Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

Hi RJ.

Now that you point it out, I see what you mean. Save the odd word that some disagree on, it's fully 'translated'. I suppose, playing devil's advocate, Mike *could* have had the diary long enough to have studied it well, maybe he'd worked it all out during his research. It doesn't marry up to the idea of Bongo being borderline illiterate, but he could decipher the entire diary with only a few words left uncertain. Good on him. Mike Barrett catch 22 again. Too stupid to fake the diary, smart enough to decipher and research it in full detail.

Admittedly, it's not every line that's hard to read, but it's a fair observation. There's no uncertainty in the Barrett typescript.

[caz]

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

I realise I'm very far from Palmer's idea of an 'objective' observer, but one of the first things I was reminded of at first glance of the passages selected for his small thought experiment was seeing a heavily redacted Post Office document, leaving just a few sentences here and there designed to support, or at least do no harm to their case for having prosecuted hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters and postmistresses for fraud.

I appreciate that the point of Palmer's exercise was not to imply that the chosen passages were typical of all 63 pages, but rather to show Al and other visitors to this thread where anyone coming new to this handwriting, who wanted to transcribe the whole diary, might come up against a particular difficulty at certain points. Yet the Barretts were seemingly able to type it up "fast", according to Anne, and did so without leaving any gaps or 'indecipherables' [spell that, Mike!]. So Palmer does have a point, and of course anyone is free in this case to consult one of the diary facsimiles if they wish to compare these three passages, for ease of reading, with the entire content.

It has been observed again very recently - with justification - that the 'entire content', if stripped of all the repeated and similar words, phrases and expressions, would have taken up a lot less space. This considerably reduces the number of different words used, with fewer one-off instances [ha ha] than there might have been, and the vocabulary, while it has its moments and oddities, is in the main quite limited.

What doesn't appear to have been considered is that nobody would have been faced with transcribing just three of the hardest to read passages, taken out of context. And it's worth reminding everyone at this point that the Barretts were not faced with transcribing anything, let alone handing over the typescript when they did, if it could have revealed that they had probably created both documents. It would have been a totally needless act of self harm.

Anyone with all 63 pages of unfamiliar handwriting in front of them, and a machine on which to type it up, will presumably start on page one, gradually becoming more familiar with the handwriting, literary style and language choices as they read and/or type. Having the context is absolutely crucial and with each repetition of a word, phrase or similar sentiment, the task should arguably become easier and quicker - even for the Barretts in 1992, with Mike's reading ability outperforming his very poor writing skills, and Anne's secretarial experience providing essential assistance. I suspect Mike was severely dyslexic, and I know a few people with the condition. One good friend of ours, who suffered badly at school in the days when they were just considered 'thick', told me that reading for him is not such a problem because he can pick up whole words from just the first and last letters.

If there is a word that is very unclear, and the context doesn't help, a gap can always be left so if the same word, or a similar looking one, appears more legibly elsewhere in the diary [which is quite likely given all the repetition], the transcriber can simply go back and type it into the gap, with no indication that they had the least difficulty reading it the first time. I suspect this may have happened if the handwritten word is actually 'fastest', because the Barretts could have struggled with this one [especially if it's a one-off instance - ha ha], but coming across the handwritten examples of 'finest' - just as Palmer did [which has proved extremely useful] - they could have plumped for typing another 'finest' in the transcript, without giving it further thought.

So...

What's the verdict for those who believe the Barretts really did create both the typescript and the physical diary?

Was Anne's claim to have done the transcript "fast" true? Was it typed fast because they already knew all the words she had just been copying out by hand?

What made them do it in the first place, then print it all off and get it to Doreen before 22nd April 1992, when there was no pressure or obligation to supply a transcript with the actual diary?

Or does the typescript represent a working document, created over time, before Mike had any idea what he was going to find to put it in? Would the Barretts have spent any time checking or adapting the prepared text when Mike finally brought the photo album home on 31st March 1992? Would any entries have been changed or added to reflect the book and its condition?

Or could Anne have simply gone quickly through the typescript again when the handwriting was done, to make sure it would pass as a transcript taken from the specially doctored album when Mike handed over both documents? Is this what she meant by doing it "fast"?

How many typed versions would have been on the word processor? Just the one we have here? Two or more?

Lastly, and arguably the most important question: how plausible is it that the handwriting is Anne's?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

with Mike's reading ability outperforming his very poor writing skills, and Anne's secretarial experience providing essential assistance.

I never thought I'd live to see Caz summoning MiCHaeL bArritT's reading skills while searching for an explanation, but life is full of surprises.

I'm not convinced that context alone would have helped our innocent transcribers decipher than handwriting in the examples I gave earlier, but it might be of interest to examine another problematic passage mentioned by David Barret at his website.

The Diary reads:



Personally, without the help of the typescript, I think I would have found the fifth word extremely difficult to unlock.

Nor do I think I'm alone, because if we look at page 2 of Keith's typescript, it appears that he has not only bracketed the troublesome word, but (evidently referring back to the manuscript itself) has given an alternative reading of "powers" along with a very appropriate question mark:



This rather undermines Caz's point.

Keith had just as much opportunity to study the context as the Barretts did, nor do I think Caroline would argue that either Mike or Anne were more experienced in deciphering difficult handwriting than a professional historical researcher, yet we see no corresponding doubt or confusion expressed in their transcript. By all appearances, the Barretts found it a breeze.

Which I find interesting.

One thing that context can never help decipher is proper names. I ran the image of 'Bobo and Gladys' past a number of people over Christmas, just for jolly. While it is true that some could see 'Bobo,' one thought it was 'Rolo' while another, almost refusing to guess, finally decided on 'Babs.' Barrett nailed it, of course, despite claiming to have never read the one book that would have given him a clue: Bernard Ryan's.

To those who have already eliminated Mike & Anne from their enquiries, this sort of minutia will be little more than an unwanted mosquito to brush away without a thought. To me, it doesn't quite ring true.

[Observer]

To those who have already eliminated Mike & Anne from their enquiries, this sort of minutia will be little more than an unwanted mosquito to brush away without a thought. To me, it doesn't quite ring true

Hi Mr Palmer, hope you are well. I believe that the vast majority of posters who have the misfortune to venture this way, ("dear reader" included) realise the implication of the Barretts effortless transcription of the diary onto disc I believe. Particularly the example you highlight above, i.e. the use of the word "pursuers". I looked at that sentence not knowing the word in question, and can genuinely say I was stumped as to what the word actually was, and this includes a stab at trying to insert a word in context. Of course you're quite correct in stating that certain posters will brush it aside as a non event, Brown has already tried such a tactic above. We know different though. Keep up the good work.

Cheers

[Iconoclast]

Hi Mr Palmer, hope you are well. I believe that the vast majority of posters who have the misfortune to venture this way, ("dear reader" included) realise the implication of the Barretts effortless transcription of the diary onto disc I believe. Particularly the example you highlight above, i.e. the use of the word "pursuers". I looked at that sentence not knowing the word in question, and can genuinely say I was stumped as to what the word actually was, and this includes a stab at trying to insert a word in context. Of course you're quite correct in stating that certain posters will brush it aside as a non event, Brown has already tried such a tactic above. We know different though. Keep up the good work.

Cheers

I'm maybe being thick here, but it's not clear to me that the word was meant to be 'pursuers' at all? I just accepted what was published in Shirley Harrison's original book and what she published was 'persuers' which I can only assume was an oversight on her part when she read it in Mike and Anne's typescript. The word - of course - should be 'pursuers'. I didn't notice this as a typo when I read Shirley's book, but it very much is a typo and she should have published the word as 'pursuers'.

So, Mike and Anne confidently typed what they thought the word was, showing no indication of doubt, but they spelled the word incorrectly and - in truth - I suggest that they chose the word incorrectly also. Looking at the original scrapbook text, the best I can do is to agree with Keith that the word should actually be 'powers'.

If the word is indeed 'powers', then how on earth did the Barretts get THEIR OWN WORD so badly wrong when they typed-up their version of the scrapbook?

As I say, maybe I'm being thick but I read this example as another piece of evidence that the Barretts had no role whatsoever in the creation of the original scrapbook text - quite the opposite of what Algernon and Roger have attempted to make of the anomaly.

[Observer]

No way in the Worldi is there a W in in the word in question.

[jmenges]

- quite the opposite of what Algernon and Roger have attempted to make of the anomaly.

To avoid any confusion - do not invent nicknames for the people you are referring to. It only breeds confusion amongst our members. Call them by the names they call themselves.

This is not David’s blog.

Thanks

JM

[rjpalmer]

Hi Mr Palmer, hope you are well. I believe that the vast majority of posters who have the misfortune to venture this way, ("dear reader" included) realise the implication of the Barretts effortless transcription of the diary onto disc I believe.

Hi Observer -- thanks for your comments. Hope all is well with you, too.

I've written up a few more comments, but my instinct is to bite my tongue and call it a day. I'm not convinced there is anyone left among the diary debaters who is truly open to persuasion (we've all made up our minds), so is there really any point in more bloodletting?

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

No way in the Worldi is there a W in in the word in question.

We're obviously all entitled to our views, but I can't agree that there is no suggestion of a 'w' in that smudged word. In my opinion, there is a greater chance that there is a 'w' in the middle than there is an 'e' (or even a 'u' if the Barretts had spelled it correctly) at the point of the second letter.

I would agree with Lord Orsam who has suggested that the word could be 'powers' (I think he said that, Keith obviously did) or even 'peelers' (Lord O definitely suggested that). As I recall, he excluded 'peelers' due to the letter formations and I (given my comment above) would have to agree with him. There is no hint of an 'e' at the point of that second letter.

I think the best we can hope to conclude there is that James Maybrick intended the word to be 'powers'. The Barretts certainly didn't appear to know that it really wasn't 'persuers'.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Observer -- thanks for your comments. Hope all is well with you, too.

I've written up a few more comments, but my instinct is to bite my tongue and call it a day. I'm not convinced there is anyone left among the diary debaters who is truly open to persuasion (we've all made up our minds), so is there really any point in more bloodletting?

Cheers.

It is certainly true that the lines are fairly firmly drawn here and I'm always on sentry duty to protect my dear readers from any possibility of misdirection or logic fails - no, honestly, I do it as a service to mankind, no need to applaud - but there is always a moment such as this when we can debate something reasonably concrete (even if it is, ironically, rather nebulous). I can't imagine there can be much in the way of blood-letting in debating a single word in a Victorian cotton merchant's scrapbook.

[erobitha]

I’m not clear.

What is the suggestion here Observer / RJ?

Mike wrote it on his word processor then dictated it to Anne who then wrote it into the scrapbook? Then, they create another manuscript?

[Iconoclast]

I’m not clear.
What is the suggestion here Observer / RJ?
Mike wrote it on his word processor then dictated it to Anne who then wrote it into the scrapbook? Then, they create another manuscript?

One might have hoped, ero b, that the author of the confession would have been somewhat more articulate in his claims (especially given his opening claim that he was an 'Author' - capital 'A'!), but he was thoroughly ambiguous in terms of the order of when things happened:

We were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.

I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.

Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

I'm not clear what RJ's timeline looks like. I have always taken it to be:

• Mike compiles the text on his word prosser
• He then reads it out to Anne who writes it up into the scrapbook
• And then they make a second copy of the original transcript, get a few words wrong, and then take that to London

If Mike Barrett hoaxed James Maybrick's scrapbook, it's truly astonishing that he was so unclear about the things he must have actually done and the timings he did them in. He is clearly claiming that the original text was typed up at the same time as Anne was physically writing it down into the scrapbook, and yet we all know that it was Anne who was doing the typing AND must have been doing the writing too all in this mythical 11-day period. We know it must have been Anne doing the typing because otherwise it would be unreadable (even when typed) due to Mike's advanced dyslexia (which he may well have suffered from). Of course, all of this happened before the stroke he never had so maybe he was perfectly literate before the catastrophic brain haemorrhage dulled his skills dramatically, and had the bizarre side effect of causing his GP to forget to ever mention it in Barrett's medical notes.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

One might have hoped, ero b, that the author of the confession would have been somewhat more articulate in his claims (especially given his opening claim that he was an 'Author' - capital 'A'!), but he was thoroughly ambiguous in terms of the order of when things happened:

We were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.

I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.

Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

I'm not clear what RJ's timeline looks like. I have always taken it to be:

• Mike compiles the text on his word prosser
• He then reads it out to Anne who writes it up into the scrapbook
• And then they make a second copy of the original transcript, get a few words wrong, and then take that to London

If Mike Barrett hoaxed James Maybrick's scrapbook, it's truly astonishing that he was so unclear about the things he must have actually done and the timings he did them in. He is clearly claiming that the original text was typed up at the same time as Anne was physically writing it down into the scrapbook, and yet we all know that it was Anne who was doing the typing AND must have been doing the writing too all in this mythical 11-day period. We know it must have been Anne doing the typing because otherwise it would be unreadable (even when typed) due to Mike's advanced dyslexia (which he may well have suffered from). Of course, all of this happened before the stroke he never had so maybe he was perfectly literate before the catastrophic brain haemorrhage dulled his skills dramatically, and had the bizarre side effect of causing his GP to forget to ever mention it in Barrett's medical notes.

Cheers,

Ike

I'm very confused. I thought Mike's original draft had been on a floppy disc for years, possibly not long after the word processor was purchased? Was this not claimed? But here he states it was put together in 11 days from start to finish, with him writing it on the computer as Anne hand writes it into the scrapbook. Do I have that part right?

Then, they write another typescript with deliberate mistakes to give to Doreen just in case anyone gets a sniff of a hoax?

If that appeals to people as sounding more realistic than Mike phoning Doreen the exact same day electricians who drink the same pub as Mike had the floorboards up in James Maybrick's old home, then I guess I'm on the wrong side of rational thinking.

[rjpalmer]

I would agree with Lord Orsam who has suggested that the word could be 'powers' (I think he said that, Keith obviously did) or even 'peelers' (Lord O definitely suggested that).

Hello Ike,

please read this post slowly as you tend to misread.

Before Lord O carves you up yet again, let me just gently point out that he 'definitely' did not make that suggestion.

Actually, I did in the comment section of his website, and at no time did I claim that I believed that the diary actually says 'peelers.'

My point was that an innocent transcriber, with nothing to guide them but the context, could conceivably conclude that the word was 'peelers' because 'peelers' was a nickname for the London Metropolitan police, particularly among the Irish, in dubious homage to Sir Robert Peele, its founder.

My point is that, despite Caz's recent commentary, the context alone is not always enough to make a conclusive stab at it.

Similarly, with nothing but the context to guide one, the word could conceivably be 'powers'--but neither I, nor 'Observer,' nor your good friend Lord O believe that, either, and believe the correct word is indeed 'persuers.'

Shirley Harrison, whose own transcription doesn't always agree the Barretts, also has it down as 'persuers,' while Robert Smith has it down as 'porsuers.'

Having yourself had access to the typescript for quite some time, I am a little surprised to see that you're suddenly on the 'powers' train, when last week you were freely using the word 'pursuers' as you weaved your 'doppelganger' theories about Mike Barrett's motivations, and even joked that you tried to spell in persuers, so you must be rather late to the powers party. Fair enough--it doesn't really matter.

My original point is that we can argue to the cows come home what the diary actually says, but what you don't quite seem to grasp is that Keith, in making this 'powers' suggestion, expressed doubt.

He used a question mark.

He didn't have it down as 'powers' -- he had it down as 'powers?'

Do you see the difference?

That's my point. An innocent and honest transcriber would express doubt instead of the confidence we see throughout the Barretts' version--not in just this word, but in all words.

Including when a word is nothing but a black blotch, which Mike confidently transcribes as 'regard' (possibly a typo because Shirley has it down as 'regards.')

How Barrett managed this feat of x-ray vision is another minor mystery. I've been informed by your good friend Lord O that Paul Begg transcribed the same black blotch as "about."

Again, who is right? I don't know, but I do know that Mike and Anne make no indication that they don't know what the diarist meant!

To me, placing myself in Barrett's position, I rather think he was over a barrel. It would have been more natural, and more in line with Mike's preferred acting role as a humble 'ex scrap metal dealer' to have made a 'dog's breakfast' of the typescript, but he was pitching the story to London publishers and the typescript was part of that pitch. Mike wanted to get a publishing contract. There's a later letter somewhere with Doreen saying she's sending out tidbits from the diary to publishers. Barrett, when preparing this typescript, had to choose whether he was going to play it straight and turn in a professional typescript to impress his agent and any potential publishers or whether he was going to stick to his role as an innocent babe-in-the-woods and make a muddle of it, and he chose the former. In my opinion, he and Anne did too good of a job it, and it is not natural. It doesn't ring true.

Of course, if you feel the same two people who handed in what certainly appear to be bogus research notes are playing it straight in this instance, no one can stop you.

I remain yours, etc.,

RP

[Iconoclast]

I'm very confused. I thought Mike's original draft had been on a floppy disc for years, possibly not long after the word processor was purchased? Was this not claimed? But here he states it was put together in 11 days from start to finish, with him writing it on the computer as Anne hand writes it into the scrapbook. Do I have that part right?
Then, they write another typescript with deliberate mistakes to give to Doreen just in case anyone gets a sniff of a hoax?
If that appeals to people as sounding more realistic than Mike phoning Doreen the exact same day electricians who drink the same pub as Mike had the floorboards up in James Maybrick's old home, then I guess I'm on the wrong side of rational thinking.

Hi ero b,

Just to avoid semantic confusementism, the Barretts would have typed another transcript with deliberate errors in. In truth, they would have brought up the original on Mike's word prosser and then edited it in a few strategic places, then saved it as 'The Con Grows Arms and Legs.doc' (or whatever Amstrad's suffixes were in 1992) then printed it out and put it in Mike's Very Important Briefcase along with his sandwiches for his fateful trip to that Larndarn..

I share your confusementism, however, which seems to stem from a propensity for endless speculation - regardless of the likely contradictions - if a new angle 'explains' something a previous angle failed to. I think it's probably fair to say that posters on both sides of the debate have fallen into that trap or - at the very least - have proposed possible solutions without meaning to be taken entirely seriously which have then been taken apparently very seriously possibly for a spot of point-scoring.

By this means, we have truly vacillated from one possible solution to another thereby confusing the hell out of my dear readers (the worst of sins in my book as I love them all like they were all my hamsters or something).

By way of a rather salient example, we are constantly told that the Barretts came up with endless variations of the provenance story when - in reality - Mike produced the scrapbook, said he got it from Tony Devereux, then said he created it as a hoax, at which point his wife Anne said that - no - he definitely got it from Tony Devereux and she would know because she was the one who gave it to Devereux to give to Barrett. Meanwhile, of course, the Madness of Mad Bongo had him signing iffydavits left, right, and centre causing untold illusions that more provenances were being put forward when in reality there had only been his original story, his multiple other versions,. and Anne's singular, unwavering version. Hardly a cacophony of provenances once you extract the Madness of Mad Bongo from the blood stream of the story.

Finally, of course, in 2017, Bruce Robinson permitted Keith Skinner to reveal what he'd known since 2004 - namely that Maybrick's floorboards had almost certainly been raised on the morning of March 9, 1992, and the impossible 'coincidence' of the double event was unleashed upon the world of Ripperonomy.

That's not to say that coincidences can't happen, of course. They do, and sometimes they are absolute corkers, but the double event was a cork too far by any statistician's standards (well, by mine anyway).

Ike