Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike ...

Don't you ever sleep for goodness sake? Isn't it like 2am in the United States of the USA right now? I'm convinced you've got an alarm that wakes you up every time I post, I really am.

... please read this post slowly as you tend to misread.

Honestly, I promise I will try my best but I just don't have your brainpersuer, RJ.

Before Lord O carves you up yet again ...

Can you imagine his frenzied typing even as we - erm, - type? Dribbling from both sides (like a good drummer as my father-in-law used to say about his Scottish country dancing drummer, the wonderful Norman, now sadly gone from us but probably still dribbling somewhere in some other place), his invective will be flowing like ink on a hoaxed confession of Jack the Ripper. I can't wait! (If I can be arsed to read it.)

... let me just gently point out that he 'definitely' did not make that suggestion.

I really appreciate the considerate way you have opened my mind to the terrible error I have made! You said it in the comment section (I think you were 'Guest' or something revealing, yes?) and old Lord Whatsiname Orsam has thus been terribly maligned. The invective is probably boiling this time, I suspect!

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.'

Good. Point made.

My point ...

Which was already made ...

... 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.

I trust that this snippet wasn't for my benefit? Being British, of course I know what Peelers were and that they were named after Sir Robert Peel (who must have dropped the mysterious 'e' at the end of his surname at some point?). He also lent his name to the term 'Bobbies' but probably not to the highly disrespectful 'Pigs'.

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.'

Okay, I don't think it was a major misunderstanding on my part, but it's good to have my erring unerred again occasionally by you and the Dark Lord.

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.

I'm on the 'powers' train because you posted about it the other day. Without that post, I don't think I'd have given it another thought.

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.

Yep, I definitely grasped it, mate.

He used a question mark. [/B]

I'm feeling positively giddy with the sudden clarity - I honestly hadn't realised that little squiggly thing that the Spanish always put in the wrong place was indicating a question.

He didn't have it down as 'powers' -- he had it down as 'powers?'. Do you see the difference?

I'll admit it took me a while but I think I've finally got there, RJ.

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.

So, how do you imagine the Barretts of Goldie Street, typing on a rather primitive word prosser (I had one, it was definitely a primitive experience) were to capture any element of doubt that you are suggesting they should have had? Should they have typed '[?]' to note their uncertainty? Or should they have used a pen or pencil and thereby marked the copy they were taking down to Larndarn? The argument feels intuitively idiosyncratic, and yet you are reading so much into their choice.

And how can you be so certain that their lack of apparent uncertainties was actually just a complete lack of concern for them?

... I do know that Mike and Anne make no indication that they don't know what the diarist meant!

I'd say they made a very good stab at transcribing what the author (James Maybrick if you aren't keeping up) meant. They got a few words 'wrong' (we now suspect) but all-in-all they did very well. Does this mean that they had no doubts? I don't think it does. Does this mean that it reveals they actually wrote the original text? Of course it doesn't. I'm not sure where this line of reasoning takes us? (And - yes - that squiggly thing at the end is there to indicate my doubt.)

Cue tunnel-visioned argument selecting only those snippets of what we know or RJ has decided to interpret which leads to the conclusion he wants us all to draw ...

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.

And if me aunty (or godmother) had wheels, she'd be a bicycle [thank you that bloke off Good Morning or whatever it's called].

The crux of all that was the bit where you typed 'In my opinion'. The rest seemed to me to be blinkered supposition straight out of the rule book for a gang of presuppositionalists (consisting of pretty much just two people) that would make the Flat Earth Society blush at the lack of apparent candour.

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.

Again, the crux was the bit where you typed 'in what certainly appear to be'.

Get yourself back to bed, RJ. You know you're tetchy when your sleep is broken ...

Ike
Concerned Citizen

[jmenges]

From Keith Skinner:

Although I said I would not answer questions around the transcript I can perhaps offer some context and clarity regarding the "Persuers/Powers/Peelers" discussion.

Mike and Anne's transcript came to me within a few days of Robert Smith securing the publication rights of the diary on June 12th 1992. I did not receive a photocopy of the original handwritten diary until much later on and in truth I can't remember being all that much bothered. Robert had commissioned me to be a JTR consultant on the book but I thought he'd be better off having Paul Begg and Martin Fido who had far greater knowledge about the subject than I did. Added to which they were academics and would know what questions to ask. I was much more interested in helping Shirley Harrison and Sally Evemy researching James Maybrick about whom I knew very little. I put this idea to Robert and Shirley, said I would split my fee with Paul and Martin and the project would then have the advantage of the two leading JTR experts on board. Robert and Shirley agreed to this suggestion.

Re-reading my scribbled notes on the transcript after 32 years a few memories surface. That which I recently highlighted in bold yellow were originally on the transcript when it came to me. Everything else (including the faded yellow highlighting) are my underlinings, annotations and observations made at the time. I am fairly sure my thinking was to note everything which could be factually checked - dates, names, places - within my limited experience of using historical sources of information pre internet days.

You'll see I have corrected the spelling of rondaveau on page 1. (The pagination at the top of each page is mine. It was only later that I noticed it had already been done at the foot of the page!

The only other word I pick up on is "persuers" and the reason for that is because it is a word I can never remember how to spell myself. Was it spelt as in the transcript or "pursuers? I have an idea that would be the only reason I paused on that word which led me to then examine the sense of the sentence. The author of the diary had not yet begun his campaign so why would JM anticipate people being in pusuit of him after despatching a whore? "Powers" seemed to me a more obvious word given the context? Those who are far more erudite than myself will be very quick to point out that I simply do not understand what I was reading. Very likely they are correct but in my mind I was equating the word "persuers" with being actively chased after committing a murder. So I wondered whether the word might be "powers" - and then forgot all about it for 32 years!

I hope this may help.

KS

[rjpalmer]

Don't you ever sleep for goodness sake? Isn't it like 2am in the United States of the USA right now? I'm convinced you've got an alarm that wakes you up every time I post, I really am.

Hi Ike. I get up at 3 a.m., and have done so for a number of years, but thanks for your concern.

I often read over the diary bilge while having my first two cups, but you'll be pleased to hear I've recently bought a couple of Spanish books and tapes and think I'll change tact moving forward.

While we are off-topic and chatty, I've been meaning to ask why you don't simply build or acquire a composter instead of forking over 7 and a half quid for someone to haul off the lawn clippings? They are a valuable commodity.

I have two composters (one rodent proof) along with a worm bin. There's a brush pile for larger stuff, which is useful for building up raised-bed gardens. Once established, it's all free and easy and you have no shortage of fertilizer and mulch.

It's not hard. Good luck with your gardening.

[rjpalmer]

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 again, Observer. Yes, I think most will indeed realize the implication--but not those who don't want to realize the implication.

One final observation, since I'm here anyway.

In general, would you agree in principle that it is more likely that someone taking dictation (as Barrett describes how the diary was created) would be more likely to leave out words than to plug in words that were never spoken?

For instance, if Barrett read out the line "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog"

we could readily imagine Graham quickly typing "the quick brown fox jumped over the dog," mistakenly leaving out a word.

But what is harder to imagine (for me) is someone accidently adding additional words while quickly typing and thus rendering the line:

"the quick brown fox jumped high up and over the lazy dog."

Granted, it only happens once, but we do see this in the diary's transcript.

The diary has the line:




"I do not have the courage to take my life."

Yet, in the typescript (p. 28) we see the Barretts have strangely added three words that are not in the diary.

"I do not know if I have the courage to take my life."

Where did the "know if I" come from?

Is Ike suggesting that Barret read out the line wrong, adding his own words, when it is quite easy to read?

Or is he suggesting that a car rattle by on Goldie Street, and Anne somehow added three words that Mike never spoke?

[Iconoclast]

Mr Skinner,

I think it's blindingly obvious that the word 'powers' is far and away the most likely interpretation (not least for the point you make about 'pursuers' being rather out of context at that point in his 'campaign' - not impossible, just less obvious).

Not to say that the word is definitely 'powers', but certainly to say that 'powers' is significantly more likely now that it's been pointed out than the Barrett's half-decent stab (albeit misspelled) at 'pursuers'.

And if the original were 'powers', what a jolly old problem it causes Lord O and RJ P to explain how the heck the Barretts got their own word wrong in their typescript which was knocked-up so very soon after (or before?) the scrapbook text was written by Anne.

Personally, I wish it was 'Peelers' but it obviously is not.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

While we are off-topic and chatty, I've been meaning to ask why you don't simply build or acquire a composter instead of forking over 7 and a half quid for someone to haul off the lawn clippings? They are a valuable commodity.

I shall put your idea to Mrs Iconoclast and report back forthwith ...

[Iconoclast]

Hi again, Observer. Yes, I think most will indeed realize the implication--but not those who don't want to realize the implication.

One final observation, since I'm here anyway.

In general, would you agree in principle that it is more likely that someone taking dictation (as Barrett describes how the diary was created) would be more likely to leave out words than to plug in words that were never spoken?

For instance, if Barrett read out the line "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog"

we could readily imagine Graham quickly typing "the quick brown fox jumped over the dog," mistakenly leaving out a word.

But what is harder to imagine (for me) is someone accidently adding additional words while quickly typing and thus rendering the line:

"the quick brown fox jumped high up and over the lazy dog."

Granted, it only happens once, but we do see this in the diary's transcript.

The diary has the line:



"I do not have the courage to take my life."
Yet, in the typescript (p. 28) we see the Barretts have strangely added three words that are not in the diary.
"I do not know if I have the courage to take my life."
Where did the "know if I" come from?
Is Ike suggesting that Barret read out the line wrong, adding his own words, when it is quite easy to read?
Or is he suggesting that a car rattle by on Goldie Street, and Anne somehow added three words that Mike never spoke?

It's a good spot, RJ. I'm not sure it's got quite the consequence you are seeking to allude it has, though?

[Yabs]

Hi again, Observer. Yes, I think most will indeed realize the implication--but not those who don't want to realize the implication.

One final observation, since I'm here anyway.

In general, would you agree in principle that it is more likely that someone taking dictation (as Barrett describes how the diary was created) would be more likely to leave out words than to plug in words that were never spoken?

For instance, if Barrett read out the line "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog"

we could readily imagine Graham quickly typing "the quick brown fox jumped over the dog," mistakenly leaving out a word.

But what is harder to imagine (for me) is someone accidently adding additional words while quickly typing and thus rendering the line:

"the quick brown fox jumped high up and over the lazy dog."

Granted, it only happens once, but we do see this in the diary's transcript.

The diary has the line:




"I do not have the courage to take my life."

Yet, in the typescript (p. 28) we see the Barretts have strangely added three words that are not in the diary.

"I do not know if I have the courage to take my life."

Where did the "know if I" come from?

Is Ike suggesting that Barret read out the line wrong, adding his own words, when it is quite easy to read?

Or is he suggesting that a car rattle by on Goldie Street, and Anne somehow added three words that Mike never spoke?

On the very next, and last page of the diary it says

“I do not know if she has the strength to kill me”

As a loose suggestion, maybe if the typescript is an original draft of the diary before it was handwritten, perhaps Barrett decided not to use those similar lines so close together when narrating it to Anne but it stayed on the copy he gave to the publishers

[rjpalmer]

On the very next, and last page of the diary it says

“I do not know if she has the strength to kill me”

As a loose suggestion, maybe if the typescript is an original draft of the diary before it was handwritten, perhaps Barrett decided not to use those similar lines so close together when narrating it to Anne but it stayed on the copy he gave to the publishers

That's an interesting observation, Yabs. I was thinking along similar lines.

There would be a final draft on the Amstrad, of course, if the Barretts were the hoaxers, but there would also be minor adjustments during the dictation and handwriting process, when a line didn't sound right when spoken aloud. Last-minute changes.

Later, Barrett knew that he needed to create what appeared to be a legitimate transcript, but he was also lazy. So, he used his final draft to create this 'transcript' instead of starting from scratch, making adjustments to match those last-minute changes, but towards the end he got careless and on page 28 he left in three words from the final draft that had been taken out during dictation.

Perhaps for the very reason that you suggest.

[rjpalmer]

It's a good spot, RJ. I'm not sure it's got quite the consequence you are seeking to allude it has, though?

Do you know why I circled alludes?

Does courage allude someone, or does it elude someone?

As your good friend Lord Orsam has noted, there is a certain lady in Liverpool whose private correspondence has a habit of dropping an incorrect homophone now & again.

Of course, that just another gnat buzzing in the air. Don't pay it any attention.

[Iconoclast]

Do you know why I circled alludes?
Does courage allude someone, or does it elude someone?
As your good friend Lord Orsam has noted, there is a certain lady in Liverpool whose private correspondence has a habit of dropping an incorrect homophone now & again.
Of course, that just another gnat buzzing in the air. Don't pay it any attention.

No, it clearly eludes someone (and thanks for that, I was wracking my brains trying to remember the flaming word Maybrick was clearly meaning - bit of brain fog for a moment there).

I don't think that 'dropping an incorrect homophone' is going to be a particularly salient clue to the identity of the author of the scrapbook as it is something which surely we all fall victim to from time to time?

[Iconoclast]

On the very next, and last page of the diary it says
“I do not know if she has the strength to kill me”
As a loose suggestion, maybe if the typescript is an original draft of the diary before it was handwritten, perhaps Barrett decided not to use those similar lines so close together when narrating it to Anne but it stayed on the copy he gave to the publishers

Well I think this is the realistic version if the Barretts wrote the scrapbook text - i.e., they typed-up a version (adding in a structure on screen for the doggerel including the crossed-out doggerel) and then wrote it up into the scrapbook, making some transcribing errors along the way, and then simply printed out the original text to take to Doreen Montgomery. They could have attempted to get cute and make a copy of the original typed text and then stuck in a few errors here and there, of course, perhaps not properly realising that they'd already done that inadvertently when writing out the scrapbook. I guess we may never know for certain.

To be clear, despite my suggestions above, I obviously believe that what happened was that Mike Barrett acquired the scrapbook somehow and - before he went to London with it - he and Anne attempted a transcription on his PC. That transcription contained word choices which others might have disagreed with then or now and may well have contained the three additional words which RJ noted because Mike just grew lazy of the process and inadvertently added an idea which wasn't actually in Maybrick's recorded thoughts. I don't know. I doubt we ever will know.

[Iconoclast]

Later, Barrett knew that he needed to create what appeared to be a legitimate transcript, but he was also lazy. So, he used his final draft to create this 'transcript' instead of starting from scratch, making adjustments to match those last-minute changes, but towards the end he got careless and on page 28 he left in three words from the final draft that had been taken out during dictation.

Interesting that we both see Mike Barrett as fundamentally lazy (see my reply to Yabs which I posted before I read your reply).

This vision of an indolent Mike works fine for someone who believes that he had very little input into the entire scrapbook story but is somewhat harder to rationalise for someone who believes our erstwhile scrap metal dealer and aspiring journalist actually put in the hard yards of research into Jack and the Maybricks and then composed a 63-page hoax when he could have just composed a letter-confessional of a few pages.

[caz]

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

What?

[caz]

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.

Yes, I just saw that word and it seemed to me that the only blood-letting would result from Palmer literally biting his tongue.

And we know how likely that is to happen, despite everything he said before Keith released all the 'offending' material.

Love,

Brown [much better than Mrs Brown!]
X