Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[caz]

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

I'm still not clear why Anne would have thought she needed to prepare what would essentially have been a 'fake' transcript, for Mike to hand over to Doreen with their own 'fake' diary.

I was once mocked by Palmer for suggesting there would need to have been two typed versions. When he could see the transcript for himself [if I may call it a transcript now?], he agreed with me that anyone would have to be pretty stupid to hand over an obvious draft of their own hoax. So does he now admit that at least two versions must have existed on the word processor if Anne was responsible for the handwritten one: an original that has never seen the light of day, and a totally needless 'fake' transcript, done "fast" after the fact?

Can this get any more convoluted?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

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?

This reminds me a little of Caz's bizarre question over on the other thread:

Should Janet Devereux not also be under suspicion, for having expressed an interest in a 'Maybrick' book, a year and a bit before Mike called Doreen about his diary?

Hardly an example of switchblade logic, is it?

Janet Devereux never showed up in London a few months after her father's death with a dodgy 'Diary of Jim Maybrick' with remarkably fluid ink. Nor did Janet Devereux contact a literary agent using the pseudonym 'Mrs. Williams' to peddle the publishing rights of said diary. Nor had Janet worked as a freelance journalist in the 1980s yet kept this secret from her literary agent and her collaborator—handing over what appear to be bogus research notes. Janet did not seek blank Victorian paper in the weeks before showing up in London, nor did Janet lie about when and why she had bought a word processor, nor come up with a citation for the Crashaw quote, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Had Janet done all that and more--as Mike Barrett did--then yes, I think the more astute members of the reading public would have indeed looked on Janet's reading interests with considerable suspicion.

The only reason that Janet had an opportunity to have interest in this "Maybrick" book is that Mike Barrett owned it and lent it to her father.

Similarly, we aren't talking about just anyone having trouble with homophones--we are talking about the person that Barrett accused of being the penwoman.

If Anne showed no such propensity for spelling and similar errors and missing apostrophes, etc., could we not eliminate her from our inquires?

The answer is yes, because this is exactly what Martin Fido did, after reading Anne's "professional" report.

He thought Anne was too literate to have been the penman of such a shoddy hoax, but then Martin had never seen Anne's private correspondence at the time.

But thanks again for trying to 'fix' my logic. Another weak effort, I'm afraid, but it does keep me on my toes!

[rjpalmer]

I was once mocked by Palmer for suggesting there would need to have been two typed versions.

Unfortunately, Caz, you to 'remember' lots of things that never happened. Why don't you quote what I actually wrote?

I'll check back later.

[rjpalmer]

I suspect what Caz is misremembering is my own queries about why we have been given two different explanations for the typescripts' creation and why there have been unresolved references to two different typescripts.

On one hand, we have been told that the typescript was created at the 'instigation' of the literary agency, and that Barrett duly delivered it in April 1992.

Yet, on the Larry King show, Kenneth Rendell stated that a typescript had been found on the Barretts' word processor by Scotland Yard. (Presumably a floppy disk).

Whether that is true or not has no bearing on my immediate point. In response to this allegation, Doreen Montgomery responded--very strangely--that of course there was a transcript on their word processor because Mike Barrett had created one so he could better study the diary.

So which is it? Did Mike create it for Doreen or for himself? If Mike created it for Doreen, then why on earth is she, of all people, giving a different explanation?

[caz]

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'.

I actually have no idea what the word in the scrapbook is, because it looks nothing like any of the words suggested by others, including the word misspelled in the transcript typed by Anne Barrett, which would not have been my first choice to use in the context, albeit with the hope that I would have spelled it correctly in both documents.

I just looked up slang terms for the police and, interestingly, 'pigs' was used in the 19th century but was dropped for a time before becoming popular again. I noticed that the French equivalent is 'poulets' meaning chickens, and wondered if this also dates back to Maybrick's day. What a pity 'Sir Jim' doesn't go on to write about 'poulets' running round with their heads cut off! And why does that phrase bring me back to this thread?

The only thing that matters, of course, is whether or not the word in the scrapbook IS what Anne typed in the transcript - and how would we ever know for sure unless Anne knows and decides to get everything off her chest?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Unfortunately, Caz, you to 'remember' lots of things that never happened. Why don't you quote what I actually wrote?

I'll check back later.

It was to do with my theory that there were two Tales of Liverpool knocking about. I recall Palmer mocking me for this and saying that I was 'now' referring to two typescripts if the Barretts had created the diary, as if I had the number two on the brain. It was quite insulting actually.

That might help Palmer to recall it.

[caz]

I suspect what Caz is misremembering is my own queries about why we have been given two different explanations for the typescripts' creation and why there have been unresolved references to two different typescripts.

On one hand, we have been told that the typescript was created at the 'instigation' of the literary agency, and that Barrett duly delivered it in April 1992.

Yet, on the Larry King show, Kenneth Rendell stated that a typescript had been found on the Barretts' word processor by Scotland Yard. (Presumably a floppy disk).

Whether that is true or not has no bearing on my immediate point. In response to this allegation, Doreen Montgomery responded--very strangely--that of course there was a transcript on their word processor because Mike Barrett had created one so he could better study the diary.

So which is it? Did Mike create it for Doreen or for himself? If Mike created it for Doreen, then why on earth is she, of all people, giving a different explanation?

When and where were we 'told' that the typescript was created at anyone's 'instigation'? Is Palmer able to provide a quote?

Where did Rendell get the idea that one was found by Scotland Yard? Could it not have been an assumption planted by someone other than Bonesy, who knew Mike had been interviewed, but was possibly ignorant of the fact that this was purely in connection with the allegations against Robert Smith?

As far as the evidence is concerned, the Barretts created their transcript of their own free will, under no obligation or pressure from Doreen. Mike was supposed to be helping Shirley with the research, so the transcript would have served everyone concerned to 'better study the diary'. Palmer believes Doreen was being duped in any case, so I'm struggling with why he has a problem with her understanding of the situation and her explanation. It works both ways.

[Iconoclast]

I suspect what Caz is misremembering is my own queries about why we have been given two different explanations for the typescripts' creation and why there have been unresolved references to two different typescripts.

The real issue, of course, is not how many versions there were but whether there are innocent explanations for however many versions there were.

On one hand, we have been told that the typescript was created at the 'instigation' of the literary agency, and that Barrett duly delivered it in April 1992.

I don't think there is any debate that a version of the scrapbook must have been on Mike's PC at some point because he clearly took a printed version to London with him at some point in April 1992 (not the first meeting on April 13, though, as I recall). What provided the impetus for that typescript is only of relevance if we are seeking to infer an issue with it existing. I see no issue whatsoever so - for me - this is a non-debate.

Yet, on the Larry King show, Kenneth Rendell stated that a typescript had been found on the Barretts' word processor by Scotland Yard. (Presumably a floppy disk).

Presumably, yes, but hardly ground-breaking stuff given that we now know that Mike took a printed version down to Doreen (whether at her request or not) so he must have created a typed version at some point. I'll say it again, this is a non-debate because we cannot say with any certainty what the motivation was behind the typed version existing, though we do have a couple of very good possibilities neither of which need anyone to get their knickers in a twist over them.

Whether that is true or not has no bearing on my immediate point.

So why mention it, RJ, if it has no bearing on your immediate point?

In response to this allegation, Doreen Montgomery responded--very strangely--that of course there was a transcript on their word processor because Mike Barrett had created one so he could better study the diary.

Is there a parallel universe here where there was a transcript made of the scrapbook text for two reasons or must it only ever be one and we have to decide between them and therefore whether the scrapbook is a hoax or not? You appear to be attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, RJ. Not sure why?

So which is it? Did Mike create it for Doreen or for himself?

I promise you, there is a parallel universe somewhere where this dichotomy just doesn't matter - that is, that the two possibilities are not in any way mutually exclusive and therefore Palmer does not ask us to choose between them as if in some test of whether nefarious activity has taken place or not.

If Mike created it for Doreen, then why on earth is she, of all people, giving a different explanation?

[Observer]

What?

Your fellow Barrett naysayer Iconoclast picked up on what I meant , what's the problem? We were discussing the word which was transcribed by Barrett as saying " persuers". Have a look at the example Mr Palmer provided. I pointed out that no way was there a W discernable in the word

[Observer]

Just to add Iconoclast was leaning towards the word being "powers"

[rjpalmer]

When and where were we 'told' that the typescript was created at anyone's 'instigation'? Is Palmer able to provide a quote?

Certainly.

It was none other than you. (warning: marathon post alert)


I first raised the question clear back in 2005, ie., why the public had been told two different versions of why and when the typescript was produced.

---

Caz--- Could you please give me the source for the statement below? Either on or off the boards is fine. Many thanks, RP

"At some point it's agreed that the Barretts will produce a typed transcript of the diary (fact)."


To which you replied:

---

Hi RJ,

The statement, in case any of your readers are wondering, came from a private email I sent you, in response to yours, in which you outlined your current hypothesis for the diary's recent origins.

There is absolutely no doubt that a typed version of the diary text was produced on Mike Barrett's word processor, a copy of which reached Keith Skinner on June 4 1992.

Mike and Anne both signed the May 1992 collaboration agreement with Shirley Harrison, giving all three responsibilities for the forthcoming publication.

My understanding is that one of the earliest responsibilities taken on by the Barretts was to produce a transcript of the diary for Doreen, Shirley and her chosen researchers to consult.

______


Although you have very recently denied that the production of the typescript was connected to the contractual agreement with Crew Literary Agency, we can see from the above that that's precisely what you were suggesting back when our memories were much fresher in 2005.

I then responded:

________

Caz-- After checking, I've been unable to find anything at all in the public domain to support the statement:

"At some point it's agreed that the Barretts will produce a typed transcript of the diary (fact)."

Indeed, all the evidence suggests that this was not the "fact."

Of course, I do not question your claim that Keith Skinner (and others) received a document purporting to be a typescript of the Maybrick Diary in June, 1992.

What I do wonder about is whether we have any credible evidence to indicate when and for what reason that typescript was created. Here's why.

On Nov., 1993 Shirley Harrison & Kenneth Rendell had a joint appearance on the Larry King Show. Rendell stated that there had been a sinister development, that the police, armed with a warrant, found a word processor in Barrett's home with the Diary on it. (Harrison, pocket books paperback, p. 272)

Harrison responds: "The police did not have a warrant. The WP was hardly "found"it was on the dining room table. (Ibid. p,272) (Remember this, because we'll be coming back to it eventually).

A few months later, Nick Warren, writing to Doreen Montgomery mentions the unusual discovery on Mr. Barrett's W.P.

Montgomery writes to Warren on 8 May, 1994:

"Of course we know what the SFS found--a transcript of the Diary! There's nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily."

(SFS=Serious Fraud Unit)

Now hold the phone. Multiple Questions.

If the argument is currently running (see your statement above) that this transcript was typed up at the request or "agreement" of Doreen Montgomery and the ladies at Crew Literary Agency, why on earth didn't Montgomery say this? Why didn't she say something like, "Why Mr. Warren, of course Mike had a transcript of the Diary!..it was agreed that he and his wife would create a typescript for our benefit."

The contractual agreement (Crew was a professional business) could then have been produced showing this. But clearly, this wasn't the understanding of why the typescript was produced as of May, 1994.

Enter Paul Begg.

Author: Paul Begg Casebook Message Boards Archives

Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 06:03 pm

"Hi Martin
Your understanding is pretty much the same as mine. I likewise thought or probably more right I assumed it to be a copy made at the request of Doreen Montgomery, and only later did I understand it to have been a copy made by Mike."

So independently, we have two sources with the seeming belief that this "typescript" actually preceded Barrett's arrival at Crew, and at no time was this made at the request of Doreen Montgomery... It was made by Barrett, for Barrett. Doreen's own statement suggests this.

-----

You then further responded after contacting Shirley Harrison by email:

---

Hi RJ,

I appreciate your comments.

I don't know how you would be able to pursue your suspicions about the typed version of the diary.

Shirley responded to my questions and said my statement was correct. She wrote:

We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript.

----

That's worth repeating. It was none other than you, quoting Shirley Harrison, that stated the transcript was produced at the instigation of Shirley and Doreen.

I remember this exchange well, for Tom Mitchell and I discussed it again two years ago, at which time Keith Skinner made a post, remembering how, at a dinner in 1995, Anne Graham told him that she had typed up the transcript herself from Mike's dictation when the diary was in a "go situation." Ie., when Mike had spoken to the literary agency, and they agree to meet him.

This pleasant trip down Memory Lane shows just how little progress we have made in resolving this question over the past two decades, and now, with the passing of time and the death of many principal players there is no hope that it ever will be resolved.

Just as I've said, the public was given two different versions. One by Doreen Montgomery--that Mike had typed it up for his own use when he first bought the word processor to study the diary (Barrett bought the word processor on 3 April 1986 but later claimed it was around the time of Tony's death in 1991). And one by Shirley Harrison (and Anne Graham) that it was done at the instigation of Shirley and Doreen, which would have been in the spring of 1992.

The original conversation can be found in it's entirely here:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards: Where do we go from here?

Keith Skinner's more recent discussion can be found on the "Incontrovertible" thread on 07-17-2021, 05:21 PM

I now note that even back then you were trying to paint me as a "Barrett Believer," but it was not Mike's lies that concerned me. It was that Doreen Montgomery herself was repeating Barrett's statement without contradiction.

If Mike had told her that he had typed up the transcript for his own use--all well and good--but why wouldn't Doreen have instantly known this was a lie and a contradiction if she herself had asked Mike and Anne to produce a typescript once the diary was in this "go situation"?

It was none other than me who tried to explain this contradiction by theorizing that the typescript was part of the "notes" that, by contractual agreement, were handed over to Crew shortly thereafter, but you shot this down last week by denying that. So still, here we are, with two different versions of the same event, and no amount of mumbo-jumbo about multiple universes resolves that.

It wouldn't matter much except that it raises the specter that the typescript allegedly found by the Serious Fraud Unit was not the same typescript that was produced by Anne and Mike when the diary was in a "go situation." We will never know, and there are even denials that any such typescript was found.

Let me finally add that I am not, despite your belief, claiming that Barrett was dumb enough to turn in a rough draft of the diary when asked for a typescript by Doreen and Shirley. It could have been the original final draft, but as explained yesterday, Mike would have had enough brain cells to have adapted that final draft to hide any "last minute" alterations made during the transcription process.

Anyway, you asked, so there it is.

I now feel it is now time to pull the plug as all of this admirably demonstrates that we are just going around and around as we circle the same drain.

Regards,

RJP

[caz]

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

A fair suggestion Yabs, if Mike or Anne could have noted the similarity between the two sentences and realised that the first one works perfectly well without the 'know if I', while the second one wouldn't work at all. It might actually make more sense, because while 'Sir Jim' couldn't know if Florie has the strength, he would know in that instant that he doesn't [yet] have the courage.

An alternative suggestion, based on the facsimile, might be that because both sentences in the actual diary start on the first line of facing pages, Mike could have turned to the last two pages of handwriting, seen that the task was nearing completion and got ahead of himself, dictating from the last page first, before realising his mistake. Going back to the left-hand page, Mike would have seen that the first line begins with the same three words which end the first line on the right-hand page: 'I do not...', and both sentences refer to the guts needed to take a life. If Mike had just read the second one, might this have caused him to repeat the words 'know if' almost without thinking, when seeing such a similar thought in the same place on the left-hand page?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It could also have been a continuity error between the two of them, if Anne stopped typing when Mike realised he was reading from the wrong page of the diary, and she resumed without deleting the extra words in that sentence, because it is so similar to the one on the next page.

If the person doing the handwriting had repeated or omitted a whole passage or page by mistake, from an original typescript, that would have been fatal. As I see it, the differences between the two documents seem relatively minor and don't really prove anything either way.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

An alternative suggestion, based on the facsimile, might be that because both sentences in the actual diary start on the first line of facing pages, Mike could have turned to the last two pages of handwriting, seen that the task was nearing completion and got ahead of himself, dictating from the last page first, before realising his mistake.

Let's have a visual, shall we?


Here are the two pages.




Your suggestion is that Barrett, while dictating to Anne, not only flipped over the page and stupidly starting to dictate from the opposing page, but started to dictate the third sentence on the opposing page?

There are two lines that proceed it: "The pain is unbearable" followed by "My Dear Bunny knows all."

He would have to have skipped them both as well as gotten the wrong page.

If that's the case, and Barrett made such a mess of it, isn't it curious that we don't see similar errors throughout?

[erobitha]

Let's have a visual, shall we?


Here are the two pages.




Your suggestion is that Barrett, while dictating to Anne, not only flipped over the page and stupidly starting to dictate from the opposing page, but started to dictate the third sentence on the opposing page?

There are two lines that proceed it: "The pain is unbearable" followed by "My Dear Bunny knows all."

He would have to have skipped them both as well as gotten the wrong page.

If that's the case, and Barrett made such a mess of it, isn't it curious that we don't see similar errors throughout?

I stubbed my toe on a doorstop near my front door once. I learned to be more cautious after that. Haven’t stubbed my toe in the same manner since.

By your logic, I did it once so is not curious I’m not constantly stubbing my toe on the same doorstop?