fault myself for placing Keith’s response to Scott about the tapes to the typescript thread rather than moving it all to the tapes thread. Can we all-going forward-try to post our questions and comments on the appropriate thread?

Thanks
JM

[rjpalmer]

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.

Hi Al,

Personally, I see it differently and do think there are some oddities in the typescript worthy of note. As an objective observer of these proceedings, would you mind taking part in a small thought experiment?

I'm assuming that you've read the diary before, which might influence the outcome, but without referring to the typescript, can you tell what the following passages from the diary say?

1


2
3

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

Personally, I see it differently and do think there are some oddities in the typescript worthy of note. As an objective observer of these proceedings, would you mind taking part in a small thought experiment?

I'm assuming that you've read the diary before, which might influence the outcome, but without referring to the typescript, can you tell what the following passages from the diary say?

1


2
3

Hi RJ,

I've got the Harrison hardback version. The handwritten diary is hard to read, I've never really tried to read it 'au naturel' as there's a handy transcript. Odd sections on occasions but prior to Keith's transcript I'd not actually needed to go line by line.

In answer to your question, not really, no. There's too many obscured and indistinct words. You can generally get the gist but plenty words aren't that clear. Same problem everyone who's read it has. Save/Soul.
I can't say I'd thought "finest" before and even now it looks like "fastest" to my eyes. But it could be "finest" just as easily. For your above lines, I'd reach for the transcript rather than try every line. Many bits of the diary are pretty clear throughout but there's plenty of wobbly bits too.

[rjpalmer]

In answer to your question, not really, no. There's too many obscured and indistinct words. You can generally get the gist but plenty words aren't that clear. Same problem everyone who's read it has. Save/Soul.

I can't say I'd thought "finest" before and even now it looks like "fastest" to my eyes. But it could be "finest" just as easily. For your above lines, I'd reach for the transcript rather than try every line. Many bits of the diary are pretty clear throughout but there's plenty of wobbly bits too.

Thanks, Al.

You have my complete sympathy.

I've tried this at home, too, asking a few people over the Christmas holidays to decipher the above passages. There was a good deal of doubt and disagreement and uncertainty, and I'm confident that I wouldn't have been able to decipher these lines with confidence had I not had the typescript to guide me.

With this in mind, let me now return to two predictions that Tom Mitchell made about the typescript back on June 22, 2021. Roughly 2 1/2 years ago.

I hadn't remembered Tom's predictions but found them again when I was rechecking the alleged origins of the typescript.

Here are Tom's predictions. I am particularly interested in the part that I marked in bold:


1) The police checked the Created Date of the typescript on Barrett’s computer and found that it was well after March 9, 1992 (when Barrett first rang Rupert Crew), probably even well after April 13, 1992 (when Barrett first took the diary to London IIRC); and

2) There will be transcription errors in the typescript (where the Barretts struggled to make out what James Maybrick had written in the diary and had had to guess and got it wrong - at least as far as the final agreed versions in the published works are concerned).

--

Was this second bit an unreasonable 'prediction' or assumption on Tom's part?

I don't think so. I think it was entirely reasonable.

As with you and I, Tom must have been fully aware that much of 'Maybrick's' handwriting would be a "struggle" to decipher.

And yet, Tom's prediction has failed utterly.

We see no sign at all in the typescript that the Barretts struggled.

Is this not odd?

The typescript gives no indication of any uncertainty or doubt about what the manuscript is meant to say. There are no brackets, no question marks, no notes in the text about any of the words being illegible. The typescript is the model of confidence.

We don't even see this level of confidence and certainty in the masterfully edited Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner. There are places in the printed reports where the original handwritten documents were unclear, and the authors noted these uncertainties in the text.

For instance, Charles Warren's report of 4 October 1888 reads in part:

"there is the danger than an illegal act of such a character might bond the Social democrats together to resist the Police & [ ] might be then said to have caused a serious riot...

Isn't the empty bracket meant to represent a word or words that cannot be deciphered?

We also see a draft letter to George Lusk, written around the same time, with the transcription:

"It is obvious that not only [make?] to such a grant be granted to person how have been..."

Again, the text was impossible to read. There are other examples, but you get the point.

Question: why don't we see anything similar in the Barretts' typescript? That's what I'm wondering.

According to a statement made by Anne Graham to (I believe) Keith Skinner, the transcript was created "quickly" (why we are not told) with Mike Barrett reading the manuscript to her, and she typing, but referring back to the original from time to time, because she felt the two should "be the same."

I'm a skeptic, of course, but I personally find it highly unusual that nowhere in the typescript is there any sign of doubt by Mike or Anne about what anything in the diary said.

They didn't seem to 'struggle' at all, even when the handwriting became quite appalling.

This ordinary Liverpool couple, one of them an alleged illiterate, seem to have completed their task with great certainty and confidence, even while working quickly.

Remarkable.

RP


P.S. There is also doubt about the allegation that Scotland Yard found the Barretts' typescript on floppy disk, so Tom's first prediction hasn't come true, either. As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence about when or why the typescript was created, and we've been given two different reasons.

[rjpalmer]

I see from my notes that the term Anne used was 'fast.' The typescript was done 'fast' and not 'quickly,' but the meaning is the same.