Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[caz]

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.

Just a couple of observations...

Anne would only have had one go at it if she was handwriting the final version into the scrapbook, using a disguised 'mock Victorian' hand, between 1st and 12th April 1992. You can 'undo' typing and make all the adjustments under the sun as time allows, but just one howler in the handwritten version could have resulted in a page having to be torn out if it was caught in time, or the whole thing coming a cropper a bit further down the line.

I hate to be a bore, but once again, Mike didn't know that he 'needed' to create any sort of transcript, let alone adjust a previous draft to make it appear legitimate, before printing it off for all interested parties to pore over later, to 'better study the diary' and to compare with photocopies of what his wife had supposedly just handwritten. It would have been a totally needless act of self harm - not to mention almost as tricky for Mike to achieve as trying to read from someone else's handwriting, given that what he had to work with had to look nothing like Anne's!

[caz]

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?

Thanks for the visual. I hope it make my suggestions a bit clearer.

Mike would have read out those first handwritten lines from the right-hand page before realising he had skipped the left-hand page. He would then have told Anne what a silly billy he was and she would simply have deleted them from the transcript. If she'd already typed the next words: 'I do not know if...' but had not deleted them when Mike began again from the right page with the same words 'I do not...', a continuity error could have occurred.

If it can happen with expensive film productions, where someone's green shoes can change in the blink of an eye to pink ones...

Just sayin'.

And this is Mike we are talking about.

One minute the transcript is too good for Mike to have dictated it to Anne from the scrapbook; the next, Mike is too capable to have been the cause of such an error.

If Mike was dictating the words from the word processor, for Anne to copy into the scrapbook, would she really have had the foresight to adjust that first sentence, beginning 'I do not...' to leave out the words that would be coming up again later, which Mike had not yet reached?

Anne would have had one go at this. What's done is done and cannot be undone.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks for the visual. I hope it make my suggestions a bit clearer.

Clearer, but not more palatable, methinks.

But I suppose Barrett is the gift that keeps on giving. As long as we can paint Mike a 'mental vegetable' capable of any foolish incompetence, then we have all the explanation we ever need for any mysteries in the typescript.

But let's remind ourselves that this version of events is dependent on the uncorroborated word of Anne Graham--for she's our only source is she not, for how the typescript was supposedly created by Mike dictating and she typing?

I've decided to explore the wisdom of accepting Anne's word over Mike's on the 'incontrovertible' thread, Caz, if you care to have a look sometime.

[caz]

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.

Problem is that the typescript spells it 'aludes', so it would be a case of Jack Sprat eating no fat, his wife eating no lean, and both ending up with tofu.

Again we see this failure to consult a basic dictionary to check things like whether 'alude' is even a word, which would have given them 'allude', but not the meaning they were hoping for. In Anne's shoes, if I couldn't find the word I wanted to use, because I assumed it began with a different letter, I would have simplified it to something like 'but I lack the courage'. I have done this kind of thing all my life and have an example in my own diary from 1965, where at the age of eleven I cross out something I've just written because I'm not sure of a particular spelling, rewrite it using easier words and then explain why it looks a mess!

Speaking of which, 'Sir Jim' must know damned well at the time of writing that he doesn't have the courage, because in the very next breath he refers to praying each night for it, but it eludes him. So the sentence in the typescript doesn't really make sense, while there is no contradiction in the actual diary. So how does it work if Anne is meant to be handwriting the words as Mike is dictating them from the typescript? How does she anticipate that: 'I do not know if I have the courage...', will be contradicted in the very next sentence he will be reading out, and have the presence of mind to change the one she has just heard to: 'I do not have the courage...'?

I'm trying hard to see this through Barrett eyes and make it all work, but it eludes me!

[caz]

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.

Again, the point is that nobody had asked Mike to supply any form of transcript, and Anne claimed that she did all the typing anyway because his was hopeless [and there is plenty of evidence for that]. So the theory that Mike worked on an original draft to make it look like a transcript from Anne's disguised and unfamiliar handwriting, but was merely too 'lazy' to do a thorough job of it, just doesn't hold water. He was lazy and incapable - and there was nobody in London waiting for one. The resulting typescript would have been an absolute shambles if Anne had let him loose on it, regardless of what it represents.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tab]

Again, the point is that nobody had asked Mike to supply any form of transcript

Didn't Roger just post back on page 10 that Shirley Harrison emailed you confirming "We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript." or are you talking about something else?

[rjpalmer]

Didn't Roger just post back on page 10 that Shirley Harrison emailed you confirming "We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript." or are you talking about something else?

Yes, thank you, Tab.

I think Caz might possibly want to take a break and catch up with her shifting narrative before she further analyzes the typescript.

She informed us back in 2005 that "At some point it's agree that the Barretts will produce a typed typescript (fact)."

She then emailed Shirley Harrison who responded:

"We certainly asked Mike to produce a typescript."

So, what changed between 2005 and now that this is no longer a fact?

And if it might not be a fact, why is she accepting Anne's version of events? Are we to have Anne Accepters along with Barrett Believers?

That's not a smart aleck question, because I, for one, have no idea when or why the typescript was produced since we've been told two different versions, not the least of which by Caz.

In Doreen Montgomery's version, Mike Barrett created the typescript for his own use.

So how does it work if Anne is meant to be handwriting the words as Mike is dictating them from the typescript?

If this is a legitimate question, I have no idea.

But I think this can only be a rhetorical question for your own benefit, Caz.

Again, you're the only one who seems to be theorizing from the position that Anne's uncorroborated account of how the typescript was created is true.

So, aren't you seeing it through "Graham's eyes" and not Barrett's?

She's the one that has this dictation going on. Why are you blaming Barrett for what you are apparently implying are cracks in Anne's account?

[caz]

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!

Great, so rather than joining Palmer off topic, I will leave him to think through how he relates all this to Janet's father, Tony Devereux, who had a copy of this highly incriminating Tales of Liverpool before she borrowed it from him in January 1991. Since Palmer believes what Mike states in his affidavit about Anne doing the handwriting, he may like to think carefully about everything Mike states in relation to Janet's father, and his involvement with the diary, and whether any of it is supported by the known facts. Palmer already knows how poorly Mike's affidavit fits with the theory that he only set about trying to obtain an old book for this diary, and to sound out a prospective publisher for it, long after Tony had died. What was Mike really doing from August 1991 to March 1992, if Tony's death had sorted out the little matter of a much needed provenance? That's just something else Palmer might wish to think about in an idle moment.

Back on topic, why did Mike never mention his clever idea to adjust what was on the word processor, so he could fool everyone in London with a typescript that looked like an innocently produced transcript? Was it because nobody ever suggested it until now, so he couldn't pinch the idea for himself?

[caz]

Again, you're the only one who seems to be theorizing from the position that Anne's uncorroborated account of how the typescript was created is true.

So, aren't you seeing it through "Graham's eyes" and not Barrett's?

She's the one that has this dictation going on. Why are you blaming Barrett for what you are apparently implying are cracks in Anne's account?

Not sure Palmer is grasping this one. It's Mike's claim that has Anne handwriting the diary to his dictation from what's on the word processor. Palmer believes him.

[Anne claimed it was t'other way round, with Mike dictating from the diary while she typed it onto the word processor.]

Now apply Mike's claim - and Palmer's belief - to the question of how Anne managed to hand write the sentence in the diary beginning: 'I do not have the courage...' if Mike had just dictated the words: 'I do not know if I have the courage...' as they appear in the typescript.

Got it now?

[rjpalmer]

Great, so rather than joining Palmer off topic, I will leave him to think through how he relates all this to Janet's father, Tony Devereux, who had a copy of this highly incriminating Tales of Liverpool before she borrowed it from him in January 1991. Since Palmer believes what Mike states in his affidavit about Anne doing the handwriting, he may like to think carefully about everything Mike states in relation to Janet's father, and his involvement with the diary, and whether any of it is supported by the known facts.

Rather than joining me off topic?

You're the one who introduced Janet Devereux into the discussion, Caz.

As I understand Barrett's secret confessional affidavit, Tony Devereux was long dead before pen ever went to paper, thus Tony is not guilty of anything.

If this aspect of Barrett's confession is true, Devereux merely helped Mike with the conception of Maybrick-as-Ripper. The plotting.

If theorizing or inventing Ripper theories down the boozer is a crime, many contributors to this forum would be serving time.

So, your strange suggestion that Tony's possession of Barrett's "Maybrick" book somehow incriminates him is without foundation.

And before you bring it up yet again, I don't except the whole smoke screen about Gray or Barrett mixing up dates in the affidavit somehow indicates that Barrett is referring to the creation of the photo album hoax in 1990/1991.

The obvious and undeniable inference from Mike's account is that the diary was created after the red diary from Martin Earl was received and rejected, which we know from documentation was March 1992.

As Tony was dead and buried by then, he's off the hook. He can't be blamed for someone else's actions after his death.

What Tales of Liverpool suggest to me is that Barrett was already working on the plotting long before Dodd's electrical work began, so it's little wonder you keep attempting to downplay or explain-away Janet's obviously trustworthy account of seeing and taking possession of the same book that Barrett would refer to in his "research notes."

Have a great weekend.

[caz]

Didn't Roger just post back on page 10 that Shirley Harrison emailed you confirming "We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript." or are you talking about something else?

Really sorry, Tab, but I tend to read and respond to one post at a time, in the order in which it appears in the thread, so I have only just reached Palmer's epic post on the history of when, how and why the Barrett's typescript ended up with Doreen.

I'm afraid I don't have anything more definitive than what I posted recently, but the first reference I have to this document on my timeline of events is as follows:

Wednesday 22nd April 1992
Doreen writes to Sally:
'Shirley and I agreed that to save time, I would send you the typed script of the Diary. Shirley has one too... I spoke with Mrs Barrett last evening, and she sounded a very chirpy, friendly woman.'

It's not clear if Mike took the typescript to London with the diary on 13th April, or sent it to Doreen afterwards, in time for her to give Shirley a copy and write to Sally enclosing another one on 22nd. It is clear, however, that Doreen spoke to Anne for the first time on the evening of 21st. It's quite likely that she would have thanked Anne for the typescript during that conversation.

Next up:

Thursday 30th April 1992
Collaboration agreement drawn up by Rupert Crew Limited, to be signed by MB/Anne/SH, to bind them to share the responsibilities, expenses and royalties from any future book.

On 6th May 1992, Doreen sent Mike a redrafted agreement for him and Anne to sign and return.

I don't know if the typescript was included among 'the responsibilities', but it had already been prepared by the Barretts and handed over or sent to Doreen before any agreement was drawn up. Shirley might well have understood that 'we', as in Doreen, had actually asked Mike to produce one, but I have no record of any written or telephone communication referring to the need for a transcript before Doreen received hers.

If it was only discussed over the phone I'm sure 'lazy' Mike could have made some excuse for not getting on with the adjustments needed to what was on the word processor unless or until he had to sign a binding agreement - which he would be breaking anyway by lying about where he got the diary and again when 'confessing' to faking it himself.

On balance, it seems more likely to me that Anne typed the transcript and did it "fast", to arrive with Doreen before it could have been formally requested.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Rather than joining me off topic?

You're the one who introduced Janet Devereux into the discussion, Caz.

Not on this thread, I didn't. This one's for discussing the typescript, which has bugger all to do with Janet unless Palmer knows something I don't. He dragged Janet over from another one.

[caz]

As I understand Barrett's secret confessional affidavit, Tony Devereux was long dead before pen ever went to paper, thus Tony is not guilty of anything.

Has Palmer actually read the affidavit recently? Perhaps he needs to go away and refresh his memory before responding on a thread not dedicated to the typescript.

Wrong dates have much less to do with it than the impossible order of events, which Mike goes into at some length, and has a dead man with him all the way through, from conception to obtaining all the raw materials and physically creating the diary with Anne. He even sets it to one side when it's finished, waiting for this dead man to die again so he can give it a provenance.

[rjpalmer]

Not on this thread, I didn't.

Fair enough.

[rjpalmer]

On balance, it seems more likely to me that Anne typed the transcript and did it "fast", to arrive with Doreen before it could have been formally requested.

Thanks. We are making progress. Thanks for admitting that you're just theorizing and not insisting it is a fact.

Not to argue further, but the question I'd ask is why you believe Anne's account? Why believe anything she is telling you?

She gave this 'dictation' explanation at a dinner on 31 May 1995. This is the same era when she's telling a dozen other stories that you don't believe--hiding the diary behind the furniture, her father seeing it after World War II, giving the diary to Tony, etc. etc.--so what justifies any belief in her on this occasion? Not that anyone likes to admit it, but she's lying just as much as Mike is--isn't she?-only more consistently and less erratically?

And what she is saying goes directly against the account that Doreen--who was in a position to know and who you don't think is a liar--told Nick Warren the previous year:

"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." This doesn't gel with Anne's tale about creating it "in a go situation."

Someone, somewhere, is lying.

Doreen has obviously got her information from Barrett. And Doreen understood Mike transcribing the diary to have meant many months previously to Mike calling her out-of-the-blue and thus before any requested was made or any 'go situation' had occurred--yet Shirley, by contrast, understood it had been a request that she and Doreen had made to Barrett after he met with them in London.

You clearly have no desire to contemplate this contradiction--but isn't it pretty obvious what must have gone on?

The detail that intrigues me is that Doreen knew from the start that Mike owned a word processor. Shirley also mentions it within the first few pages of her book.

Doesn't this strike you as strange?

There is overwhelming evidence that Barrett hid his writing career from both of them. Later, he even bragged about it. There's a long excerpt from the Gray tapes on Orams Books website that has Barrett rattling off the names of the magazines that published his interviews. So why would he just spontaneously admit to owning a word processor? If, for some reason, one wanted to hide the fact that they are a farmer, would they just spontaneously admit to owning a tractor?

Not likely.

Mike's admission has to be connected to the request for a typescript, just as Shirley remembered it. They would have asked Mike if he could produce one--did he own a typewriter?

And we know from a story told by Keith that Barrett didn't want people to know he owned a word processor. It is something he thought about. At some point, Barrett was afraid the Serious Fraud Squad would learn about the Amstrad, and Feldman's remarkable advice to Barrett was to lie about it. To lie to the police that he didn't own one, which Keith quite rightly thought was horrible advice.

By contrast, this admission by Mike to Doreen has to be connected to the typescript. That's what makes sense.

So, here's how I see it--feel free to ignore it; you usually do, but it explains the contradictions and raises doubts about your belief in Anne's version.

In London, or shortly afterwards when the project was being negotiated, Doreen would naturally have told Mike she needed a typescript. As Shirley had agreed to work on the book, she would have needed a copy, too, and this is what Shirley later remembered and told you in the email. They had 'certainly' requested a copy. No reason to doubt this. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But Mike must have told Doreen at this point--'no problem'--he had already made a typescript to study the diary, since this is what Doreen remembered and later relayed to Nick Warren.

What I imagine happened is Doreen had asked Barrett if he owned a typewriter when she made this initial request and Barrett realized then that he had to admit to owning a word processor--which was somewhat unusual for an unemployed scrap metal merchant in 1992. Enough so that this detail has to be explained in Shirley's book.

Of course, Anne wasn't in London (or on a subsequent phone call) and didn't know any of this. She only remembers Barrett needing to get a typescript to Doreen and Shirley in London sometime in April 1992 now that the diary was in a 'go situation.'

The right hand didn't know what the left hand had said in London.

And this is why Anne is giving a different account than Doreen when she's telling her tale in May 1995.

In short, Mike and Anne couldn't keep their stories straight as revealed by the contradictions. As such, I don't see any reason to believe the typescript was created in the way Anne said it was--by dictation.

Barrett told Doreen he could supply a typescript because he knew he already had one on his Amstrad at home. He lied and said he created it to 'study' the diary, but it existed as a rough draft because Barrett himself was the hoaxer.

No dictation was necessary. Mike just returned to Liverpool and made necessary changes to a pre-existing earlier draft to reflect any last-minute alterations made during the creation of the physical diary. Anne didn't know what Mike had told the ladies in London, so this is why we are seeing a contradiction in these accounts.

That's how I see it.